LSJI07

"dcac9c6934ae2a019d13b4d1db6ca4a66851d74ae70b033cdd42547b7c7e8b9d293ff2ff916ce03422ac7f535e84f43f1e3819dd12ae313599df8e157b50c435"

Last Notes

2023-04-27 22:03:19 UTC

- reply

Imperfections to one person are defining marks of beauty to another.
BTC has the same issues with onchain scaling and would benefit from larger blocks.
The block propagation around the network is fast at sub 5 seconds for 1MB and we are still sitting at 10 min blocks.
To get faster block size increase is a no brainer to me personally. I say that knowing full well the BCH and other chains will laugh and jeer. But it's the right move. I reckon another BIP9 vote to make larger blocks to 2MB or 4MB etc would pass. If someone offers the code to the miners u think they would go for it. If no one codes it and no one runs the new code it'll never happen. But people would have the choice.
In the meantime people use altcoins.💥
Imo BTC is cool massively because it will never do what I have said above. To much egg on people faces to backtrack and the risk to the network and code is imo to sig ificant to implement without risking the stability of the network.
Beautiful imperfections.

2023-04-26 20:53:14 UTC

- reply

BTC is awesome. That said it is not the place to test radical new ideas.
Hence the existence of true altcoins. A well made altcoin would be issued and started in the same way as BTC and no have premine etc etc to properly test the idea. Most altcoins fail this test immediately but be aware that the idea that they made FOSS benefits all potentially. See Ethereum. It started poorly imo with premine etc etc but the ideas of smart contracts controlling value and the idea of tokenisation was proven to be viable on Ethereum.
That said ethereum has issues with tokenisation or digitization of assets simply because the model used doesn't allow good ownership in users personal addresses. I'm specifically referring to Ethereum using the account based model for addresses rather than the UTXO model. That plus the Ethereum networks start and recent move to PoS makes me feel very uncomfortable issuing digital assets there.
Plus the idea of tokenisation needs an issuer for proper provenance. BTC has miners issuing the new coins at regular interval but and issuer needs liking to a unique name or address for verification in future. The only system I have seen doing this is Ravencoin. I would happily do it on Bitcoin but the Bitcoin network rules are strict and most nodes don't give a crap about opcodes that assets use to issue and manage their unique utxos datasets. Bitcoin doesn't care about assets travelling on its network. They are easily lost etc and hence coloured coins and mastercoin etc had issues. The first attempts to make digital assets were on Bitcoin, but the rules were not flexible enough to do effectively.
Even the latest attempt using ordinals is a social construct to assign a sat a position in a wallet and use that sat to hold extra meta data about an NFT etc. That is great but there is no provenance unless the issuer tells everyone somewhere each and every sat that they have inscribed an ordinal on that is definately theirs. Time consuming to say the least to verify an ordinal was issued by a specific issuer.
That difficulty in changing BTC is what makes it great and holds it back and is the reason why so many altcoins exist. Sadly the majority of altcoins are money grabs and people are getting scammed left right and centre.