@tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver Long reply, please do not start replying until I say *end*. — I’m always happy to discuss. Problem is that nothing ever comes from it. You only want to talk “ethos”. Facts are simple: Blocksize increase or not. Non mining full nodes have virtually zero benefit. Proven ad nauseum.

@adam3us @tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver Once we establish the fact that non-mining full nudes are not required, which I have discussed with you for years (and you still fail to recognize), we can talk about the effects you caused and will cause by refusing to increase the blocksize limit. https://t.co/tRW6FAC6GZ
@adam3us @tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver Ridiculous transaction fees: - Noone will use Bitcoin as a currency for payments. Those who did, ditched it (Steam, etc). Bitcoin is a P2P electronic cash system (title of whitepaper), not just a atore of value. - People now have to resort to using centralized exchanges.
@adam3us @tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver - Bitcoin was designed to simply and easily increase the blocksize limit. It was actually 1 line in the code and was absurdly easily changed (compared to Segwit, dont get me started). Satoshi put the limit in place as a temporary fix for a ddos issue (prove me wrong, I was there)
@adam3us @tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver - You and a couple of co-conspirators wanted the limit to stay in place. From Blockstreams business perspective, that makes total sense. From an end-useds perspective, you screwed everyone. I fought and convinced miners/companies to remove the limit. They agreed. You stopped it.
@adam3us @tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver What you fail to realize, is that Bitcoin needs massive tx’s at low fees to survive long term. While the price has been able to sustain it for now, block rewards will dry up. I predict you will be forced to create inflation if you want miners to stay https://t.co/wV9HUmMVqF
@adam3us @tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver We also all predicted that Lightning was going to fail and it has been an ongoing joke “ready in 2016”. You have the perfect, and absolutely necessary solution right in front of you: Increase the damn block size limit! You have zero valid excuses to not do so.
@adam3us @tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver Removing blocksize limit: - Immediately destroys all “Bitcoin” competition (bch, bsv, etc). - Will probably have all the OG’s come back - Will enable Bitcoin as a proper internet currency again, in a true P2P fashion. - Will secure Bitcoin’s long term future (miner fee security).
@adam3us @tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver If you fail to do so, then - Bitcoin will remain a simple “store of value” without underlying utility. It will eventually be overtaken by something superior (first mover advantage doesnt last). - You will be forced to create inflation or similar to ensure Bitcoin’s security.
@adam3us @tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver - You will defeat Bitcoin’s primary purpose which is to give the world a decentralized P2P electronic cash system. In closing, I want to add that me and many others are not maximalists and never will be. We want decentralized currencies to flourish. We don’t care which one. *end*

More from Crypto

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.