this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
42 points (93.8% liked)

Open Source

31227 readers
250 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, if they used monero instead of lightning would be a better option for the user. Not a lightning fan. Layer 2 solutions seems a waste of time and money for me, lightning included..but well, that's the result of the blocksize war.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

You can either increase blocksize (and therefore decrease decentralization) or build L2s. Look at ETH with their big, frequent blocks. You can run a Bitcoin node on a 10 year old laptop, good luck running an Eth node with those specs. You need at least 1TB of space, and it's gotta be SSD, and you need a pretty fast processor. Which is why many Eth nodes are hosted in corporate datacenters, over half the network. You can split hairs over what counts as a "node" etc but the end result is the same: increased centralization due to large chain size/requirements.

Monero doesn't need L2s yet because it doesn't have the transaction load to fill up available chain space enough to impact decentralization. Long-term, we cannot store all transactions on every node and do that forever. Small txs do not belong on chain. I love XMRs approach to privacy, it will need L2s at some point. Or pruning, which comes with some significant tradeoffs.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Yeah you're probably right about that, I'm no expert and this make a lot of sense ..I hope to see XMR face this transaction load issue..that would mean more people using it