Super Testnet on Nostr: > Essentially you're saying it has the potential to be very private, but what does ...
> Essentially you're saying it has the potential to be very private, but what does that matter when it comes to how vast majority are using it?
It matters imo because people who seek really good privacy ought to have the motivation to take a few extra steps
> It's similar to why PGP failed to get broader adoption. UX means only you and and a handful of people are using Lightning that way.
So? Anyone can still do it if they want to.
> I showed you a chart of tech advancements since inception of Bitcoin. Bitcoin blocksize hasnt even kept up conservatively.
Good. Relatedly, here's a chart of Moore's law: https://gist.github.com/supertestnet/2d41e7533e51cebf9f557587d349aa60
It seems it stopped applying sometime between 2003 and 2013. I'm glad bitcoin didn't go with the wishful thinking option.
> Seems all for nothing at the expense of usability: ~60,000 node runners. ~50-100 million Bitcoin users. Apparently vast majority of Bitcoiners won't ever run a node even if they can.
The ones not running a node are probably ignorant or don't sufficiently care about self sovereignty -- *yet.* But still, if you aren't running a node, you aren't self-sovereign, because the people who run the nodes set the rules.
> Also Bitcoin is relying on this "wishful thinking" too to some degree since Lightning doesn't even scale globally without 100MB+ blocksize.
It does: https://x.com/peterktodd/status/1813928457946153056
>"that incentivizes them to place *their own* limit on the size of their own blocks"
Not sure I understand what you're saying. Why would they do this? Penalty of increasing blocksize decreases with more use. Those doing that would just be leaving money on the table.
Because the larger the blocks, the harder/longer they take to validate, therefore a miner can undercut his competitors by mining a smaller block that gets propagated/validated before the big blocks do. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
>"You're not sovereign if you're not running a node"
So you're conceding 95%+ of Bitcoin/Lightning is not sovereign?
I doubt it's 95% but yes, if you're not running a node you aren't self sovereign and most LN users do not run a node. That is no reason not to do so yourself. You're not a lemming. You don't have to be like anyone else.
> I think it's safe to say there are way more Monero node runners as a percentage of users than Bitcoin. Bitcoin has far more users, but the difference in total nodes is only a factor of 2x-6x vs Monero depending how you count them.
Yeah, probably. But we'll see if that continues to be the case if monero ever becomes popular. I doubt it because of the choice to allow dynamic block sizes.
> Ok, but doesn't that mean Bitcoin will be in an even worse state?
I don't think so. "Actually 0" seems better than "trending toward zero." It guarantees you never overpay miners and thus unjustly rob users.
It matters imo because people who seek really good privacy ought to have the motivation to take a few extra steps
> It's similar to why PGP failed to get broader adoption. UX means only you and and a handful of people are using Lightning that way.
So? Anyone can still do it if they want to.
> I showed you a chart of tech advancements since inception of Bitcoin. Bitcoin blocksize hasnt even kept up conservatively.
Good. Relatedly, here's a chart of Moore's law: https://gist.github.com/supertestnet/2d41e7533e51cebf9f557587d349aa60
It seems it stopped applying sometime between 2003 and 2013. I'm glad bitcoin didn't go with the wishful thinking option.
> Seems all for nothing at the expense of usability: ~60,000 node runners. ~50-100 million Bitcoin users. Apparently vast majority of Bitcoiners won't ever run a node even if they can.
The ones not running a node are probably ignorant or don't sufficiently care about self sovereignty -- *yet.* But still, if you aren't running a node, you aren't self-sovereign, because the people who run the nodes set the rules.
> Also Bitcoin is relying on this "wishful thinking" too to some degree since Lightning doesn't even scale globally without 100MB+ blocksize.
It does: https://x.com/peterktodd/status/1813928457946153056
>"that incentivizes them to place *their own* limit on the size of their own blocks"
Not sure I understand what you're saying. Why would they do this? Penalty of increasing blocksize decreases with more use. Those doing that would just be leaving money on the table.
Because the larger the blocks, the harder/longer they take to validate, therefore a miner can undercut his competitors by mining a smaller block that gets propagated/validated before the big blocks do. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
>"You're not sovereign if you're not running a node"
So you're conceding 95%+ of Bitcoin/Lightning is not sovereign?
I doubt it's 95% but yes, if you're not running a node you aren't self sovereign and most LN users do not run a node. That is no reason not to do so yourself. You're not a lemming. You don't have to be like anyone else.
> I think it's safe to say there are way more Monero node runners as a percentage of users than Bitcoin. Bitcoin has far more users, but the difference in total nodes is only a factor of 2x-6x vs Monero depending how you count them.
Yeah, probably. But we'll see if that continues to be the case if monero ever becomes popular. I doubt it because of the choice to allow dynamic block sizes.
> Ok, but doesn't that mean Bitcoin will be in an even worse state?
I don't think so. "Actually 0" seems better than "trending toward zero." It guarantees you never overpay miners and thus unjustly rob users.