Published on: 2022-02-22T12:57:15+00:00
In a recent discussion about Bitcoin scaling, there was disagreement over whether it should be done rapidly or not. Some argue that scaling should not be delayed to keep fees high, suggesting that if higher fees are needed, the block size can be lowered or the default minimum relay fee rate increased. They also question the belief that the Lightning Network is the main cause of low fees and argue that delaying scaling would harm Bitcoin's growth.On the other hand, others argue that new use cases for on-chain transactions may compete with existing users for limited blockchain space. This situation has been compared to the saying "nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded." The discussion also touched upon the issue of invoking Satoshi's opinions in present-day discussions. One participant objected to assumptions about the founder of Bitcoin, arguing that Satoshi is more than just a pseudonym and will live on forever. However, another participant objected to the invocation of Satoshi in general, suggesting that if he wants to participate in Bitcoin development today, he can speak for himself. They added that if Satoshi refuses to participate, his opinion is irrelevant. In an email exchange posted on a Bitcoin forum, Prayank objects to ZmnSCPxj's invocation of Satoshi, stating that he cares about Satoshi's opinions, especially regarding subsidies. ZmnSCPxj counters by arguing that if Satoshi refuses to participate in Bitcoin development today, it doesn't matter what his opinion is. He asserts that Satoshi is dead and Bitcoin lives on without him. Prayank objects to this assumption, insisting that Satoshi is more than just a pseudonym and will live on forever. Both parties acknowledge that they are considering the various arguments being presented.In another post, ZmnSCPxj mentions that improvements like the Taproot upgrade can reduce activity on the blockchain and increase functionality without requiring an increase in block size. The Taproot upgrade offers features such as Schnorr multisignatures, MAST, `SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT`, and `OP_CTV`, which reduce block size usage for complex contracts, enable offchain updateable multiparty cryptocurrency systems, and allow transactional cut-through without immediate output publication. ZmnSCPxj believes that these upgrades enhance Bitcoin's functionality and provide opportunities to use the blockchain in a different way.There is also a discussion about the expansion of use-cases in Ethereum potentially harming Bitcoin by fueling future contentious blocksize debates due to high on-chain fees. However, the counterargument is that fees will be the incentives for miners as subsidy decreases, and it will depend on the demand for block space. Additionally, if this is the reason to stop or delay improvements in Bitcoin, it may apply to Taproot as well. A proposal for a lightning-compatible mimblewimble+dandelion on-chain soft fork is mentioned as a way to reduce transaction size, improve privacy, and move more small transactions off-chain. However, it is suggested that this should not be released for another two years as timing is crucial for Bitcoin innovation.Furthermore, there is a discussion about the lack of compelling use-cases beneficial to all users, with some shared use cases being considered too narrow. The Drivechains use-case is deemed harmful to the security of Bitcoin as a whole. It is argued that the new uses for on-chain transactions mentioned as a use-case could harm existing users by competing for limited blockchain space. As a result, it is concluded that any core consensus changes to the Bitcoin system must be carefully evaluated against the risks.In the Bitcoin developer community, there is a debate about the readiness and potential risks of implementing the proposed consensus change known as OP_CTV. Some developers argue for its activation in a few months, while others express skepticism and call for more testing and research. Other soft fork proposals, such as BIP 118 focusing on eltoo payment channels, are also discussed. Concerns are raised about rushing through consensus changes without thorough examination and community support. Skeptics emphasize the need for technical discussions and engagement to address potential issues. Despite differing opinions, there is a general agreement that implementing a soft fork within the next few months is feasible with proper precautions. The discussion highlights the importance of responsible decision-making and avoiding contentious activation attempts. IRC workshops on BIP 119 are mentioned as a resource for engaging with skeptics on technical concerns.
Updated on: 2023-08-02T05:21:36.067269+00:00