Incorrect. The fact is the network lacked the capacity to handle the requested number of transactions, and in turn auctioned off the tickets to the lifeboat to whoever paid the most.
You’re arguing “nobody died in the titanic that didn’t pay enough”, when the problem is clearly there aren’t enough lifeboats.
This defeats the entire purpose of bitcoin. The goal is a decentralized currency that isn’t controlled by shady political interests, and can reasonably replace normal currency.
This is by design. If you break bitcoin, such that it’s only usable by large financial institutions, you completely remove the decentralized nature that made it attractive in the first place.
Congratulations guys, you made the banks SWIFT 2.0. I’m sure they appreciate it very much.
The lighting network completely undermines the entire purpose of bitcoin, and blockstreams seeming desire to sabotage bitcoin for daily use coincides suspiciously with their outside “investment”.
If you read the original bitcoin white paper it is clearly evident that the purpose of bitcoin was as a currency. These insane fees, wait times, and rediculous technical decisions by core have made it such that bitcoin is becoming “bank coin” aka only used for settling between large groups and useless for individuals (unless you’re a speculator).
OP seems to dance around saying the idea that punishing people is wrong.
OP is wrong.
We want cultural and financial incentives not to do wrong. We also want raw primal fear, if you do this evil shit they’re gonna get you and lock you away forever type fear... if you do this stuff.
All it took was waiting over an hour with a large fee to make me realize there’s a huge problem in the bitcoin community.
The block size is fundamentally too small to support the current volume of transactions in a meaningful way, and the weak (and suspicious!) arguments in favor of letting bitcoin’s transaction time spiral into hell don’t hold water.
I’m so glad that backwards thinking concepts like this are dominant, otherwise we might actually have secure software!
Think about it, an open-source OS is choosing backwards compatibility over security. This would have caused quite the stir in the 90’s Linux community.
If “do no harm” is a principle, then the kernel should ensure that no harm is taking place.
If flaws within the kernel allow harm to occur while otherwise normal transactions are occurring then it is absolutely preferable to panic and shut down over allowing that potential harm to occur.
To suggest otherwise, that detected errors that allow harm should be allowed, is pure insanity.
Except from an individual experience a train is one of the least efficient methods of travel.
Long waits at each stop, and tons of stops in between me and my destination, never reaching top speed for Long...
Meanwhile when it does stop I still need a car or bus to get to my destination. This is true in European cities as well, where the stop count gets absurd.
You’re arguing “nobody died in the titanic that didn’t pay enough”, when the problem is clearly there aren’t enough lifeboats.