My farewell letter to the Sovryn community

Dear Sovryn Community,

As I bid farewell to the Sovryn project, I reflect on my journey and the factors that led to this decision. The recent pump provided an opportunity for me to recoup my initial BTC investment after engaging in Dollar-Cost Averaging (DCA) over an extended period. While I acknowledge the potential for future gains, the uncertainty surrounding Sovryn’s performance compared to other assets prompts me to consider opportunity costs.

Bitcoin, the pioneer of cryptocurrencies, faces renewed challenges with transaction fees due to the inscription of ordinals into layer one. The discourse among Bitcoin maximalists has shifted towards the controversial idea of transaction censorship, dictating how individuals should spend their own money by limiting transactions.

Unlike the 2017 censorship confined to social media accounts, the current narrative extends to the blockchain itself. Bitcoin maximalists’ reluctance toward embracing DeFi, drivechains, or sidechains, as evidenced by their opposition to BIP300 and BIP301, further complicates the landscape.

The Sovryn DeFi on Bitcoin narrative appears to be at an impasse, primarily due to Bitcoin maximalists’ resistance to DeFi. Their preference leans toward centralized corporations issuing stablecoins for trading on centralized exchanges, diverging from the vision of projects like Sovryn and RSK that necessitate BIP300 and BIP301.

Edan Yago’s proposed narrative, BitcoinOS, introduces BitVM and roll-ups as potential solutions. However, the inherent uncertainty arises from the fear that these innovations may face a fate similar to ordinals, subject to censorship. This apprehension stems from Bitcoin maximalists’ resistance to adapting the block size to a more reasonable range, such as 32MB to 128MB, given current hardware capabilities.

In parting, my decision to exit the Sovryn project reflects a broader concern for the evolving dynamics within the Bitcoin and DeFi space. The rift between the vision of projects like Sovryn and the preferences of Bitcoin maximalists raises questions about the future trajectory of decentralized finance on the Bitcoin blockchain.

During the 2017 split or fork, computers were fully capable of managing 4Mb blocks without the need for specialized hardware. Standard home computers and residential internet connections sufficed. Today, the blockchain can comfortably accommodate a 32Mb size without compromising decentralization. With a modest investment in high-end computers, node operators could even support a 128Mb blockchain.

Contrary to claims made by proponents of smaller block sizes, the reality in 2017 was that a $500 computer could effortlessly handle a 4MB blockchain. Adding a separate HDD, and potentially having an extra HDD in a laptop, made it clear that even larger block sizes were feasible. It appears that advocates of smaller blocks employed propaganda and censorship tactics to manipulate the narrative at that time. In 2017, a 2TB HDD cost a mere $100.

If you read the hard drive prices in 2017 2TB HDD cost $100 or less.

Fast forward to 2023, and a regular $500 computer equipped with a $300 20TB HDD can sustain the blockchain for a decade. Specialized network connections are unnecessary, as a 200Mbps internet connection can capably manage the network traffic for both incoming and outgoing requests. With an $800 investment, one can enjoy cost-effective transactions for 10 years by utilizing the genuine Bitcoin. In comparison, the fees associated with current Bitcoin transactions would render just 15 transactions sufficient to offset the costs, provided one runs their own node instead of paying miners on the BTC network.

Moreover, it’s noteworthy that a high-end computer, suitable for gaming purposes, can effortlessly handle a 128Mb block size today, with a 200Mbps internet connection managing all traffic even during the node’s seeding process. The total cost for such a setup remains below $5000.00.

Given these technological advancements and cost-effective solutions, it is crucial to question why the narrative of small blocks below 4Mb centralizing the network persists. Present-day everyday computers can handle 128Mb blocks, and a 200Mbps internet connection is more than sufficient for the chain and seeding processes. It’s time to dispel the unfounded claim that small block sizes compromise decentralization.

You have been lied to about Bitcoin needing 4Mb blocks to keep it decentralized and that was accomplish with censorship of the narrative, and now in 2023 the censorship will expand to the blockchain by censoring on chain transactions first to Ordinals probably even BitVM transactions if that gets out of control from Blockstream and their banking friends who are implementing custodian bank accounts everywhere.


francis105d1 FJD


Is this a BCH post?

Aside from the BTC hot takes, I’m also super curious about BitcoinOS!


I don’t remember mentioning BCH in the actual article, let me re-read it.

1 Like

True, maybe you were going for BSV… lmk.


Not even close

A 128mb blocks size blockchain can be loaded into a gaming computer today for under $5000, and 32mb at $800

1 Like

300mbps internet connection cost $49.99 first year won’t go higher than $100 afterwards.

You don’t need DeFi on sidechains or even roll-ups and surely you don’t need LN if you can have 32mb blocks today.

In other words RSK, BitcoinOS is useless once you use the real Bitcoin, the Bitcoin that doesn’t compromise on decentralization because blocks only increase if hardware becomes affordable.

1 Like

Big blocks people are making the mistake of comparing their computer, with its sub-metre distances between components, with the expensive, slow computer called “bitcoin”, where latency costs are low and the illusion of unity is easy to achieve. Or centralised databases, where the gatekeeping can be parallelised, and the data synchronised without thousands of elliptic curve signatures to verify. Bitcoin can’t have big blocks because of physics. These other blockchains only get away with it by trading off decentralisation, and reducing the coordination cost.

- @l0k18

1 Like

What are babbling about? It is just software and data going in and out. I guess running a 50gb movies on torrents is an illusion because whatever you just said.

1 Like

What are babbling about?

The irony.


There is no irony the fact is today’s retail computer can run the blockchain at 128mb top without compromising in decentralization. Why a 128mb blocks is decentralized? Because you can buy a gaming computer for under $5000 and have enough room for games and the blockchain. Internet service providers in my city already offer 300mpbs internet connections, and those gaming computers are fast enough to process blocks at 128mb.

But the regular user with $1000 can run a 32mb blocks, that is just 20 BTC transactions.

What would you prefer pay someone who is already rich $50 to process you one transactions or just run your own node at 32mb and pay pennies.


Increasing the block size begs the question: when do we stop?

What about when blocks are full again at 4mb? 8mb? 16…32?

When does Francis decide to be a small blocker? Because the minute you decide the next block size increase is too large, you become a small blocker.

How long could average people run nodes with 10gb blocks? If every 10 minutes we added a 10gb block, how large would the block chain be in a year? How about 10 years? 100 years?

What about bandwidth? Should people that don’t have access to unlimited bandwidth be robbed the option to run a node?


I did say that it makes sense to increase the block size to the level that is still affordable to the regular users. Right now you can buy a $500 computer and a $300 20TB HDD that’s enough to run the chain at 32Mb for 10 years. It will take 10 years to fill up a 20TB HDD.

100TB NAS drives cost $3000 today guess what in 10 years that cost will probably be again $800.

So what is your argument again?

Don’t investment $800 today but instead pay $50 for transaction at $50 for each BTC transaction I just need to make 20 transactions and that node would had paid for itself.

1 Like

I will decide to be small blocker if we all go back to using floppy disks and dial up internet connections.

1 Like

So your saying we should hard fork every so often? Do you see any issues with that, such as subjectivety? Who decides when we fork?

Seems layer 2s that don’t rely on consensus would be less centralized, and more efficient.

But hard forking when some person or group decides it’s necessary could work. :person_shrugging:


I guess $50 for transaction is not enough have fun making miners rich.

1 Like

While I appreciate the emotional appeal, and obviously the market decided which path we should go:

constant changes to the base layer (of which - many of us hope will be the world monetary product) in an effort to drive down temporary fees, instead of;

taking our time and finding more permanent layer 2 solutions that don’t effect the base layer,

Sounds intellectually lazy.

TLDR; You’re proposing a permanent solution, that has an overhead that could effect its mission, for temporary benefits.


$50 is a lot for low-income groups in the world.

1 Like