I'm for simple on chain scaling using a bigger block size and believe most of the support to do other things is politically motivated or a result of misunderstanding via propaganda. 

The biggest myths are:

1. we need high fees right now
2. there is a danger to bigger blocks (aside from quadratic hashing)
3. if we increase blocksize we'll have gigabyte blocks overnight
4. node cost increases can be eliminated
5. there is no centralization risk with LN
6. we wont need bigger blocks with LN
7. we need segwit for LN
8. there's a specific plan to get worldwide scaling with LN in a p2p fashion

Uh.. not using a patented technology is more decentralized... you need that explained more? 

SegWit removes ASICBOOST (patented in China technology).

As for LN, why it is decentralised - well you and your business partner can conduct thousands transactions without need for anyone else, any pair of nodes can. And then collapse it into 1 on-chain transaction.

You can optionally use some federated mode too, that is an option, and setting up LN node is easy (not needing gigabytes of own data),
plus you can always do good old on-chain transactions, while rest of world pays for their coffee or toothpicks individually with one-by-one, or federated, LN.

I can't be anything clearer, you have to be a member of BU to make a proposal, and so you have to be invited be the existing membership, which created and invited itself.  It cannot be any more a setup for a dictatorship who's sole intention is to usurp power from the decentralized structure.

This is why there is 100's of core contributor's which is not a single team but many teams and many individuals versus a very very small handful that is the clique that is BU.

13 to 9 to 19 right now, in favor of code-based-algorithm.

I'm quite pleased with the result. 

I think putting the blocksize out of the hands of humans is a smart move.
Did you know the flexcap already is coded and comes (by defaulted disabled)
with Bitcoin Classic?

As for me in control of bitcoin's blocksize should be the most "savant" bitcoin people. Nor the users or nor the miners. Probably the developers who know very well in which way operate bitcoin and blockchain or probably the system itself if the developers will be able to build a such specific feature within the system.

There is no "blocksize problem". There is a transaction capacity problem. And Segwit _directly_ addresses that actual problem with a immediate capacity improvement.

And now Core's inability to properly manage and communicate their scaling solution is leading us towards a much more dangerous HF. A damaging contentious HF now will primarily be Core's failure, not anyone else's victory. Not exactly stellar risk management.

It is unfortunate that everything had to be bundled together like this. Especially when the contention in the BTC community became apparent. I understand there are technical reasons for doing so, but that's a lot of eggs in one basket.

I don't understand why people are calling BU a "fork coin". It's concept is good, I don't see anything wrong. If everyone else were to support it, there would be no two different coins, just one Bitcoin.

Segwit will not tackle the blocksize problem. It's a temporary fix them at will require a fork in the future.

As others said. No matter how big the block is, if somebody wants to, it will fill it. So the solution has to be .. something different.
I am not telling that SegWit is the best solution. I don't know.

Now.. from what I've read SegWit took quite a lot of time to be implemented and tested. The problem is indeed visible for long time, but it was not so serious and was revealed during spam tests. Also an interesting fact is that after such "high" period ends, the network clears itself in 1-2 days.

I still believe that somebody has interest in spamming the network, artificially making this problem big indeed.
Right now the mempool is the smallest I've seen in long time. https://btc.com/stats/unconfirmed-tx shows it at under 1MB!

Bitcoin needs altcoins because they are a competition, a challenge coming up with the best possible features that bitcoin doesn't contain and either needs to add to itself, or overcome like transaction confirmations, anonymity, fee, etc... Alts are needed because they can demonstrate how a better Bitcoin can look like...

Ok, then what shall we do?

There is a difference between "unequal wealth distribution" and "centralization".  Centralization happens, when decisions of change, permissions of participation etc.. can be taken by a small set of colluding entities (in other words, by one single meta-entity), changing former engagements, even with respect to one single participant.

In other words, when it becomes possible to vote, and to obtain a majority for change.  When one can vote, and one can hope to obtain a majority (that is, all positive voters are colluding), you have a centralized system.  Even if they consist of one million different voters, they have become a single colluding entity capable of change against the agreements made with a minority, even with respect to one single participant.

Of course, the smaller the number of votees needed to do this, the higher the probability of de facto centralization.  And if one single votee is possible, you have a truly centralized system.  

Whether these votes need to obtain 10%, 50%, 90% of whatever "stake" (nodes, real-life persons, stake, hash rate, quantity of prime numbers, amount of Mc Donnalds hamburgers eaten in the past or whatever) is allowing change doesn't matter.  What matters is whether such collusion can be reached or not.

The only way to actually change a decentralized system, is if ALL participants agree with it.  Decentralization is the way to impose "respect of contract".  The only fair way to change an existing contract, is if ALL parties signing the contract agree upon changing it.  "majority change of contract" is not done, it is ripping off the minority in disagreement.

And now, the question is: how can you obtain a "majority vote" in a truly decentralized system (centralizing it, in other words) ?
By bribing voters.  How can you bribe them ?  With rewards.  If a majority can vote relatively MORE REWARDS for themselves, the decentralized system becomes centralized, the minority is screwed and the contract is broken.

This is why one cannot have "rewards" in a truly decentralized system in its basic functioning (the system can be used to give rewards to people, but not by its intrinsic functioning) ; and why one cannot have voting systems or "governance".  

Centralization is bad, not because of "inequality", but because of "breach of contract".  Of unilateral contract modification, majority (of whatever weight) over minority (the screwed ones).

No pain no gain.
It will increase.
If economic majority supports UASF, even first UASF blocks are reasonably safe. Non-UASF blocks aren't safe at all, even if mining majority doesn't support UASF in the beginning.

ladixDev, this is for you. I hope you understand how we will win. Let's get busy coding and stop bloviating.  Make sure you deeply understand everything I have written in that thread for the past 2 days.

Understand everything about money and why OpenShare will win.

And so now I have finally butted heads with the richest whale in Bitcoin.

ladixDev, your heart wants a meritocracy. So let's go make one. Being angry or upset is not a plan. We have a plan.

Understand how everything is changing because we are leaving the fixed capital industrial age. You are still fighting the last war. Let's go fight the current war and we have the power. Coding is power. Use your power now to create meritocracy.


And it is not incongruent with unselfish behavior when we remove the Prisoner's dilemma of fungible money, which I think is roughly what Nash was trying to say.

No, we are not fine with these things.
We just try to not waste any more energy on repeating things that are obvious.

UASF is not going to work.
When the kids "activate" it by tweaking their nodes' software, the bitcoin network isn't even going to shrug on it - it's going to be that meaningless.