Wow, beautifully put. You had me sold early on with this paragraph:
> If demand for blockspace increases, the protocol is supposed to allow sats to compete for that finite memory. Higher fees are not a bug, they are the market revealing the demand of irreversible memory and the value of the satoshi with respect to 1 current block of time at difficulty D. When we instead manipulate the size of that finite memory surface to suppress fees, we don’t eliminate the cost of demand, we redistribute it throughout the system to the nodes (a tax on the network).
So now that we’ve established the importance of protecting block size from increasing (whether that means holding it at 4 MB or returning to its original 1 MB), what are your thoughts on the various proposals or implementations of Bitcoin?
For example:
- Core v30
- Core <v30
- Knots/BIP110
The reason I ask specifically is because I think a lot of non-technical people (and technical people alike) don’t know exactly what the implications of each Bitcoin implementation are. I think most people understand that keeping block size from increasing is critical to the survival of Bitcoin as a monetary network. Do you think there is currently a clear way to protect against the block size inflation attack vector?
corban / Corban
npub1h0…2qdfp
2026-07-09 23:06:20 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…k93y
Author Public Key
npub1h02qa0xwrsh09ntwkp6sk447kkc4namtexr27v07dyrnjkn8pkds32qdfpSeen on
wss://nos.lolPublished at
2026-07-09 23:06:20 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "7cd8ee9143b9fd556c2f59a829382079c3d31925626ca689484eeebe5c3d96cf",
"pubkey": "bbd40ebcce1c2ef2cd6eb0750b56beb5b159f76bc986af31fe6907395a670d9b",
"created_at": 1783638380,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"965e2605fc7845480ede36f224f5a80bdda6d62668f144ec423b01187fbb371a",
"wss://fanfares.nostr1.com:443/umbra",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b0b315d3434baed1a5471b0f04c09237edfc0737842fe4b82adba4c6896f1eea",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3c4f51561243524f307ed2ee272c7cf4a782404fbe3a176606043b6ad427ee77",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"client",
"Primal iOS"
]
],
"content": "Wow, beautifully put. You had me sold early on with this paragraph:\n\n\u003e If demand for blockspace increases, the protocol is supposed to allow sats to compete for that finite memory. Higher fees are not a bug, they are the market revealing the demand of irreversible memory and the value of the satoshi with respect to 1 current block of time at difficulty D. When we instead manipulate the size of that finite memory surface to suppress fees, we don’t eliminate the cost of demand, we redistribute it throughout the system to the nodes (a tax on the network).\n\nSo now that we’ve established the importance of protecting block size from increasing (whether that means holding it at 4 MB or returning to its original 1 MB), what are your thoughts on the various proposals or implementations of Bitcoin?\n\nFor example:\n- Core v30\n- Core \u003cv30\n- Knots/BIP110\n\nThe reason I ask specifically is because I think a lot of non-technical people (and technical people alike) don’t know exactly what the implications of each Bitcoin implementation are. I think most people understand that keeping block size from increasing is critical to the survival of Bitcoin as a monetary network. Do you think there is currently a clear way to protect against the block size inflation attack vector?",
"sig": "aa562a3096ed5d472d2cd40b4649aa88a988763873b0266bd2a9d4c5257badf66650994e399995c9bc93023c8ab564e8f02209fbe19177c1b9e3aa0b860c73b3"
}