Nobody knows that and we do not need to know that, if adoption does outpace technological limits then off chain solutions will most likely be what most people will use or that traffic will just move to other cryptocurrencies as well, I would be satisfied with such an outcome, we would most likely end up with a slightly larger blocksize that would still most likely increase over time. We could maybe find agreement here?
I concur, nobody knows this. However, the current trend suggest a possible slowdown when it comes to technology improvement (unless we move on from the current materials).
If we can agree that we do not know this we have progress, that is good, even if we have different theories on technological progress it is irrelevant as long as we can agree to scale according to the technological limits that exist today.
The problem it seems is that you will not even allow for that possibility to happen, from my perspective to allow the market to make this choice. Maybe from your perspective we could say that we only increase the blocksize as much as technological limits will allow, if you presume that such increases will be no where near enough to satisfy the demand in transactions. Whereas I might be more optimistic about the future, it does allow for a situation that maybe we could both agree with? The reality will be revealed to us as time progresses. Allowing for the possibility of both visions to come to fruition depending on both the choices of the market, the rate of technological progress and the speed of adoption.
See this is where it does not make more sense to me. You want more capacity on the block chain -> Core offers Segwit as an alternative instead of 2 MB blocks (more are not feasible right now). In the meantime there are other people developing second layer solutions. These people are not necessarily Core contributors. So where is this assumption coming from that Core is trying to prevent a decision? I'm certain that after Segwit, IBLT and weak blocks there is a chance of 3-4 MB blocks to be safe (albeit calculations have to be re-done with Segwit to gather new data).
I can explain my position better, first of all I think it might be good to recognize in our discussions that we have a difference of vision, which means we often have opposite perspectives on some things, this both visions can live together narrative I think does rely on this acknowledgement and understanding.
First of all because of the complexity of Segwit agreement will be difficult to find, in principle I do actually like SegWit I would like to see it implemented. It is just some of the specifics that I disagree with, like the way that it discounts certain transaction types, not a discussion I think we should get into here but my point being is that a simple blocksize increase is much easier for everyone to agree with. I also would like to see much more review and critique of the segwit code before it is implemented which would require a much longer time period, I would also want it to be implemented as a hard fork. As you can see there are numerous differences of opinion on segwit whereas most people should be able to agree with a two megabyte blocksize increase in its entirety. Because there are less variables and less controversy at play.
There is also the timing that is involved, our differences of vision is important to consider here. I think it is damaging to adoption to have this uncertainty around scaling. Furthermore I think that the blocksize limit should be significantly above avarage transaction volume, we are already far passed that point, I would have liked to have seen a blocksize increase earlier, so any further delays are obviously in conflict with this perspective. Whether you agree with it or not the big blockist consider the current situation to be hurting adoption and dire if there is a sudden spike in transaction volume, keep in mind that some small blocksist want the blocks to be full in general and the big blockists consider this to be undesirable, try and appreciate the other sides perspective that way it will be more likely that we will be able to reach a good compromise.
Segwit also just does not achieve enough of a throughput to be a satisfactory compromise, considering there is also much disagreement over how much of a throughput benefit Segwit will give has also been debated, since it also relies on the speed of adoption of those transaction types. This is just another example why a blocksize increase to two megabytes is a much simpler solution that everyone can agree with and be happy with for now.
Another point, which I think is not relevant right now to constructing a viable narrative for both visions living together in peace and cooperation. Is that it is important that we both agree to scale Bitcoin directly according to the technological limitations that exists today, however we might disagree on what the technological limitations of today are, since this still involves value judgements in terms of what we consider to be the lower threshold. However for now we can at least both agree that two megabytes is possible, it is something that both sides can agree with. Which means we can continue without a split. This is important, I do not think it is worth endangering this possible peace because of the preference of deploying segwit first by the small blockist camp.
However I think that in the way that I have described here both visions can actually live side by side if both sides are willing to compromise a small amount, we can avoid a split. I think two megabytes does represent this compromise. Can you see the logic in this, can you see how this understanding could be an amicable solution to the blocksize debate?
Segwit now -> block size limit increase in 2017. That's also a sort of compromise is it not?
Like I said, I suppose it is not enough of a compromise, Segwit now is controversial and contested for the reasons that I have already explained. Which does not make it ideal for building consensus. I also do not think it should be rushed, which most big blockists now consider necessary, I am sure Core is also feeling the pressure to release Segwit in time, I do not think that this is conductive to the production of quality code. Blocksize increase first would immediately gain consensus across most camps and it would achieve a higher throughput, I do not see any reason why not to do this since it would relieve a lot of pressure on this entire situation.
I suppose I would like to see these principles continued to be expressed on the Bitcoin blockchain directly.
But second layer solutions do not damage these principles at all. Even if the majority of transactions are happening on the second layer, the first layer will continue to function with all those fundamentals intact (I hope).
I agree the second layer does not damage these principles at all which is why I think these visions can live side by side for now, until most likely time teaches us both the best path. However not increasing the blocksize in favor of the second layer does damage these principles in the first layer. Specifically cost and I would argue censorship resistance and decentralization, however I know you would disagree on these last two points, which we can with this narrative of both visions existing together.
However I would like to respond with what I said earlier in this post, it is true that we both do not have the data to back up any future scenario either worst case or best case. Maybe which is why keeping the possibility open for both visions going into the future might be the more flexible and wise course of action.
Technically, yes. We don't have any concrete data. We do not have concrete data on what is going to happen with the node count if we scale only via the block size limit. However, I think that you fail to realize (most do) that a lot of bad people stand to lose a lot because of Bitcoin. Due to this, they will try everything in their power to discredit, damage, destroy it. This is why we have to prepare for worst-case scenarios.
I think adoption is important for increasing the node count which relates back to the blocksize, I realize this is a push and pull relationship but this is how I perceive it and why I think increasing the blocksize is what is best for decentralization.
Its funny I suspect most sincere people on both sides suspect the other side of being a government conspiracy.
I really do think I might be on to something with this understanding. If you can agree with me on this point, compromise slightly as I am doing as well, then we could actually have an amicable solution to this blocksize debate. Who knows this could even represent real progress in our discussions. What do you think, do my thoughts regarding this understanding have some merit?
Well it your last few posts seem to be more reasonable the usual. I do agree. This is far better then the people on r/btc finding ways of attacking just about anyone and anything that does not agree with their views.
This is better, I agree, I am pleased we are at least finding some common ground here. This is how real compromises can be build and come to be understood. May I dare say it we are actually having a more civil discussion here.
iCEBREAKER what is this I thought we were done with the noise pollution!? Let's not feed the VerbalSatire please!
The last few posts seem decent. There is no 'cheering' and pointless 'propaganda'. Still way better than certain people that I have put on ignore due to their idiocy.
I think I might take that as a compliment, there are certain people here that I just choose not to respond to anymore, that I bother to discuss this with you in the first place you can take as a compliment as well.
