pull down to refresh

198 sats \ 7 replies \ @Undisciplined 22 Jun \ parent \ on: Why BIP-110 Matters More Than Ever bitcoin

Unless advances in computing stall out, shouldn’t a linearly growing blockchain be increasingly easy to store over time?

write
compose
54 sats \ 2 replies \ @denlillaapan 22 Jun

NO, you're gay. Get on the BIP-110 scam train, sucker

reply
138 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 22 Jun

You're just full of good points today. You must have needed that vacation.

reply
62 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 23 Jun

I prefer "insightful"; identify as it, one might say

reply
151 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 22 Jun

Unless

(I think they’re already stalling out since we’re manufacturing CPUs at the nanometer scale where quantum effects become relevant.)

reply
1 sat \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 22 Jun

Do you expect less than linear growth from here on out?

reply
170 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 22 Jun

You mean blockchain size? It's bounded by linear growth, so this question confuses me. It can basically only be linear or less because it's O(n).

reply
6 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 22 Jun

No, I mean for progress in computing. Linear growth in blockchain size is only a problem for new node runners if the technology running the nodes stops increasing at a greater than linear rate.

reply