but at the same time, there is a trade off currently, when we have some people who are very poor, and if they are buying $10 of bitcoin at a time, I hardly know how they can do that onchain without causing problems for themselves in the future, and if you are proposing BIG blocks to resolve it, that does not seem to be a tradeoff that is going to fly with a lot ofbitcoiners in order to achieve consensus, for reasons that I largely already discussed.
seems rather then reading what i actually talk about you prefer to grab the scripted narrative of the joke that is "bigblocker"
the stupid narrative that tries to quash any progress by going to insane extremes and pretending the extremes are whats being proposed
yet actual progressive proposals are not extremes.. but instead SCALINGs
not just or intently growth of blocksize, but mainly making transactions lean, strengthening the ruleset again where every byte of a tx counts and has purpose and formatting requirements that rules know of and examine. and uncludging the code to allow better utility of the full blocksize rather then the 25% 75% separate functionality.. oh and by the way segwit and taproot addresses can still operate inside such a united block, with their sigscripts at the end of the transaction. but as a united transaction thats fully validated..
other things like punishing spammer/bloaters can cut down on how many spammer/bloaters use up the space allowing for more normal people to use bitcoin. .. but your not interested in solutions to onchain stuff
Currently, I don't have too many UTXOs that are less than $500.. but I also sometimes feel uncomfortable sending small transactions to people on chain if there might be concerns that the transactions might not be as spendable in the future, but if any of members of the forum should be experienced enough to be able to manage a $100 or $200 transaction on chain, even though we also may need to be careful when we consider when we might spend those size of UTXOs in the future... I don't know. Maybe it won't be as BIG of a problem as I had been thinking, because another thing that we can do is coin control.
but in the end, stash sizes is hardly even very relevant at all to our kind of discussion
I am happy about any of this either.. including the high fees, and I think the more likely ways that poor people are able to transact in bitcoin is using second/third layers and even custodians.. but that still would not invalidate bitcoin because even some of the various second and third party solutions are still somewhat pegged to bitcoin.. more than what Franky seems to be ongoingly wanting to argue..
the only reason i brought up the stash is because i can see passed my own wealth status to see points of view of those with less coin that have problems using bitcoin. where those people should not be made to use third parties because certain people just want to be complacent and keep the status quo.. it was more about getting even a poorer person to realise that he himself is digging himself into a ditch of requiring himself to need third party services shooting himself in the foot by promoting that those without wealth should use third party services and leave bitcoin alone and not want to change bitcoin.. they need to realise they are talking about themselves being pushed off network..
reasons for this i can only fathom is while ostracising themselves off the network they are kissing the institutional asses that have taught them to favour bitcoin becoming a network just for the elites,
it is truly funny to see those with less value sing scripts of let bitcoin be just for the wealthy. going against their own financial security.. who is that benefitting? it certainly isnt benefitting those with less stash
i am not the one shouting people should stop using bitcoin, quite the opposite. im the one saying get the core devs to be devs of the decentralised open bitcoin network again. and not simply be institutionally sponsored playboys of elitist desires