Author: Prayank 2022-02-21 03:03:07
Published on: 2022-02-21T03:03:07+00:00
An argument was made that the expansion of use-cases in Ethereum could harm Bitcoin as a whole by providing more fuel for future contentious blocksize debates, due to the high on-chain fees for basic transactions. However, the counterargument is that fees will be the incentives for miners as subsidy decreases after every 210,000 blocks and it will depend on demand for block space. The fees with 100 sat/vbyte fee rate to open and close channels will be good for Bitcoin in the long term. This means there is nothing harmful in it just because something similar is happening in an altcoin which has several other issues.Additionally, if this is the reason to stop/delay improvements in bitcoin, maybe it applies for Taproot as well although it wasn't mentioned in previous posts. A proposal was made for a lightning-compatible mimblewible+dandelion on-chain soft fork, which can reduce tx size, move them from L2 to L3, vastly improve privacy, and get more small transactions off-chain. However, it was suggested that this should not be released for another two years as timing is critical for all bitcoin innovation.Furthermore, a discussion was had about the lack of compelling use-cases beneficial to all users, with some of the shared use cases being considered too narrow. The Drivechains use-case was also deemed harmful to the security of Bitcoin as a whole. It was argued that the various new uses for on-chain transactions mentioned as a use-case arguably harms all existing users by competing for scarce blockchain space. Therefore, it was concluded that any core consensus changes to the almost $1 trillion dollar system must be carefully weighed against the risks.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T04:18:05.976203+00:00