Quote from: Despairo on Today at 09:59:21 AM

Quote from: HardFireMiner on Today at 07:16:45 AM

What’s the biggest hurdle: UX friction, merchant adoption, or trust in stability?

Not all of them, the biggest hurdle is my monthly salary paid in fiat and fiat is accepted in everywhere. It will make me have no reason to use Bitcoin because why I need to convert the money when I can just spend it?

If monthly salary fully paid in Bitcoin and few merchants accept it, I might consider to pay using Bitcoin.

I dont see no difference in becoming salary in BTC or $. Now with as less as 0,5$ you can convert up to 500$ into BTC and the other way around. Yes, there are a couple of click to be made but still, it is 0,1% commission.

Quote from: alani123 on Today at 10:05:28 AM

Bitcoin layer 2s are not bitcoin and even the more let's say promoted solutions like the one programmed by Adam Back are flawed in their design.

There's a centralised point of entry and exit for BTC in and out of this system and the issue remains that this ends up being trust based along with all the problems of centralisation.

How independent could a layer 2 remain if the programmers on the payroll for it were arrested and the company developing it disbanded?

We've seen in Coinbase's later 2 as well as in solana chain transactions were halted for extended periods of time until a fix was issued.
These situations are not pleasant and hint to extensive centralisation in these systems.

The most independent form of scaling for BTC is on-chain. Currently with segwit blocks there can be maybe 7 thousand transactions in a block every 10 minutes? Well, surely it's not fast enough to verify a transaction at this pace for everyday needs and also not enough capacity.

Hardware and network infrastructure had improved since this debate was happening last time, so perhaps it's time to start discussing on-chain scaling again.

Those are valid arguments but how are we supposed to upscale it on chain?

7 thousand tx every 10 minutes is not fast enough so on-chain scaling is still a valid discussion in my opinion. Compact block relay & Erlay can help us with that but I am not very familiar with it. Compact blocks like BIP152 already reduce bandwidth to propagate new blocks, Erlay cuts transaction relay bandwidth ~40%(maybe more?) and scales much better with peer count. Together, they free bandwidth so bigger/heavier blocks are less risky to propagate. Can this be a solution? Only a temporary one I guess because in this case as well we won't come closer to other networks(tx/s).

Or we can use AssumeUTXO & Utreexo (node bootstrapping/state). AssumeUTXO shipping with mainnet params in Core 28.x?, i think, not sure) and research like Utreexo(?) shrink the burden of running a node or syncing it, which is crucial if we ever push more data on-chain.

What if we remove the block-size limit and allow miners to mine huge blocks if there are many transactions in 10 minutes? I don't see why not, what do I miss, why can't we use such an approach?