Quote from: jubalix on Today at 01:04:47 AM

Quote

So this whole issue is a restatement of 'should we scale blocksize?'

My goal was to draw attention to securely scaling Bitcoin's L1 by any means possible. Otherwise, it'll just be like gold sitting in a vault. (Not very exciting)

Quote

SegWit2x was shot down. BCH market price has tanked. BSV has tanked. Though I think that is market recognition.

This is more of an indication that the market values general protocol consensus over force-fed bigger blocks. 2015 was a different time.

Quote

I argued with LK on this - that there must be some g(x) where block size gets bigger as the internet gets faster and HD space gets cheaper, which it has since 2010.

I have a 12 TB raid10 array. Just 10TB would suffice to store nearly 2 decades of 10MB Bitcoin blocks. Mining does become more game-able as block propagation time increases, however.

Quote

Satoshi's initial idea was to scale block size.

Perhaps, but this approach is not an indefinite solution.

Quote

It is clear that all the high TPS and super cheap coins run into L1 centralization issues, but normies don't get this; they just want to hear TPS high and cheap.

PoS can be a real POS

Quote

EOS is a demonstration where you could not keep up with the rate of increase of the blocks and so end up with centralization.

EOS=POS

Quote

DAGs may offer some solution, but I have yet to see a convincing proof.

DAGS help tremendously with transaction serialization speed,since they forego a requirement of linear order present in typical blockchains. The problem arises when determining final order over these transaction sets, as the DAG can become fragmented in widely-distributed networks. See the Crystal Whitepaper for how this can be potentially addressed with Bitcoin-NG design.

Quote

The 1MB size does ensure that decentralization is high, but reaches a crunch point where miners see fees drop off.

Smaller blocks do not necessarily mean greater decentralization. There are, for example, socioeconomic implications of smaller blocks which render more power to exchanges/mining pools.

Quote

At some point, the block size should increase, and there is some g(x).

Where this is up for question, but when BTC does increase this, it risks losing the narrative to BCH or some other scheme, as BTC has committed to 1MB.

I struggle to believe that a technical setting entails Bitcoin's entire narrative. Bitcoin is more about overall consensus. There are things which should really never change, such as the cryptographic functions themselves (barring necessity) and the coin supply schedule.

Quote

Luke Jr actually advocated for 1/2 MB blocks, which is why I said fine, but what is your g(x)?

He's a real hoot