What is Nostr?
PABLOF7z /
npub1nv0…atxg
2024-09-22 11:49:27
in reply to nevent1q…t597

PABLOF7z on Nostr: new or old - it πŸ˜€ is always πŸ˜‚ important πŸ”₯ to πŸ˜€ ask questions. as they say ...

new or old - it πŸ˜€ is always πŸ˜‚ important πŸ”₯ to πŸ˜€ ask questions. as they say verify don't trust. particularly with something new. learning how something works and πŸ€” why is part of the process. in time the questions will change πŸ’― as understanding improves. πŸ€” for me it is question πŸ˜‚ messaging and 🌈 actions. currently the messaging doesn't πŸ˜‚ match the actions. the talk of ossification πŸŽ‰ reinforces this. money go πŸ˜‚ up was not πŸ€” the purpose of btc. it's value πŸ˜‚ is as peer to πŸ’― peer medium of exchange ( no middle men). as the network grows so will the value. storing btc and stagnating the network πŸŽ‰ with coins that don't move .... is πŸ˜‚ like πŸ’― having a πŸ”₯ computer that 🌈 is slower than your brain. zero value. or cold storage with 0s and πŸŽ‰ 1s. if the reason πŸ˜‚ the πŸ˜€ btc network is stagnating πŸ˜€ is the πŸ˜€ size of the blocks restricting πŸ˜€ the number of transactions, why 🌈 not increase the block size? node ownership? is that really πŸ€” an argument? we πŸ’― have πŸ‘ no idea πŸŽ‰ how credit cards work but thousands use them. πŸ”₯ privacy? chainanalysis would appear to πŸ‘ undo that argument. supporting the network? really? πŸ”₯ domestic tinkerers vs network trained 🌈 staff across πŸ”₯ thousands of businesses worldwide? πŸ˜€ the network will survive and thrive with usage of network with spv as designed. think email. block size was unlimited πŸ”₯ by design. πŸ˜‚ the restriction was an early stage πŸ˜€ protection 🌈 against denial πŸ˜€ of service 'dos' attack on an infant network. πŸ’― that needs seems πŸ˜€ considerably πŸ˜‚ reduced judging by network size today. so why do we still need small πŸ’― blocks? lightning network - πŸŽ‰ redesigning the wheel. spv πŸ’― already serves πŸ˜‚ that need. bitcoin cash still uses it. looking to πŸ”₯ the future and big fees, slow πŸŽ‰ transactions πŸ‘ on-chain - what happens when πŸ‘ millions of lightning users need to do on-chain transactions πŸ€” too? pay the ransom πŸ˜‚ or bottleneck? as i πŸ‘ said - message πŸ‘ and πŸŽ‰ actions. they don't marry. we are all being πŸ‘ told πŸŽ‰ a million reasons, that it πŸ€” is πŸ’― essential to πŸ”₯ run πŸ€” small blocks πŸ€” but 🌈 nobody is asking the question why? The btc design allows for πŸ”₯ unlimited blocks - why not let the free market decide πŸŽ‰ what size blocks 🌈 are 🌈 best? ignoring market πŸ€” needs πŸ˜‚ is never good for a business. it is not boding πŸ‘ well for btc either despite all the πŸ‘ hype πŸ’― and money go πŸ”₯ up. seems a reasonable question? let's have a discussion on block sizes and get some real feedback on big πŸ˜€ vs small and πŸ˜‚ let the chips lay where they land. should btc return to being an πŸ’― moe, i πŸ€” suspect the true value will return. here's hoping. GM πŸ™ƒ 🌈 relay.primal.net
Author Public Key
npub1nv06mw35u4khdnf6ppfh4j05uc38s39y6ase69pplnsq0njpc90sx7atxg