miners decide the chain but users can decide not to use it.

in a way, its a bit like a political party system...

miners: vote on blocks to form winning chains
users: vote on winning chains to decide what is accepted

Can't agree on that.

If Bitcoin goes mainstream it will need blocks of size of tens of gygabytes to conduct payments of world population onchain. It means that only huge companies, such as Google, and governments will be able run full nodes, that's centralisation.

Of course, nothing prevents payment processors such as Visa from conducting payments denominated in Bitcoin. But it would require users to keep their BTC in banks. That means users will need to trust banks, banks will have a lot of BTC at their disposal to use in fractional reserve banking. So we do need second layer solutions such as LN.

On the other hand, in my opinion Core devs are too stubborn in refusing blocksize increase. If increasing to 2MB would put an end to the civil war, I support such increase. In my opinion even 8MB blocks are still handleable for a Bitcoin enthusiast running a full node.

So ultimately it's users who decide which chain will live.

Although I admit, that an attack from miners can create a lot of confusion, loss of faith, market cap and so on.

Sounds like you support ETH? If so, it's a symptom that you don't understand what value blockchain brought to us.

If that's so easy, can we expect Bitcoin to be overtaken by powerful entities such as governments to be turned into fiat? Governments like fiat, they like to control money, the more contol they have the more they like it.

1) ETH forked off ETC. Starting right from the split ETH had much more PoW (and still has much more PoW than ETC). How ETC survived and still being accepted by markets, users?

2) Why are we sure, that there won't be more than 21M BTC? What if miners decide to remove the cap. What if the chain with increased emission will have more PoW than the original chain? Would that force us to accept modified BTC instead of original?

Edit your comment/quote. I did not say -> Users rejected it, twice.

Apparently this noob doesn't know what is a harfork.

Engineers developing diesel engines must stop using common rail, turbocharging and other improvements developed in last several decades, we must respect the path of Rudolf Diesel.

There are only 10% BU nodes today. And it's already been demonstrated that a majority of those are run by 1 person from the same cloud hosting service.

Users have had the opportunity to switch to a 2MB blocksize client, twice. Users rejected it, twice.

LOL you mean when Antpool switched to BU support and the market crashed?

The entire security of the system is held together by science and guarded by (computer) scientists.

Core es mas querido por los usuarios

our current scalability dilemma.

Dear Greg (and other Core developers),

Your response is deeply worrying me, I've decided to stop being just a spectator and register to make a comment, I hope this will help you and Core in some way.

Let me just begin by stating that I've been a long time Core supporter.

When Core released a new version of their Bitcoin software, I knew there was a certain level of quality control as well as forward thinking, a certain level of trust. It is because of that trust that I've never even considered looking at other alternatives, until now.

As a general fan and user of digital currency, I have no allegiance to Core/BU/XT/Miners or who ever, I don't feel personally attached to any party, I am just interested in Bitcoin's general progress, how Bitcoin will change the world for the better and make people's lives easier. I am also a realist, that means I will only make judgment base on practical matters instead of some arbitrary ideal moral high ground. So, everything I am posting here will be as neutral as you can get from a Bitcoin user.

With that out of the way, I must say, what happened in the past few months have really begun to change my perspective on Core.

For example the current BU fiasco, my understanding is that, a year ago some miners wanted 8MB blocks, some wanted 4MB, there was the usual struggle and bargaining between users/miners/nodes/developers, eventually the miners made a compromise, the "Hong Kong Agreement" was made, in which miners agreed to support Segwit and a 2MB block size increase, Adam Back signed the agreement, only to have you call them "dipshits" and broke the agreement afterwards. Source.

Because of that, now, a year later, the block chain has reached the 1MB block size limit, there is a huge tx backlog and as a result the tx fee has sky rocketed, users are affected and many have moved their money to alt coins. The miners have no choice but to choose the other best options: Bitcoin Unlimited.

So how can anyone honestly blame the miners and BU at this point? Seriously, even if you're paid to do so, deep down you must know this crisis was coming a year ago, and it was Core's responsibility to prepare for it.

Core and some of its fans (some are obviously paid) keep repeating miners and BU are evil because they are splitting the chain, sure you can say that, but seriously, what did you expect them to do. They already compromised and was ignored, now there is a tx backlog, Bitcoin is losing ground to competitions, Core is sitting on their asses holding the code hostage, breaking agreements, making insults, what else are the miners supposed to do. What did Core expect them to do?

I am not even defending miners/BU here, it's all about the block size limit, I am using a pure practical pov: If BU didn't exist, miners would have switched to something else without the 1M limit, simple as that.

Anyone who keep pointing their fingers at miners/BU is just trying to ignore the fact that Core did nothing about the 1MB limit for years.

The thing that really irritates me though, is that the block size limit wasn't even in the white paper, so why would Core hold the code hostage and refuse to increase the limit from 1MB? 1MB is such a small number, how can you even justify not increasing it?

The fact is many Core developers were openly supporting block size increase, but then became strongly opposed to it after they started working for Blockstream, now I don't care for all the conspiracy theories, but can you people just come out and explain why the sudden change of heart?

I find that really puzzling, it's like watching people who used to love pizza, suddenly hate pizza after they work for McDonalds, it just doesn't make sense. Mind you these Core members didn't just simply change their taste, they went from openly supporting raising block size limit to openly hating it with a passion.

Every explanations I've read from Core in the past few months, can basically translate to: "Our Segwit and LN will be soooooo great, who cares what people actually need right now, stop talking to me, I don't care, I already know what you want, if you don't agree with me, you're just stupid."

If Segwit and LN is so great, it'll naturally be adopted when there is a real demand. Core already had the market share and user trust, they already have the golden goose, so why do they have to kill the goose just to get the Segwit golden egg?

Core kept chanting how great Segwit and LN are, it may be true, but their actions tell me they are really insecure about them, otherwise they wouldn't need to artificially create a crisis just to force everyone to use it, I don't know about you, but I believe actions always speak louder than words.

Satoshi saw this tx backlog coming when he was designing Bitcoin, the block size limit isn't even in the white paper, the 1MB limit was only a temporary measure to stop spam in the beginning.

Satoshi's white paper clearly states that consensus should be made base on CPU power, not the number of nodes or IP addresses, not the number of developers, not online poll ratings, not social media, not forum polls, just CPU power. Satoshi made this decision not because he trusted the miners, but because he expected everyone to be selfish and act on their own interests, and of all the pieces in the ecosystem, hash power is the most difficult to fake and come by.

Miners are constantly in an arm race, hash rate never stop climbing, in this constant zero sum survival of the fittest, they get nothing the moment they stop competing, eventually miners become so focused on competing with each other, fine tuning every last knob to gain an hash rate advantage.

Regardless of what anyone else is doing, miners are always at maximum greed under the highest pressure, like a piano wire.

And that is the beauty of the Bitcoin design: All miners worry about is turning electricity into profit, they don't even care who is running the show, they ignore everyone else equally, because no amount of sucking up to users or developers will help their hash rate, but, miners do care about the stability of the ecosystem, because their profit depends on it. Given a choice they'd rather not make any decision that may shake the grounds and risk their profit.

So, in a world full of greed, lies, mistrusts, secret schemes, accusations and back stabs, miner's indiscriminately pure and focused self serving nature makes them the perfect center of balance. When nothing is reliable and nobody can be trusted, the simplest and purest form of greed becomes the constant.

As a digital currency, having consensus base on hash rate is why Bitcoin succeeded while other digital currency failed.

Miners generally don't care about what anyone else is doing, unless some other part of the system did something really short sighted (read: stupid) to tip the balance, and that is EXACTLY what Core did, miners tried to make compromises but were ignored and insulted, now the back log is full, miners are simply reacting in self defense.

Anyone who still blames the miners at this point, simply don't understand Bitcoin and why it succeeded.

Regardless of what you think of BU or Segwit, from a development point of view, Core simply failed, it failed because it ignored user's immediate and practical needs. They sat on their fat asses for a year, making promises after promises on some ideal vision, while there is a huge tx backlog on ground floor.

There are good and responsible Core members, but unfortunately a lot of Core members, especially the loudest ones, seem to be focused on excuses, launching personal attacks, making empty promises, making threats, playing victims, while ignoring practical and immediate user needs.

Greg, you may have a big ego, but you're not Bill Gates, and Bitcoin Core is not Microsoft Windows, block chain technology is young and there are competitions, Bitcoin users are mostly early adopters, they are sharp and they like trying new things, you can't play Bill Gates and use Microsoft tactics and still expect to win.

It is true that you currently have some status and spot light, you have your financial backings, you have your crew and echo chamber, you have your side chain patents, from your pov it really looks like you can do whatever you want, insult people, ignore users, and nobody can do anything about it.

But, in this field anything can happen in a year, so many new and shiny things have come and gone.

Pride goes before a fall, Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo all spent billions and failed because they ignored their users. Blockstream only have $75 million, they already made a big mistake, but for some reason they're not turning around, instead acting even cockier than Microsoft.

Judging from how you ignored Satoshi's email and only arrive back to the scene years after Satoshi has gone. I have reason to believe you're the type of person that lacks intuitive foresight.

So I am going to give you an advice: You're on the wrong side of history, but you still have a chance to turn around.

You can't treat your users like they are idiots, they might not find out the truth the first day, they might be fooled by censoring tactics, but eventually there will be a crack, and once people find out you've been lying to them, the trust is gone forever, they'll never trust you again.

Look at the Iraq war, the so called WMD, look at Powell, there were massive misinformation campaign to push people to war, emotions were high, lies mixed with half truths were flying around, SJWs and useful idiots were screaming on top of their lungs, so many people were convinced there were 100% right.

But a decade later, everyone just remember Powell as the guy who lied on TV holding a bottle of white powder.

Where do you think you will be in 10 years, Greg?

Are you going to be remembered as someone who made Bitcoin better, or someone who missed the Bitcoin boat twice?

Bitcoin Core team, this is for you: You had your chance and you failed, no matter who you think you are, you're on the wrong side of history and I don't believe in you people anymore.

And before you try to point fingers and accusing me of helping a side, I am telling you, I don't care who wins, I am tired of your BS and I am going to ditch Bitcoins until things clear.

I am not going to risk my hard earned money on a bunch of short sighted arrogant insecure emotional lying pricks and bitches stuck with messiah complexes who scream a lot and talk big but can't solve simple and practical problems right in front of their noses and screw things up for everyone then turn around and play victims like some entitled pre-adolescent brat asking for a kick in the face.

That's all.

Alex

I don't force anyone to do anything.

new entity
percentages are not determinable
power of VETO

Miner's ability to deploy their own nodes doesn't matter since the others will still VETO.

Miners' own interests are to keep Bitcoin alive, not to choose a scaling system that gives them the most profit.  Their interests are subjective and if they choose something which the markets and the nodes don't like, it will collapse.  The markets have the most power of all because they can decide to make miners' earnings worthless if they want to.  If miners go and choose BU and no one likes it they'll be mining dust.

When ASICs were created, those miners split their power with the
validator nodes that do not mine.

When BU made that invalid block a few weeks ago, the nodes rejected it
because the miners DO NOT control.

ASIC Miners inadvertently gave half their power to Validator Nodes back in 2011.