Bitcoin Forum

Hello,

Can anyone explain in easy words what is BU and SEGWIT ?
What they mean for normal users of bitcoin ?
What is the difference between them?
Who decide which one will be choosen?
What will change after BU or SEGWIT will be choosen?

Please use easy words to explain people who don`t have idea about it.

As far as I understand BU propose bitcoin scaling as designed years ago, by increasing block size.
SegWit, instead, proposes some major changes to protocol. Lots of new code and changes in transaction processing arrived with an update.
SegWit, if not failed, supposed to be able to resolve scaling problem without increasing in block size, provide some new transactions types and some other progress in Bitcoin.
BU, in the other hand, is a proven concept that never failed before and JUST WERKS.
Problem with BU: blockchain size and traffic between full nodes will rise.
Problem with SegWit: if blockstream team fuck up with coding everything will be ruined beyond repair.

This thread again.....REALLY?

BU - Bitcoin Unlimited
SegWit = Segregated Witness

Bitcoin Unlimited is a version of the Bitcoin reference software that allows miners to agree to create blocks of transactions that are larger than 1 megabyte. It allows each miner to choose for themselves when they want to risk creating a larger block and provides a way to announce the largest size supported to help other miners make such a decision.

Segregated Witness is a feature added to the version of Bitcoin reference software that is commonly known as "Bitcoin Core". It reduces the size of transactions in the traditional bitcoin block so that more of them fit. It does this by moving parts of the transaction out of the traditional block in to a separate area. By moving these parts it opens up new technical possibilities for transactions.


They both provide solutions that will allow more transactions to confirm. As such the transaction fees required for fast confirmation are likely to be reduced.  If enough people run Unlimited, then we won't need to plan a hard fork every time we want to increase the block size.  If enough people run software that supports SegWit, then there will be new technical possibilities for bitcoin transactions.

If the two options end up forking the blockchain, then you'll need to know which Bitcoin a merchant supports before sending them a payment.  You'll need to make sure you use software that matches the software that the merchant uses or else they won't receive your payment.
 

We all do.  If everyone runs software that supports Unlimited, then Unlimited is "chosen".  If everyone runs software that supports SegWit, then SegWit is "chosen". If everyone runs software that supports both, then both are "chosen". If some people decide they hate SegWit and refuse to run any software that supports it, and some people decide they hate Unlimited and refuse to run any software that supports it, then there is a possibility that the network will split into two incompatible versions of "Bitcoin" both trying to call themselves the "Real Bitcoin".


More transactions will probably get confirmed.  Transaction fees might get smaller. New technical possibilities for transactions may be possible. Blocks might get bigger.

Bitcoin is designed to produce 1 block of transactions every 10 minutes.  The size of that block is now limited to 1 MB.  That comes down to a transaction capacity of about 2-3 transactions per second.  Bitcoin is now reaching this transaction rate, and hence, people have difficulties getting their transactions confirmed (written in a block by a miner).

Back in the old days, Satoshi had put this limit to 32 MB, but it was lowered later to "avoid spam".

As you can see, the block chain is now full:

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

and the number of transactions is now limited:
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-per-block?timespan=2years

The fact that there is now more demand for transactions than the bitcoin block chain can provide, is now monetized by the miners, who take only those transactions with the biggest fees.  This establishes a (rising) fee market.  

https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees-usd

This makes that miners are not very keen on "solving the problem": they would slaughter the hen with the golden eggs.  It also makes that small bitcoin transactions make no sense any more: only large transactions, on which one pays large fees, will get through.  Small wallets will be frozen for ever.  The guy with half a bitcoin will soon not be able to transact any more.  But the venture capitalist transacting 1000 bitcoin will have no problems paying a high fee to get his transaction on the chain.  A very lucrative thing for miners at first sight: only big transactions, big fees, and small blocks.  No ordinary people paying a book or a second-hand i-phone in bitcoin.

Nevertheless, there are several solutions proposed to this problem.  One is simply to increase the block size again.  BU.  However, in order to do so, one needs a HARD FORK.  New blocks (bigger than 1 MB) will not be accepted by old protocol.  As such, chances are that two different coins emerge: a "big block BU bitcoin", and a standard bitcoin.  Like ethereum split in ETC and ETH.  

The other solution is segwit.  Segwit does several things.  It allows more transactions within a single 1 MB block by "compressing" transactions in a certain way.  But, most importantly, it prepares for the possibility to have the Lightning network on top of bitcoin.  That would make certain nodes "banks" and then you can send your transactions through these banks to your destiny, WITHOUT USING THE BLOCK CHAIN.  The block chain would only hold some collateral of these banks to keep them honest.  Segwit doesn't need big blocks (well...) as the block chain wouldn't be used much any more, and the "banker's network" on top of it would send the payments.  A bit like normal banks do when you tell them to send money to another bank's account.

What do people say about these two solutions ?  One thing for sure is that just "increasing the amount of transactions per block" (by increasing the block size, or by compressing them) only kicks the can somewhat further down the road.  So much is for sure.  The "banker's layer" is a radically new way of transacting bitcoin and can, in principle, handle WAY WAY larger numbers of transactions.

But:

1) some people say that bigger blocks will make bigger block chains and will discourage small nodes to exist, leading to "centralization".  To me, that argument is bogus.  Non-mining nodes don't matter really, but for the owner of the node.  People do not agree over this, but when one looks at the investment by miners and their centralization, then the cost of a bigger hard disk and a faster PC is not going to be the main centralizing force.   But nevertheless, this is a main argument against "bigger blocks".  For me, the main argument is that it is just kicking the can.

2) other people say that segwit and the lightning network will totally "fiatize" bitcoin, with a banker's network that can only be afforded by big bitcoin holders (to put the collateral on chain) with large computing infrastructure.    This is most probably true.  However, this kind of infrastructure is the only infrastructure that can allow BIG VOLUMES of transactions in bitcoin.  You can't have it both ways.  

3) Segwit proponents don't want the block size to increase, as this would be too much of a relief and wouldn't pressure people to accept segwit, which is why they are furiously against a block size increase.

4) many miners see the lightning network as a serious threat to their fees, as most transactions are now not on the chain.

So there is now a religious fight between both camps.

Incorrect.


With Segwit, consensus is uniform (i.e. the actual definition of the word "consensus") and so the blockchain will be in no danger of spontaneously splitting according to diverging blocksize preferences. And in addition, Blocks will get bigger, there is no "maybe".


With BU, the consensus system is changed so that blocksize consensus no longer exists. This means that the chain can be easily forked, constantly. And there are no guarantees the blocksize will increase, the miners could easily flood the network (or networks, once BU has forked into BU 1, 2, 3  and so on) with voting nodes to force through whatever blocksize they like (which of course includes smaller blocksizes than 1MB). Note that the banking industry would love this outcome, as it would be all too easy for their corporate media buddies to claim convincingly that Bitcoin was then a failed experiement

It's kind of like a phoney/cold war going on at the moment. When thermonuclear war breaks out, don't move your bitcoin until the radiation settles.

That said, with segwit, bitcoin BECOMES a banking industry...

Explain. Writing ... is not an explanation

So why block can`t have 32 MB like Satoshi did ?

Why not get it correct instead


Satoshi's original client had NO blocksize limit at all, the 32MB limit was on network messages, not blocks


Then, who introduced the 1MB limit? It was Satoshi

Theoretically, it could.  Problem is we can't seem to all agree.

What will Lightning Network nodes with sufficient transactions (a big network hub) look like, you think ?  

no

ethereum intentionally split by banning opposing nodes (google it: --oppose-dao-fork)
hence why you can spend coins on eth but keep coins on etc because they do not inter-communicate to add the coin to the mempools of both sides

---

this is different than a consensus where only one chain survives and the opposition simply cannot sync because it has different rules and simply ends up orphaning everything it see's

---

to avoid being left unsynced, it needs to ban the opposition so that it doesnt see the oppositions higher blockheight and also doesnt see thier own attempts getting orphaned and doesnt end up trying to grab the highest height just to orphan and remain unsynced.

---

when it comes to which to choose and what happens next is dependant on what the oppositions do.
for instance without there being a banning event.

its either consensus (high acceptability rate by the network) where by the high acceptability will see low orphan rate because they win the height more often and where the minority orphan out ALOT but ultimately one chain. and the minority just dead and unsynced because although they see the highest blockheight they will orphan it because the data wont meet their rules.

or controversial(above medium acceptability rate) where by the above medium acceptability will see more orphans rate because they win the height but have orphans happening often as there is a bit more of a fight for height.. but ultimately one chain. and the minority just dead and unsynced

---

whether its soft (change occurs only by pools trigger) or hard (change occurs by NODES and pools trigger)
consensus, controversial .. or worse intentional split(banning AKA bilateral split) can happen.

yes even going soft, core(managed by blockstream) can (and admittedly will) split the network
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/

---

the minority "could" then ban the opposition and only communicate with pools the nodes can accept and this is then allowing the minority to build their own chain

---

BU, classic, xt and about a dozen independent implementations do not want to ban nodes and create an altcoin.
they want to stick with one network that grows using consensus

only core(managed by blockstream) want to split... but blockstream are trying to push fake doomsdays that their opposition will create an altcoin, but secretly(well now public) it will be blockstream that will cause the altcoin but they want to play the 'victim card' pretending its their oppositions fault

It didn't ban nodes.  That instruction simply installed an ETC client or an ETH client.   With a different protocol.  It is as if you could use a bitcoin core client, and give the instruction --run-litecoin.

And transactions from one chain WERE transmitted to the other chain, which caused a lot of surprise.  But this is normal: miners wanted the fees, so they went LOOKING AFTER valid transactions (not on the network, but on the block chain !).

Again, this is not true.  A "higher block count" doesn't matter if these blocks are not valid.

If the chain contains 5 more blocks of 3 MB, and your node considers only blocks smaller than 1MB, these blocks are simply invalid.  You don't consider them.  You keep the last block of 1 MB as the highest one.  The miners keeping with the old protocol will do the same, and build on this block.  So you will now accept this next block.  And the next 1 MB block.  And the next and still the next.  You are on the old protocol chain.

On the other hand, a BU node will accept these 5 extra blocks as valid.  It will consider the 1MB block next to it as orphaned.  and the next one and the next one.  Because if BU has more hash power, the chain built on the 3 MB blocks which you consider valid is growing with more PoW.  You are on the new butcoin chain.  And there's no confusion.  A BU node will only accept the BU chain (and orphan the old bitcoin branch).  A bitcoin non-BU node will only accept the bitcoin blocks of < 1MB, and consider the other blocks as invalid blocks.  Whether they communicate or not.

But you should seriously distinguish between a soft fork and a hard fork. 

lol bitcoin and litecoin are different coins. etc and eth are different coins. they have their own networks.
they have their own mempools.
they do not intercommunicate. because they only connect to the side they like and ban from talking to the side they dont like. to avoid the orphan drama.

yes i agree initially it was a consensus/controversial event. but then turned into a bilateral split. by nsuring they avoided the orphan drama by avoiding inter-communication

Brrr. The BU sounds like a horrible idea, sort of like a live fork-o-rama with all sorts of different blocks floating around  :o

So the best compromise would be a Segwit with slightly larger blocks, the new efficient transactions that consume less space, but without the Lightning thingy

Why is no one doing that? Ideology war?  ::)

I don't think you can avoid the lightning network once segwit is live.

There is no orphan drama when there is a hard fork.  Blocks on one chain are simply invalid on the other one, and respective miners build on one or the other.
There is no NEED to communicate, but it is not the fact of stopping the communication that makes that there are two chains of course.  The double-valid transactions WILL get across (miners will pick them from the other chain) and the block information is not relevant because mutually invalid.

butcoin and bitcoin will also be entirely different coins, like ETC and ETH.  And yes, most probably their clients will end up only talking to one another within their network, but it is not this "banning" that splits the chain.

nodes see the highest block height. request the data. and then realise its a rule breaker and orphan it.
nodes see the highest block height. request the data. and then realise its a rule breaker and orphan it.
(endless orphan clusterf*ck where the node never syncs)

for a node to get this (lower 1mb block) it needs to sever communication with the chain thats 5blocks higher.. then it only see's the 1mb block as the highest height to then sync to that. without the orphan drama




your thinking too 2-dimensional. one argument your only considering the rules. next argument your only considering hashrate. next argument you only considering blockheight. next your only considering pools and next your only considering nodes.

your not running multi-dimensional scenarios where all aspects interplay

bitcoin has many dimensions that all enforce each other.(as thats the masterpiece of why bitcoin consensus works) and come to the conclusion of(soft or hard):
not banning= orphans and unsynced(dead) nodes for minority
banning= no orphans and minority nodes synced to a less higher chain because you cant see the opposition, thus able to build a second chain without a fight


i have many times. its you that over use soft and hard like there are only 2 results

you have been mis sold the fake dooms day speech by blockstreamers
hard and soft are umbrella terms.. below these umbrella terms are sub categories of what can happen


even in a soft (pool only) event can lead to a bilateral split
even in a hard (node and pool) event can lead to a consensual one chain agreement,

you have been mis sold by blockstreamers only mentioning best case scenario of soft and worse case scenario of hard. and false promoted it as being the only 2 conclusions

No-one will force you to use the largest channels. They will have their place, for super cheap non-sensitive purchases. But if you want it more private, you'll be able to traverse the Lightning network in the smallest channels. Both ways, and anything in between are possible with Lightning's design



lol, think harder then, Dino.


You need to run a separate piece of software on top of Bitcoin to use Lightning. Pretty easy to avoid, just do nothing :)

That s a very easy one. I try:

Its not supported by AAA banks, nor by bbb banks

but by   C banks - having worst rating ever seen.

 ;D

I meant: you cannot avoid people to build a lightning network on top of bitcoin, once segwit is alive.  You may try to stay outside of it, that is true.

Wait, in another thread you said they were bitcoin transactions, even though they are not in the blockchain.

So now they are "bitcoin transactions" that require additional software on top of bitcoin?

I'm not even aware of what blockstreamers say.  I just apply logic to the different possible outcomes.

My point is that nothing of all this will ever happen.  Bitcoin will simply stay as it is.  There will not be segwit, nor BU.  
Unless:
1) bitcoin is further centralized, and that centralized entity decides whatever it wants to decide
2) bitcoin loses its first mover edge.  At which point I think non-consensual hard forks will be possible.

But in as much as the consensus mechanism of immutability remains at work, there's no possibility for any of this.

I'm just exploring the logical possibilities of the different actions.

The biggest clusterfuck that can happen, is a backward compatible hard fork that loses miner majority after 6 months.

Indeed, how does a mere mortal use the lightning network ?   I try to imagine how this works.  Suppose I'm a mere mortal, using bitcoin, say, 10 times a year to buy something on the internet, and to sell something else on the internet.  And Joe, my neighbour, too.  And Jack, my other neighbour, too.  Each of us, we have, say, 5 bitcoin or so.  And we buy and sell 10 things a year with bitcoin.  Like 100 million other mortals.  Suppose that one of these things is, I want to buy a second hand i-phone from a guy in New Zealand (not a professional salesman, just a guy selling his old phone).  
In the old days, he would send me his bitcoin address, I would send him 0.1 bitcoin, and he sends me the phone.  I could use escow eventually.  That's it.  But now, I don't see how "setting up a lightning channel for just 0.1 bitcoin" to a local node, is going to help.  If I do so, at the end, we settle, with a transaction on the chain.  So this takes one on-chain transaction on my part, and another one on the New Zealand side if we set up, and close our connections for this single transaction.

So the only way in which this is beneficial, is that I open a lightning channel to a local node with all the coins I will probably need this year, for my 10 transactions.  But in order for that channel to *last that long*, I need *a reliable node* that will stay open that long, and has sufficient other connections that my payment can reach my destination.   The only way for that to be viable, is that my neighbours, Joe and Jack and so on, also use one of these central hubs, that will reliably transmit stuff across the network ; has enough "escrow coins" to open all these channels, and has enough profit to be a reliable node.

In what way is that "other node" different from a local bank that keeps my coins, knows my transactions, and so on ?  Yes, I keep control.  Yes, I can terminate at any moment.  But the service will have to be paid for.  The destination may be censored.  AML will apply.   What's the difference with a bank account ?

What is segwit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1ah5V10DP8

I don't mind SegWit and LN - I really don't.

They should used because users want to use them, not because they are the only way to get a transaction that costs less than $5.00.

The only way we the users (merchants and consumers) have a choice is with bigger blocks. Keeping the blocks too small for the network isn't letting us choose, it is demanding we either adopt LN or adopt an altcoin.

BU is the users fighting back, saying that is not an acceptable way to treat us.

-=-

The core developers may be exceptional coders, but if they are ignoring the real world issues that exist and instead are trying to force us to use a solution the company they work for is financially invested in, that's authoritarian - it isn't choice, and I won't be a part of that. I'll choose the code by coders who are not authoritarian.

I think you think too much that there are "important people deciding".  If you think that, you think that bitcoin is centralized, with some hierarchy that makes "political decisions", like in the fiat world. 

We are just witnessing a dynamical system that *takes its own decisions*, without "important people" or "a hierarchy" deciding rationally, and that was the whole point of a trustless, distributed consensus system: the consensus emerges from a dynamics, and not from some central authority.

It is like a free market deciding on a price.  There's no authority to turn to, or hierarchy to try to talk to, if "the price isn't right".  The price is a dynamically established phenomenon that nobody in authority, decided upon.

In the same way, the consensus over the protocol in bitcoin is, in as far as bitcoin is a decentralized consensus system, just as dynamically determined as the price in a free market with many actors.  Wanting some price settings is wanting an authority, a cartel, a monopoly or something of the kind. 

Of course, like a free market, "market makers" try to set the price to their hand.  But in as much as there are sufficient diverse players in a market, there are no strong market makers that decide upon the price.

The consensus protocol is supposed to "keep status quo" on all economically relevant parameters.  If this mechanism is sufficiently strong, it will simply be *impossible* to modify the block size.  And that's not the fault of Joe or Jack.  It is bitcoin's consensus dynamics.

Development of the software IS centralized with blockstream / bitcoin-core.

Bitcoin Unlimited and SegWit both of them have advantages relative to each other. No easy to decide choose one.

retaining majority for 6 months leads to many more than 6 months for the minority to try over taking. because they are many blockheights ahead.
losing advantage/chance as time goes on

for the last 8 years people have debated the whole 51% attack vector that can undo months/years worth of work.
but that those fears are dismissed when you actually calculate what is required for a minority to overtake to then gain blockheight(and chainwork).

if 51% A - 49% B
in the first block
460,000X0 - (event trigger)
then
hashrate vs hashrate B 'could' get height become majority
but chances are A get the next block

460,000X0 - 460,001A1
B then see 460,001 and reject it.
B then see 460,001 and reject it.
blah blah blah. they cant sync

at worse B ban communication to A for B to build their own chain(altcoin)(lets imagine B they reconfigure their node in 10 minutes (quick recode and banning) meaning A gets ahead in that setup period that B is wasting
A: 460,000X0 - 460,001A1 - 460,002A2
B: 460,000X0
by which time B are then a block or 2 behind.
B then start mining and making a block, but ofcourse A is also making blocks too
460,000X0 - 460,001A1 - 460,002A2 - 460,002A3
460,000X0 - 460,001B1

over an average of a day(144 blocks) with a 2% differential. A could gain ~3 blockheight
460,144A - 460,144A
460,141B - 460,141B

over an average of a week(1008 blocks) with a 2% differential. A could gain ~50 blockheight
461,007A - 461,008A
460,957B - 460,958B

so now B chances of overtaking are slimmer.

over an average of 2 weeks(2016 blocks) with a 2% differential. A could gain ~100 blockheight
462,015A - 462016A
461,915B - 461,916B

B have not created 2016 blocks in 2 weeks. so their difficulty drops(meaning they can make blocks with less chainwork)
you may think this makes B have the advantage because now they can make blocks faster. but... here is the clincher

if B accelerated by having a few % lower chainwork needed advantage due to lower difficulty. they are still 100 blocks behind. so aswell as building blocks they have to make up for the loss. meaning
if A just made 2016 blocks in the next 2 weeks. B has to make 2116 just to get even.

and here is the punch line.
chainwork.
if it got to a point of
464,031A - 464,032A
464,031B - 464,032B

464,032B's chainwork will be lower than 464,032A chainwork.
imagine each block cost 100 chainworks per block to solve
over the 4 weeks A has a chainwork of 403200 for block 464034A
over the 4 weeks B has a chainwork of 389088 for block 464034B

meaning if B joined the network to attempt an over throw, it gets orphaned anyway, not due to blocksize, not due to hashpower, not due to blockheight, but due to chainwork.

Nah, it is open source, everybody can make his own node software.  I suppose that mining pools do that, in order to implement their mining strategies.

That's like saying CentOS development isn't centralized because its open source.

Anyone can make their own software, but no one has the software distribution channel they have. They still decide what goes into the clients that the majority of people use.

The open source nature allows the community to have a chance to change that - and that is what BU is all about, an attempt to change the centralized development of the Bitcoin software.

Seems to me that the tide is turning in favor of BU.

Funny how markets work.

until blockstream decided to avoid consensus by going soft(pool only) and then having extra bits added to bilaterally split to avoid node consensus at activation. if pools stupidly people allow it (26% are all for it as of today)

and then blockstream having their nodes centred nearest the pools as the upstream filters (FIBRE) to filter preferential data downstream...
thus making them the spoon feeders because everything has to feed through them first due to everything else baned out as being an upstream and only accepted as a 'compatible' downstream.

---

segwit wont achieve the quadratic/malleability fixes..(fix is not about activation but disarming voluntary segwit keypair users(malicious people will avoid moving funds to those keys, thus quadratic/malleability will still occur using native keys))
segwit wont achieve the expectant tx count boost..(fix is not about activation but disarming voluntary segwit keypair users(malicious people will avoid moving funds to those, thus maximum expectant boost wont be achieved due to those remaining using native keys))

segwits secret(now public) goal is to grab the network and everyone running their software and needing their rules. leaving anyone else off the chain.

Well, normally, the protocol is protected by the consensus mechanism that imposes immutability, that is, status quo.  So the software will not be able to change the protocol.  That is what we are witnessing.  We see that the dynamics of the consensus mechanism is such, that everything evolves in such a way that nothing happens.

When things get bad enough, change happens... one way or another.

Kind of like an alcoholic hitting rock bottom.

Often, the change that happens then, is not one of the alternatives you thought it was going to be...

Exactly. We need to make a move now, or only after a large or even multiple large crises, we will fork. Probably after then, Bitcoin will have tumbled down a deep bearish trend, and may snowball further due to many people jumping ship.

As long as the move isn't made out of desperation, because that's how bad choices are made.

I agree with this. That is one of the reasons I like BU. The miners have an intelligent well thought out plan for how the fork will be activated IF it is activated, and it is done in three very cautious steps with each step taking a full difficulty cycle to complete. User activated soft fork is the only thing that could throw a wrench in their plan, as that may require an immediate fork. They do not want to do that.

With the blocks currently full however, LN then becomes something people have to use out of desperation to conduct normal business rather than out of choice.

Well, if "miners have an intelligent well thought plan", why didn't it happen then already ?  Because the "evil people at core" are not allowing them to collude and activate BU ?  Of course not.  Simply because they cannot agree. And happily, that they cannot agree.  Because if they did, it would mean that there is a >51% collusion between miners, and bitcoin's immutability is gone.

Also, "users" cannot activate segwit.  ONLY miners can.  segwit being a soft fork, it is something users have no say about, and if it gets activated, something users cannot "downvote".

So users cannot impose segwit at all.  

Users cannot decide to activate BU either.  But at least, when miners (with their cunning plan, remember) activate it, if they do not collude for >90%, there will be two coins, and users can then *vote with their money* on how the market cap of bitcoin will be divided between the new coin and the old coin.

Again, nobody is imposing anything on anybody. The evil core people do not have the magic power to hold BU back.  BU not happening, is simply because there's no consensus over it.  Segwit not happening, is simply because there's no consensus over it.  As it should be in a distributed trustless consensus system that provides for immutability.

Also, it is not because they are running BU software to "vote", that they are willing to actually activate the genuine hard fork, meaning, making really blocks > 1 MB.   You don't know how many of the BU voters only do this to avoid segwit, but have no intention to really do the fork.  Because you still have to mine your first block > 1MB and not have it orphaned...

If everything is exactly as you say, then what kind of freedom is bitcoin in question, if theoretically, bitcoin users are dependent. It seems to me that bitcoin today still gives independence to the user, and it is not excluded that tomorrow everything will change not in a good way.

Bitcoin's principle is trustless distributed consensus, which is supposed to lead to "immutability", that is: the rules are graved in stone FOREVER, and the block chain will never pedal backwards: what's on the chain is there for ever, and the rules are the rules for ever.

So a bitcoin "user" subscribes to these rules and that principle, and it is working as it should: the rules are immutable.  Nobody can change them.  Only "insignificant technical details" can change.  Once a technical aspect becomes an economic aspect, it is frozen in.  Like the 21 million coins.  Bitcoin users cannot "decide" to change that number.  It is frozen in.  And now, the block size, and the scarcity of transactions, is also frozen in.  That's bitcoin.  A frozen system, with immutable rules.  As it was designed to be.  If that system is not working as you want to, as you expect to, as they told you to, that's a different story.  But bitcoin is what it is, and will never change.  Unless the immutability is broken, and a centralized authority decides to change something, and has the central power to impose it.  But then it is not a decentralized trustless consensus system any more.  Which can happen.

Such a consensus system, however, can split if the tensions between different views become so untenable, that there is more profit to be made when the community splits, rather than when it stays locked in: a hard fork like ETC/ETH.  But that would sacrifice the most valuable aspect of bitcoin, the most important thing it has going for it: its "first mover" advantage.  So as long as this is strong, I think there will not be enough "partial consensus" to fork away.