Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 02:41:38 PM

Quote from: Synchronice on June 11, 2024, 09:18:56 PM

Then adaptive block size is the answer. To be honest, I think that Monero is what many Bitcoin enthusiasts and supporters want Bitcoin to be. Maybe it's time to migrate to Monero?

Since privacy is one of the most important principles of the ancestors of Bitcoin, I'd have to say yes. Monero does better what Bitcoin was envisioned to become; peer-to-peer cash.

Unfortunately, the dynamical block size is neither the answer. It's just another temporary solution. It can render the system dysfunctional. See what happened last March in Monero: https://monero.observer/monero-daily-transaction-new-ath-100k/. A single spam attack might not seem of significant matter right now, but if you're running a node (as you should), it takes a decent time to verify those 100k transactions. And consider that if more people join, it no longer becomes "spam". It's regular transactions that slow down verification.

And since there's a dynamical block size, imagine what can happen if an attacker with a decent amount of money (dynamical size -> cheap fees), actually executes a spam attack for many months.

Referring to this explanation

Quote

So how can Monero have dynamic blocksizes but avoid spam attacks? The answer is simple, but clever. A penalty on the block reward is introduced when a block is bigger than normal. If a miner wants to increase the blocksize, the reward they get from finding that block will be less than they would otherwise receive. So they will only increase the blocksize when the paid transaction fees of the users outweigh the lost portion of the block reward. For example, if the miner would lose 0.5 XMR by raising the block size, and the sum of the paid transaction fees would be 0.4 XMR, then there would be a net loss of 0.1 XMR if they were to raise the size, so they wouldn’t do it. Conversely, if the total transaction fees added up to 0.7 XMR, then there would be a net gain of 0.2 XMR, even though they lose the 0.5 XMR from the block reward penalty, so the miner will increase the size.

It would be nice if someone has some input here because I can't tell whether a block reward penalty would really solve the problem at scale. I can't wrap my head around it as I feel too stupid to see what other problems could occur if Monero had $30 billion transaction volume a day and gets spammed like there is no tomorrow. My interpretation then would be that bigger block sizes will lead to less miners participating in the process --> more centralization, less security. Even further, with a dynamic block size, mining companies with loads of cash in the bank could decide to spam the network for a long enough period of time to kick out more competitors, that way opening up a plethora of non-desirable competition among miners. My guess here would be that the block reward penalty does only work hypothetically for smaller networks as the scenario where the block reward gives less to the miners than the tx fees will hardly ever happen. In larger networks tx fees are more likely to outcompete coinbase rewards, which could then lead to the centralization problem and spamming incentive by large mining operations as I described above.

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 02:41:38 PM

Quote from: Synchronice on June 11, 2024, 09:18:56 PM

The aim of Satoshi was to create a non-reversible transactions without a trusted party. The main idea of Bitcoin also was to keep low transaction costs. I am quoting the whitepaper.

Which part of the whitepaper talks about "low fees"?

Quote from: Synchronice on June 11, 2024, 09:18:56 PM

Yes, freedom is good and there is nothing wrong with it but Ordinals clearly abuse Bitcoin and use it for purposes that were never meant.

Centralized exchanges abuse Bitcoin, as it was meant to be peer-to-peer cash without trusted third parties. So, let's ban centralized exchanges.

Do you get it now?

Ordinals - as is correctly said here - do not technically abuse Bitcoin. One of the most important principles Bitcoin is based on is censorship-resistance. Whatever Satoshi thought Bitcoin would be used for and at what scale, I think it would go much too far to believe that Satoshi was able to anticipate any single angle Bitcoin could take or would be used for. The difference with Ordinals is that someone can spam the network and others can't use it. With exchanges these mutual effects don't exist. We can just decide to not use them. I am quite sure that there is more stuff coming for Bitcoin in the next few years that nobody has yet thought about.