I understand that the current BIP110 could limit future development, and that is a valid concern. Maybe there is a better and more conservative way to set the limits. But no one is proposing real alternative solutions, and the problem still exists: It cannot be the plan that we have full blocks forever. The limit should be there for periods of high demand, not so that blocks are permanently full.
If Core really wants to solve this problem, they should propose other solutions. Just saying that the problem cannot be solved is not enough.
What makes me skeptical is that at the same time, companies, or funding partners connected to Core are working on smart contracts and other use cases around Bitcoin. That creates a conflict of interest.
They tell the public that Bitcoin is money, but at the same time they are building business models on top of Bitcoin to make money themselves.
The public is being told one story, while the incentives behind the scenes are different. Decisions are not only being made for Bitcoin as money, but also for business opportunities and profit.
If Core really wants to solve this problem, they should propose other solutions. Just saying that the problem cannot be solved is not enough.
What makes me skeptical is that at the same time, companies, or funding partners connected to Core are working on smart contracts and other use cases around Bitcoin. That creates a conflict of interest.
They tell the public that Bitcoin is money, but at the same time they are building business models on top of Bitcoin to make money themselves.
The public is being told one story, while the incentives behind the scenes are different. Decisions are not only being made for Bitcoin as money, but also for business opportunities and profit.
14👍1
