no one should advocate everyone drop the bitcoin network and all move over to a single crap insecure bottlenecked buggy subnetwork proported as being "the solution"
Strawman. You are the only one who claims this and you are once again lying. No one in their right mind is saying everyone should stop using the base layer altogether. People are simply suggesting there are more cost-effective ways to transact. Please provide a direct quote to support your assertions. If you are unable to do so, then withdraw your misleading remarks.
I'm tired of your flagrant misrepresentations of the situation.
there must be a multi-effort approach
There is. You just won't acknowledge it because none of the things being worked on conform to your (decidedly narrow) definition of "development".
the next part is bitcoin should not become the sole utility for CEX reserve swaps. those CEX can do reserve swaps on their own subnetwork. whereby the onchain utility is expanded for those that want to withdraw/close session to hoard longterm independently using lean transactions to allow many many thousands per block to hoard long term securely.
And your plan to achieve this without asking for others to pay for it is...?
Oh, I see, you still want other people to bear the cost of more transactions and you haven't had a single original thought in your head for how to make that sound more palatable. So you just offer complaints and not genuine scaling solutions. Your only "solution" is (and has always been) those securing the network must carry a heavier burden in order that those who don't secure the network can pay less. I'm sure that all sounds very noble to your socialist tendencies. But in practice, the other people who exist on this network, the ones you are consistently at odds with, are not finding that approach very enticing.
There was a rather big debate about it in the community if you recall.
And you lost that debate. You're still losing it now. We moved forward with a different approach.
And sure, you're going to attack me for pointing it out again, but the simple fact is that you're literally a one-trick-pony. You have nothing new to offer. Just repeating the same, tired, failed, whiny arguments over and over.
im not just suggesting "bigger blocks" its about better utility of blocks, its about fixing the rules that allow untransactional bloat. its about not penalising all users in a tx fee war but having rules that penalise spammers the most
Yes, you aren't solely advocating socialism. You're also advocating totalitarianism, where only you are fit to judge what is or isn't an "acceptable" use of the blockchain. If someone is making transactions that don't fit your criteria, you would take away their freedom to do it.
Again, you can attack me for pointing it out (and no doubt you will). But it doesn't make it any less true.
My stance is that Bitcoin is permissionless. Everyone can do what they want if they can find a way to do it within the framework of the consensus rules. I also believe there is a choice between "cheap" and "secure". Everyone naturally wants both, but that's difficult to maintain over the long term. Eventually, compromises need to be made. Everyone gets to make an informed choice each and every time they transact as to whether or not they're going to take the cheaper route, off-chain, or the more secure route, on-chain. That way, no one needs to make demands of others to carry a greater burden.
It's the most reasonable and pragmatic approach offered so far. So it's the one we're continuing with. If anyone has any better ideas, please make them known.
