Bitcoin Forum

We all know why Unlimited blocks are a bad idea.

A set of articles to learn why Segwit too is a terrible idea:
https://medium.com/@SegWit/segwit-resources-6b7432b42b1e

The only competitive advantage of Bitcoin is its safe haven status, gold standard of cryptocurrency. Unlimited blocks and Segwit both will bring too much uncertainty and will remove the safe haven status from Bitcoin. Investors will run to other coins because those will offer the same level of (un)safety as Segwit/Unlimited Bitcoin, but compared to Segwit/Unlimited Bitcoin these altcoins are more advanced technologically.

Bitcoin should be left alone as a crypto reserve and crypto settlement network, as is, only bugfixes should be done on it. Do not let the only advantage that Bitcoin has be taken away with protocol upgrades of any kind, they will ensure Bitcoin's demise if they are allowed to happen. And I don't care how much testing goes into Unlimited, Segwit, whatever. This will not be the old Bitcoin, and it's bad bad bad, Bitcoin as an investment class will evaporate. Let them developers play with altcoins, there is a ****load of them to show their skills. Leave Bitcoin alone.

Well, we are about to get segregated witness on Litecoin via mining consensus, so no UASF drama. The price will pump, that's for sure, but most importantly, we will get to see segwit in all it's glory in a real life scenario instead of testnet only. We'll see the advancements in lightning networks too. So as LTC keeps going up in price and in usefulness without any technological disasters, proving segwit to be safe and generally beneficial, how will anyone still be anti-segwit with a straight face?

The price of LTC pumped because it was already rock bottom and it was too easy to pump from the ground, but LTC will not need scaling for years, so watch the price of LTC not go significantly higher as it has no real use. Speculators can only pump so much. LTC has no safe haven status, it has nothing to lose.

BTC will dump if either Unlimited or Segwit is activated, because uncertainty they will bring. BTC has everything to lose, its safe haven status is its only advantage.

you mean via CCCC (chinese criminal cartel consensus).  ::)

Pure FUD. What uncertainty? The price will go up much higher because the network can handle more users with Segwit.. unlike buggy BU which is bugged will make Bitcoin go poef!

Why are you protecting BU, whats youre stake?

BTC users will see the need for LTC with segwit + LN once they realize paying the high BTC fees for everyday transactions is stupid when you can just buy a bunch of LTC and use them instead. Sooner or later LTC will shine to an ATH because BTC will never reach mainstream usage status. LTC is the only altcoin that will be backed by the good Bitcoin Core code armed with segwit and lightning networks. If you still don't see how LTC is undervalued once segwit kicks in you are stupid.

Do you have poor comprehension skills? I am against both as any sensible Bitcoin investor should be. I am for leaving Bitcoin alone and letting it keep its safe haven status.
The price will not go much higher with Unlimited or Segwit, it will go lower or stagnate at best, because the safe haven status will be lost if either of them is activated.

It's a beautiful theory with no proof.

i spend bitcoin where i can. the number of merchants is falling away pretty fast. include the fees and it's kind of pointless these days.

if litecoin attracted enough merchants then i'd make the switch and stay there for my regular spending at least. bitcoin is no longer fit for that purpose.

most people are in it for the dollars. litecoin has more head room than bitcoin for that too. the ltc hype train will run out of steam soon no doubt. but then extra actual use is gonna pick up the slack.

Most coins have more head room than Bitcoin, doesn't mean Bitcoin should be turned into a shitcoin in chase of all kinds of use cases. If it loses the safe haven status with the proposed changes to the protocol (Unlimited or Segwit), it will not be able to compete with other shitcoins. They are like light years ahead of Bitcoin technologically. Changing the Bitcoin protocol IS turning it into a shitcoin.

No extra use case is gonna pick up the slack with LTC, it's got years of unused block size in it before Segwit is even needed.

The ability to do transactions with something doesn't remove its safe haven status.  Bitcoin transactions are just a way of taking some Bitcoin and giving it to someone else without people overseeing it - gold has the same property in physical form, I could give someone a gold ingot and no one would have to oversee the transaction.  

Just because I can transfer gold ingots, and in theory use them for goods, doesn't mean that they're not a good way of storing money.  You could also make a comparison with smaller transactions - with SegWit and the LN it would be easy to take a small amount of Bitcoin from one place to another, and you can take a little gold coin to someone else but it's pretty expensive to take a giant heavy ingot.

i don't think i've heard one single business or developer from any side advocating keeping the protocol unchanged forever. even luke jr believes it should be changed to have smaller blocks.

i can only speak for myself. if bitcoin remains unchanged forever then it's not going to be usable for me in the future. when it costs $50 to do a transaction i hope whoever can afford that enjoys it. i'll be taking my chances with another coin.

put up a poll on here.

What removes the safe haven status is changing the protocol.
It's like if the chemical formula of gold suddenly changed, you and all the other gold investors would become instantly suspicious. It doesn't happen of course and this is what gives gold the safe haven status it enjoys. The same should be applied to Bitcoin, no protocol changes or else it's just another currency, not the gold standard reserve currency of crypto space it is today.

Again FUD, even if there are hundreds of millions of users Bitcoin will still be a save haven. You clearly dont know the potential in this case what does a block-size increase effects the network?

Bitcoin can change, but it has to be an upgrade, to be superior. We do not need a personal trending bitcoin like BU, it's just a vandalism for bitcoin. If it really changes, I think segwit is more appropriate.

And you won't hear from them.
Businesses and developers do not have the same goals as investors.
Businesses live on selling products or on fees, developers sell their skills and they are interested to change as much as possible to sell their skills.
Investors are the ones that should be interested in keeping the status quo of the only safe haven cryptocurrency.

i don't believe we have many investors here. it's filled with speculators. speculators are interested in betting on future potential. a protocol that will never change hobbles its own future.

and the safe haven thing is a premature concept. in a real shit show bitcoin is the first thing people would abandon. it's a money making toy to most.

At the rate that this thing is growing, it would be unrealistic not to scale it aggressively. At least SegWit does that, even though it might deviate from the

original or should I rather say traditional Bitcoin way of doing it. { simple block size upgrades } .... BU has a bunch of incompetent developers and my

Bitcoin's security is much more important than "breaking" the rules and going with a implementation that are "out of the box"  ::)

Do you feel scared or is FUD the only word you know?
How will it still be a safe haven when such a drastic change happens. It will be like a completely new coin, completely new from what was described in the whitepaper. Completely new means unknown territory ahead, nothing like the previous known territory of 9 years, this will scare the shit out of investors.

Investors accumulated millions of bitcoins, imagine what happens when they dump them because they are scared of the changes.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Bitcoin will be less secure with Unlimited or Segwit. The most security Bitcoin has in the current implementation which is known to have worked for 9 years. Changing the protocol is degrading security of Bitcoin.