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.