[POLL] Is bigger block capacity still a taboo?

[pooya87]

Also note what happened with ETH: they did a hard-fork, and the community splitted into ETH and ETC. Here, it could be the same outcome, but there is no guarantee, that the "core coded" version would have the same fate as ETH, and not ETC. It is unknown, until it happens, but then it is too late to change sides.

Lets never use centralized shitcoins as examples when it comes to discussing bitcoin. Things are very different. And by the way Ether guys didn't just do a hard-fork, they rolled back blocks which means they targeted a fundamental principle of cryptocurrencies which is their immutable blockchain which is why part of the network decided to stick to immutability (ie. ETC).

[1714648180]

1714648180

[1714648180]

1714648180

[DooMAD]

to stand up to game theory.  If there are ways to manipulate or rig the system to an outcome which suits an attackers goals, then it's no good.  We can't inadvertently introduce that kind of weakness.

Friendly fire! Friendly fire!, lol. Are we still talking about future upgrades here? Because despite my lack of understanding about the entirety of taproot, I am pretty much certain that what you just described is happening right now, I swear I'm not lying or trolling, you can check to see those orange blocks turning to red and are about to explode on mempool.space.

Fair point.  Even when it seems like every reasonable precaution has been taken, there can still be unforseen consequences.  Clearly no one saw this current situation coming.  Part of the concept behind Taproot was to assist with scaling, signature aggregation, etc.  But someone found a way to exploit it to create a way to upload crap and molest mempools.  Every advancement leads us into unexplored territory, but it's still worth taking every reasonable precaution.  Even if there are no guarantees someone won't immediately look for a way to abuse the change.

People think it's easy and that devs are moving too slowly, but it doesn't always dawn on them that a few individuals with selfish interests can be a massive drain on shared communal resources.  It's incredibly challenging to advance the technology in a way that doesn't give such individuals too much room to screw about, but also keeps doors open in terms of future developments.  It's a fine line to tread.

[franky1]

Clearly no one saw this current situation coming.  

funny part is i was having lengthy debates with gmax and others in 2016 about the exploit-ability of "anyonecanspend" (unconditioned opcodes).. it is funny how things come full circle where core gods and their cult followers lie, deceive try to deny things to push their agenda using tactics that the person on other side of debate is lying and deceiving

because yea, data in the blockchain and time.. proves whos right in the end. not the circle jerkin of cultish social games

ive been highlighting the abuse of opcodes creating "FUNKY" transactions without conditions even before segwit activated, when they proposed using opcodes in this manner

for posterity (2016)

Yes, but only for spending from an output of the type OP_0 <20 bytes> or anything similar. The witness data must still be in the transaction when you are spending from an output that has anything like OP_CHECKSIG in the output script.

old clients wont check whats after 0x00(op_0).. they automatically treat the transaction as valid.

again the signatures are not in the same expected area. segwit abuses 0x00 to achieve this. thats the whole point of how segwit can work as a softfork!
because the signatures are not where they are expected. old clients treat it as just a valid funky tx.

the 20 bytes after 0x00 (op_0) are not going to be what old clients expect to see. yet they would automatically look passed it, without care.

i think you are blindly trusting the dev's to make pretty code with zero bugs. instead of thinking with a critical mind that things can break and to think that its better to have a things might break mindset rather then a devoted faith that it will elegantly work. because blind faith is the mindset of people who wont bug check/hack it to its limits. they will just do a couple standard transactions and praise their lord that funds move.. rather than trying to break it

come on.. the code is not even released and ur already thinking its perfect..

real that last line 5 times. let it settle in your head. and think about the mindset you have.
even scientists who spend years developing space rockets, still end up with them blowing up.

'funky tx'
'look passed it, without care'


again 2016

secondly. legacy(old) nodes wont benefit from it. also old nodes will have more issues to contend with. such as seeing 'funky' transactions. aswell as still not being able to trust unconfirmed transactions due to RBF and CPFP.

...

just checking the blockchain history. how often has a legitimate transaction actually required lots of signatures to the extent of causing issues.
the funny thing is limiting transactions sigops actually ensures that we never get a situation where one person can fill a block alone..
but instead, not limiting transaction sigops and just making it fast to process. along with offering a discount on signatures, actually makes it easier, cheaper and more rewarding for someone to spam the block with a single transaction. yea it wont cause network delay. but still causes the community to get peed off that someone is filling the block with one transaction.
limiting sigops was/is the obvious route that should have been taken.

and here we are 7 years after talking about the risks. we are seeing the consequences.. and again we are seeing a group of idiots pandering to the core gods saying "lets do nothing it will sort itself out, go back to sleep, dont argue unless you have a inside track to core. something core will accept"

[DooMAD]

Clearly no one saw this current situation coming.  

funny part is i was having lengthy debates with gmax and others in 2016 about the exploit-ability of "anyonecanspend" (unconditioned opcodes).. it is funny how things come full circle where core gods and their cult followers lie, deceive try to deny things to push their agenda using tactics that the person on other side of debate is lying and deceiving

because you, data in the blockchain proves whos right in the end.

Congratulations, one of your hundreds of Chicken Little "Sky is falling!" cries turned out not to be 100% wrong.  Have a cookie.  Purely by the law of averages, even a fruitloop like you has to get it right once in a while.  Don't let it go to your head.

You made a valid point.  This does not mean your vision for scaling is suddenly the correct one (mainly due to the fact it doesn't even meet most people's definition of the word "scaling").

[franky1]

wait you say "100 chicken littles"..
i thought you said i keep mentioning one big thing....

ever thought that its actually more like 3 flaws all linked by the same central point of failure.. in which actual block data, code statistics show are actually 3 flaws that are showing their repercussions now

as for scaling
YOUR cult family (mentored by you) keep pretending scaling is GIGABYTE blocks or offboarding/forking to other networks .. no. thats not scaling. thats exaggerated leaping and displacing

you keep trying to lie by pretending my opinion is some altcoin fork "bigger(massive) block" you keep pretending and inciting your cult family to recite your mantra that franky only wants "bigger blocks"

you actually ignore what i actually say. so here it is again. dumbed right down to a short summary even you might have no problems reading in 20 seconds

and its not just "bigger blocks" its actually
leaner transactions.
count every byte, make every byte count
condition all transaction formats to perform, whereby every byte serves a purpose.
limit the transaction overhead computationally
make spammers/bloaters personally penalised to not cause everyone to be expensed out of using bitcoin
penalise spammer/bloater by enough of a multiple that they actually stop due to the expense

ive also made MANY posts over 7 years of this debate not about bigger blocks=gigabyte blocks(your cultish groups story of the 'core opposing offer')
but about blocksizes that increment over time/need

[DooMAD]

as for scaling
YOUR cult family (mentored by you) keep pretending scaling is GIGABYTE blocks. of offboarding/forking to other networks .. no. thats not scaling. thats exaggerated leaping and displacing

*SIGH*

How is this not abundantly apparent to you yet?

Off-chain doesn't have a strict limit.  On chain does.  Whatever you set the on-chain limit to be, no matter how many times you increase it, the off-chain throughput always has the potential to be greater.  That's scaling.
LInear growth isn't.  And that's why we talk about gigablocks.  Because off-chain can easily handle the volume that gigablocks would theoretically enable, but without the accompanying risk to decentralisation.

If you still aren't able to grasp this after 7 years, please read more and talk less.

And before you cry too hard, yes, we can have *some* linear growth.  But if you think that's the only thing we should be doing, you are very much mistaken.

[franky1]

Off-chain doesn't have a strict limit.  On chain does.  Whatever you set the on-chain limit to be, no matter how many times you increase it, the off-chain throughput always has the potential to be greater.  That's scaling.
LInear growth isn't.  And that's why we talk about gigablocks.  Because off-chain can easily handle the volume that gigablocks would theoretically enable, but without the accompanying risk to decentralisation.

If you still aren't able to grasp this after 7 years, please read more and talk less.

doomad talks about leaping again (facepalm)

And before you cry too hard, yes, we can have *some* linear growth.  But if you think that's the only thing we should be doing, you are very much mistaken.

and only talks about blocksize rather than increasing tx count via uncludging the current code that causes spam/bloat allowed to occur

he really is stuck in his head thinking the only option that deviates away from core roadmap is "gigabyte blocks" where he then pretends its all other people talk about.. when infact its the only thing his group keep circling back to

also i said many times in many topics that the option is not just "bigger blocks" (doomads group mentorship campaign of "gigabyte blocks")
subnetworks (not current flawed ones) .. wait ill emphasise this:
future subnetworks that have purpose without flaws will have utility for their niche userbase.. but .. and i sincerely want you to take time to read this.. BUT. telling everyone to abandon bitcoin and offramp to a shady, screwed up current flawed subnetwork is not the solution

and with bitcoin blocks SCALING not leaping. to cater to those that want and need secure bitcoin confirmations and settlements. more utility can be provided to the community.. and before you check your old cult notes.. my opinion on scaling is not just bigger blocks.. as i summarised and dumbed down for you in previous post

try to read

responding to below
im not the one promoting people to offramp to subnetworks or fork to an altcoin as the solutions .. YOU ARE

edit again to respond
it can be both
YOU are offramping USERS..   and bitcoin doesnt leave the blockchain
USERS use another network to play with IOU units(borrowing unit transfer of routed middlemans balance) called millsats. millisats that sit in channels but are not settled bitcoin of the "promised"(pfft) recipient
bitcoin does not leave the blockchain, the the security of it

[DooMAD]

future subnetworks that have purpose without flaws will have utility for their niche userbase.. but .. and i sincerely want you to take time to read this.. BUT. telling everyone to abandon bitcoin and offramp to a shady, screwed up current flawed subnetwork is not the solution

and with bitcoin blocks SCALING not leaping. to cater to those that want and need secure bitcoin confirmations and settlements. more utility can be provided to the community.. and before you check your old cult notes.. my opinion on scaling is not just bigger blocks.. as i summarised and dumbed down for you in previous post

try to read

Stop writing everything like an extremist zealot and maybe your posts might be worth reading for once.

No one (other than you), is suggesting that people "abandon bitcoin", but in your fucked up zealot brain, that's what off-chain means to you.  So we're never going to find common ground.  If you can't have a mature discussion about this, then it's quite simple.  No one is going to listen to you.  Now try again and write something that could pass for the writings of a sane person.

Last chance.


//EDIT:  Responding to above:

responding to below
im not the one promoting people to offramp to subnetorks or fork to an altcoin as the solutions .. YOU ARE

If you want to maintain the ridiculous logical fallacy that bitcoins never leave the blockchain, but we're somehow simultaneously "offramping" users, then clearly you're taking a preposterous and impossible position.  

Either the funds don't leave the blockchain -or- we're offramping users.  It literally can't be both.  Now pick a shade of stupid and STFU and let the grown-ups talk.  It's utterly futile trying to engage with any kind of reasonable discussion with you.  Irrational twunt.


//EDIT AGAIN:

And even if you got what you claim you want, "lean transactions" and a totally locked-down, autocratic chain where users have no freedom and there's no witness space, just an even 4mb for all.  That volume of throughput still pales in comparison to what off-chain can offer.  Without off-chain, there would still be a finite capacity and once we grow to reach that capacity, you'd be asking for another increase.  Because you have literally nothing else to offer.  Gigablocks isn't what you're asking for now.  It's your long-term plan because you have no other plan.  Prove me wrong.

[franky1]

And even if you got what you claim you want, "lean transactions" and a totally locked-down, autocratic chain where users have no freedom and there's no witness space, just an even 4mb for all.  That volume of throughput still pales in comparison to what off-chain can offer.  Without off-chain, there would still be a finite capacity and once we grow to reach that capacity, you'd be asking for another increase.  Because you have literally nothing else to offer.  Gigablocks isn't what you're asking for now.  It's your long-term plan because you have no other plan.  Prove me wrong.

your mindset is LEAP to gigabyte blocks. then YOUR mindset is do nothing now because (in YOUR VIEW) gigabyte cant be handled now

you forget SCALING is not "gigabytes by 2024" so just stop with that rhetoric
also you keep promoting a CRAP subnetwork as the sole solution available today

YOU keep promoting that bitcoin should not do anything, should not scale BITCOIN until YOUR favoured crappy subnetwork populates to mass adoption. and then only scale BITCOIN when bitcoin cant cope with your favoured subnetworks session gates(opens/closings)

we have all read your preferences of getting everyone to use subnetworks and "dont buy coffee/pizza on bitcoin"
we have all read your preferences of telling anyone not core to not ask core to offer community benefits on the bitcoin network
we have all read your preferences of telling anyone not core. to not 'attack' the network and instead create a fork altcoin and see who follows

you dont want bitcoin network to scale because you are deeply entranched into promoting people move over to your preferred subnetwork
you dont want reasonable fee's on bitcoin because it screws up your middleman commission syphoning of the subnetwork strategy

i am not saying a new bunch of subnetworks without flaws wont have niche utility . but telling the community to do nothing for 6 years "coz LN" has not been helpful to scaling BITCOIN.. and we are seeing the repercussions of doing nothing for 6 years

as for your silly narrative that you mention about risks to decentralisation, you love cores central point existence
your other adorations:
backward stripped blocks nodes centralise a more concentrated group off less full nodes(with full archival, full verification, full IBD peer services)
pruned nodes centralise a more concentrated group off less full nodes(with full archival, full verification, full IBD peer services)
fee market causes less people to transact daily onchain so dont need/want to run a node 24/7, concentrating a less amount of 24/7 full nodes
users using subnetworks and now subnetwork litewallets like greenlight. also removes usecases to want/need to be a full node

as for your silly narrative of exaggerating "node cost"
if hardware costs of a full node are $400 for historic AND next 4+ years... but a tx fee is $20
you are saying the 'cost' that people should only transact 20 times in 4 years (if $400 is too expensive in your mind for 4 years)
5 transactions a year is not a reason to motivate someone to be a full node 24/7
the real problem of COST is not hardware.. but fees... but you love high fee's becasue it promotes the abandonment of using the bitcoinnetwork in favour of your preferred subnetwork

if you are also saying people should lock their BTC up on bitcoin network. and play with hub created channel balance on subnetwork and not settle for 3 months.. again why would they want to be a full node.

all of your preferences are not in the aid of decentralising the blockchain or the auditing of the blockdata. especially when you love to keep features that bypass verification of all bytes of the blockchain..
we all see your motivations of 'dont enhance bitcoin, instead promote LN' is the promises they made that you can syphon fee's as a router middlemen from other users..
now here is 3 questions:
how has that paid off for you?
has LN gave you a sustainable living?
or has all your time/promotions just been an empty promise?

[DooMAD]

we all see your motivations of 'dont enhance bitcoin, instead promote LN' is the promises they made that you can syphon fee's as a router middlemen from other users..
now here is 3 questions:
how has that paid off for you?
has LN gave you a sustainable living?
or has all your time/promotions just been an empty promise?

Oh, you're going to love this...  

With the notable exception of consolidating some small inputs by sending transactions to myself, I personally haven't sent a single Bitcoin transaction from any of my wallets in at least 5 years now.  I'm a HODLer.  I receive payments.  I don't generally send them.  And because I don't need to send transactions, I currently don't have any need to run a Lightning node.  Although I'd still like the option to do so in future, when the need does arise.  

So there it is.  You've spent years claiming like a loon that I've somehow been "earning middlemen fees" and that everything I say or do is somehow meant to enrich myself, but I guess we'll just add that to the list of your many, many delusions and the number of times you couldn't be more wrong about something if you tried.  

I'd be earning money from my sig campaign whether I agreed with you or not, so I don't get paid to promote anything other than the services appearing below my posts.  I only continue call you a moron to your face because I genuinely feel that's what's best for the overall benefit of the Bitcoin network.  Because you're a dangerous, unhinged whack-job and your ideas are terrible.  

Is there anything else I can answer for you while we're at it?  I've love to point out more things where you've been making a total fool out of yourself for years by talking out of your arse because you actually don't have a clue about anything.

And even if you got what you claim you want, "lean transactions" and a totally locked-down, autocratic chain where users have no freedom and there's no witness space, just an even 4mb for all.  That volume of throughput still pales in comparison to what off-chain can offer.  Without off-chain, there would still be a finite capacity and once we grow to reach that capacity, you'd be asking for another increase.  Because you have literally nothing else to offer.  Gigablocks isn't what you're asking for now.  It's your long-term plan because you have no other plan.  Prove me wrong.

you forget SCALING is not "gigabytes by 2024" so just stop with that rhetoric

I don't see how it's a rhetoric if you seriously have no other proposals and you're just going to propose the same thing over and over again.  I'll ask once more to see if you dodge the question again like a spineless coward:  

Imagine you had no SegWit, no off-chain stuff you hate, 4mb regular blocks, lean transactions, all the shit you've been screeching about (and let's put aside that if such a network existed, its throughput would be a drop in the ocean compared to what off-chain could provide).  Imagine all the devs listened to you and didn't ridicule you for being an absolute headcase.  You're in charge.  Once we are using all of that blockspace as efficiently as we possibly can, what's the next genius step from the great franky1?  

Go on.  Tell us.  Don't be shy, now.  It's your opportunity to prove you grasp the concepts of scaling and that we should all show you more respect.  Surely your response is going to be amazing...

(Watch him dodge the question again)

[franky1]

we dont need "gigabytes now"
you pretend we do

we dont need LEAPS..
you pretend we do

learn about SCALING.. stop insinuating LEAPING..  learn the difference that LEAPING is not scaling. do you atleast concede in realising that fact of basic concepts..

the options are not 2
a. gigabyte leap
or
b. LN

the scaling debate is more nuanced then that, progressive with multiple options

anyways.. your question scanerio(the 1mb lean vs 4mb lean full space utility scenario, and what to do after):
2009- 2016 1mb was (as satoshi wrote in 2010 allowing "upto 4200tx a block")
so 4mb would be 16800tx a block

yes we are congested at a <4k tx a block(but with 4mb. but not getting the 4x tx count).. so for now scaling to allow 6k 12k 16k to become 4mb full utility block would have been SCALING of the last 6 years

instead we got 4MB 6 years ago.. but not the 16k transaction ability fo that 4mb.. we are still not even above satoshis own math of the 4200tx a block average of 1mb

now read closely
if we did have a full utility 4mb block to allow upto 16ktx that would be scaling.. compared to the 1mb tx count averages

when 4mb 16k lean tx causes longterm congestion in the future.. we SCALE again..

but wait.. really try to read this.. take a couple minutes to prepare yourself to read this:
i said SCALE. meaning not dramatised/exaggerated LEAPS to 1gb
let me say it again. not LEAPS to 1gb
but scaling to a new blocksize. EG 8mb-16mb blocks

even you must realise periodic SCALING where by the time we get to 16mb blocks a 4 year PC lifecycle is only 3.4gb of added data.
the cost of a 20TB hard drive would be the cost of a 4TB hard drive now. meaning affordability

you keep pretending 1gb per block is needed now insinuating todays PC's needed 210TB hard drives now to do doomads version of "scaling".. THEY DONE, WE DONT


as for the other crap "LN is solution to scaling" .. and about subnetworks(plural)
i knew you had no clue about real experience of LN you were just reading the utopian promotional material.. that much was obvious. but i do find it strange you dedicate 6 years of your trolling to promote something you dont use but want other people to use.

i guess you were just hoping some day LN devs would notice your promotions and put you on the pay roll.. i kinda feel sorry for you now, realising you were an trolling unpaid promoting a product but gaining nothing from it.. that must hurt. all that effort you put into ass kissing LN and the dev team for nothing.

anyways
seeing as your not contracted to troll for them.. have you ever had a thought about a fresh subnetwork without the LN flaws.. are you open to that idea to have a subnetwork to fill the niche of a subset of users that want subnetworks for subclass of utility,, but without it being LN specifically .. or are you still stuck on only idolising the utopian (broken)promises of LN

[DooMAD]

if we did have a full utility 4mb block to allow upto 16ktx that would be scaling.. compared to the 1mb tx count averages

when 4mb 16k lean tx causes longterm congestion in the future.. we SCALE again..

That's all I needed to hear.  We have nothing further to discuss.  You have openly stated that linear growth is the same as scaling (it isn't) and you would do it over and over again because there are no other thoughts in the space between your ears where the brain is meant to be.

Welcome to my ignore list.  I've debunked as much of your shit as I care to.

I strongly encourage others to do the same.  Do not listen to a single thing this absolute shitweasel says.  He will lead you down dangerous paths and will take away your freedom the moment you let your guard down.  Do yourself and the forum a favour and add him to your ignore list.

[franky1]

and you think zero onchain growth is SCALING
and you think huge leaps is SCALING
but you dont think progressive adjustments is scaling.
(facepalm x3)

i also said it is not just about the blocksize. its more nuanced.. but you prefer ignorance rather then understanding. so go back to being ignorant.

as for freedoms
doomad loves to get people banned.
doomad loves to get OTHERS to lock their funds with custodian services for channel hopping via hubs, or mixing via middlemen. even if he doesnt use it himself he wants other to suffer the risks of their freedom/control of their value. he doesnt want people to have the freedom to transact reasonably onchain he loves censoring and voiding transactions unless people pay premiums

i do honestly feel sorry for him.. putting all that effort in for years but not even getting a kiss back from those he promotes

[pooya87]

Clearly no one saw this current situation coming. 

funny part is i was having lengthy debates with gmax and others in 2016 about the exploit-ability of "anyonecanspend" (unconditioned opcodes).. it is funny how things come full circle where core gods and their cult followers lie, deceive try to deny things to push their agenda using tactics that the person on other side of debate is lying and deceiving

because you, data in the blockchain proves whos right in the end.

Congratulations, one of your hundreds of Chicken Little "Sky is falling!" cries turned out not to be 100% wrong.  Have a cookie.  Purely by the law of averages, even a fruitloop like you has to get it right once in a while.  Don't let it go to your head.

Actually the thing he quoted has nothing to do with this topic and the example chosen in that comment is actually wrong and the silliest one since P2WPKH (ie. OP_0 + 20 bytes) is literally the strictest SegWit scripts that exists and there is absolutely no way of exploiting it.
The part with "anyonecanspend" nonsense that was raging on back in (mostly) 2017 is also not a valid argument since we have been using this technique since BIP16 (over a decade ago) with P2SH and "old clients" can not see that or verify that either.

[Wind_FURY]

Is it because it would also depend on what that person's definition of "scaling" is?

Yes. I like that kind of approaching the problem, by the way.

What is your definition or idea of how scaling Bitcoin should actually be?

Scaling is directly related with compression. If you can use the same resources to achieve more goals, then that thing is "scalable". So, if the size of the block is 1 MB, and your "scaling" is just "let's increase it into 4 MB", then it is not a scaling anymore. It is just a pure, linear growth. You increase numbers four times, so you can now handle 4x more traffic. But it is not scaling. Not at all.

Scaling is about resources. If you can handle 16x more traffic with only 4x bigger blocks, then this is somewhat scalable. But we can go even further: if you can handle 100x more traffic, or even 1000x more traffic with only 4x bigger blocks, then this has even better scalability.

Also, scaling is directly related to intelligence. You can read more about Hutter Prize, which was advertized by Garlo Nicon some time ago: http://prize.hutter1.net/

You, ser, are correct! In the context of Bitcoin, real actual scaling should be defined as, "increasing network throughput, without sacrificing decentralization". - That's probably where the problem is, because different people in BitcoinTalk have different definitions of "scaling". But to many, it merely means increasing the block size.

I want to know everyone's definition/idea about scaling.

I will add a bonus question: how do you measure if your model is scalable or not? Write it as a function in big-O-notation, or anything you like. I support "constant-based scaling", which means O(1) scaling, which means leaving current resources as they are, and improving algorithms to build things on top of that, for example through commitments.

If that question is just for me, then you're asking the wrong person. Although I would like to read the posts of the smarter users in the forum, to learn and get some insight.

[ABCbits]

--snip--

You, ser, are correct! In the context of Bitcoin, real actual scaling should be defined as, "increasing network throughput, without sacrificing decentralization". - That's probably where the problem is, because different people in BitcoinTalk have different definitions of "scaling". But to many, it merely means increasing the block size.

But don't forget technology continue to progress, so increasing block size doesn't always mean sacrificing decentralization.

[apogio]

But don't forget technology continue to progress, so increasing block size doesn't always mean sacrificing decentralization.

Of course, but it seriously depends on where you live. Unfortunately some people live in countries that don't advance in the same pace. Meaning that poverty is too high to be able to cope with the technological progress...

[franky1]

Clearly no one saw this current situation coming.  

funny part is i was having lengthy debates with gmax and others in 2016 about the exploit-ability of "anyonecanspend" (unconditioned opcodes).. it is funny how things come full circle where core gods and their cult followers lie, deceive try to deny things to push their agenda using tactics that the person on other side of debate is lying and deceiving

because you, data in the blockchain proves whos right in the end.

Congratulations, one of your hundreds of Chicken Little "Sky is falling!" cries turned out not to be 100% wrong.  Have a cookie.  Purely by the law of averages, even a fruitloop like you has to get it right once in a while.  Don't let it go to your head.

Actually the thing he quoted has nothing to do with this topic and the example chosen in that comment is actually wrong and the silliest one since P2WPKH (ie. OP_0 + 20 bytes) is literally the strictest SegWit scripts that exists and there is absolutely no way of exploiting it.

incorrect.. because there is no expectation of content in op_0
remember op_0 was not a strict segwit script.. because.. 2016... yep segwit wasnt even a thing!!

back then they had buzzwords for them  empty opcode, called nops, nulls.. these days for the new subclass of opcodes of segwit and then the next subclass of opcodes for taproot they buzzword names like opsuccess
LEARN THEM, learn what they do and dont do

anyways
the very next bytes you can put in a op_0 is op_push4 which say the next bytes after that can be 4,294,967,295‬ bytes(4.29GB) which are only prevented by the block limit to not actually be 4.29gb
also multisig did not use op_0 it used other operation bytes..

so it can be abused in so many ways due to its openness at the time of writing it in 2016

seems doomad and pooya have rejoined each other in the cultish narrative of merit circle jerkin and defending each other again, to prevent bitcoin scaling by not even knowing about the code or exploits that are causing the congestion that is not helping bitcoin have lean transactions or increased transaction counts

but let them pat themselves on the back merit cycling each other while not wanting to learn how things really work

i can literally hear it now, them high fiving each other shouting "Got-em'" but not realising they just proved they dont even know about the opcodes or the abuse the openness of the opcode caused by the stuff it allowed.. so give each other a pat on the back for proving you didnt know what your talking about.

it doesnt pay to learn from each others idiocies,, it pays to actually learn bitcoin. doomad already proved he cant earn an income from having blind adoration and just repeat what they told him.

so dont waste your time circle jerking things you dont know, and take the time to learn bitcoin

[HmmMAA]

Of course, but it seriously depends on where you live. Unfortunately some people live in countries that don't advance in the same pace. Meaning that poverty is too high to be able to cope with the technological progress...

There are people on the planet ( close to 50% ) that have no pc or internet access . Does that mean that the network should stop because of that ? In case you are running a node , because someone else hasn't that comfort does it mean that you should stop having one too ? If we have to follow a standard let's follow the one of the most vulnerable and quit using our pc's or phones . That would be the most fair .
I really don't get this logic .  

[apogio]

I really don't get this logic .   

There are many people who don't share the same logic that I do and it is totally fine.

There are people on the planet ( close to 50% ) that have no pc or internet access . Does that mean that the network should stop because of that ?

The network shouldn't stop. No! However, the inspiration was that everyone should be able to run a node.

To this extent, I think increasing the block size a little will not hurt, but I am against it because it will not solve the "problem" on the long run.

In case you are running a node , because someone else hasn't that comfort does it mean that you should stop having one too ?

I didn't say that. If someone doesn't have the comfort to run a node, it doesn't mean I will stop running a node. I will, however, keep the blocksize low, so that I don't make it even more difficult for them to run a node.