Quote from: Despairo on Today at 02:11:02 PM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 10:49:04 AM

The sooner we accept that Bitcoin cannot handle the entire populace on-chain, the better. Free markets are trial-and-error based. If Bitcoin has erred as electronic cash, then it's down to us to see which change in a crypto-protocol would make it look more like cash. Maybe there is none. Maybe it's dynamical block size. Maybe it's tail emission. Or even a compression method we haven't even thought of. In practice, we can see which is more recognized as cash.

What are the disadvantages of dynamic block size and tail emission?

I also wonder what are developers reaction to the recent fees that spikes due to Runes, I didn't find any discussion about that in Bitcoin stack exchange, Github, or Linux foundation.

But, as the fees is keep declining, they might think it's not needed yet.

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 10:19:00 AM

LN isn't going to solve this if opening and closing a channel costs a week worth of food.

LN isn't going to solve because it would end up like on-chain. Tongue

Quote from: https://medium.com/alexgobtc/a-beginners-guide-to-runes-336e9bdde0e6

Lightning Compatible: Different from existing token standards, Runes can be sent and received on the Lightning network, for faster and less expensive transactions.

The disadvantages of dynamic block size and tail emission can be understood
With a dynamic block size, the size of each block is not fixed, which can lead to uncertainties in transaction processing times and fees. Larger block sizes could also lead to an increase in the size of the blockchain, making it more resource-intensive to run a full node and potentially limiting the number of ppl who can participate in the validation process.

Regarding devs actions to recent fee spikes, that they may simply indicate that the recent fee spikes were not seen as a significant concern or did not warrant in-depth discussions at that time.