quoting nevent1q…g9jrAre you sure that’s Saylor’s model? As an OG but technically naive bitcoiner, I agree block space efficiency gains are always a win, all else being equal. I doubt Saylor would disagree.
But I wouldn’t be surprised if Saylor isn’t aware of how bitcoin consensus happens (has happened, can happen?). I think he would agree that obviously good things are obviously good if looked at long enough by enough bright people.
Another issue here is more subtle: there are properly smart/educated/competent/informed people capable of writing code that’s can withstand strict review and then there’s the set of people who argue about changes to protocol. These unfortunately are not the same set of people. I learned my lesson in 2016-17, taking the wrong side of the block size wars (just keep nudging block size up sorta like how it was done for years via bitcoin.conf and keep the status quo!). It wasn’t until I had a surprisingly brief IRL chat with Adam that I realized I was the total fool, despite being “in bitcoin” for far longer than him. It takes humility and a strong mind to see through one’s blind spots. I hope Saylor can do this should it arise.
He explicitly argued that a miner who spends $1B on mining infra should not have their investment undermined by protocol changes. It was pretty concrete!
They would definitely argue that a protocol change which increased space efficiency would have a short-term effect on fee revenue, right? It seems a pretty clear-cut case where Saylor's model is directly against most people's understanding of what we should improve.