Bitcoin is being invaded by Leftists

[franky1]

So essentially the owners have and should have the real power in their hands. Now this power implies persuasion rather than coercion, because you cannot hold a gun to the node's head, that would be very very bad. But you can persuade a node to uppgrade to 0.13.2 for example if you say that a big whale will sell his coins if they don't obey.


So it's private property, essentially a corporation, nodes and miners could do what they are doing, but the final authority is in the hand of the capitalists.


This is how it is. The market is ruling bitcoin. And so far things are working very well, we have a high agreement rate between Core developers and the market, because the price is going up and had not gone up so high if the agreement were not that good.

market does not rule bitcoin.
only fiat lovers think it does, because they do not understand bitcoin

if a rich person with alot invested in btc wants a vote he should run a node.
if a richguy thinks he can persuade nodes to jump into corporation camp A because whale threatens to sell coins.. guess what. a smart node operator wont change.
infact a node will actually not care in the slightest. or atmost.. think a whale selling coins is good.. its called a discount day when the price drops. people get to buy coins cheaper due to a whale dump, so essentially a dump is an empty threat and the opposite of a threat.

in short the whale has no power.
money and being rich should=no vote over how the network works. instead those actually securing the network should have a vote.

if a rich guy wants a vote on security he should actually be part of the security by running a node. then he gets a vote

[franky1]

I was only saying that by holding bitcoins you essentially own a part of the network. The nodes/miners are like the custodians or caretakers of the network.

So it's like the electrician or IT guy at the bank, he makes sure that the cables work and the bank servers are online. He does not own the bank, he is just making sure that the bank is online and can do it's job. The bank owns itself.


Same way with bitcoin, private key owners own the network, while the maintenance job is delegated to the miners/nodes. It is they who own the network, because if everyone were to sell, they would be hosting/mining a 0$ marketcap coin.

So all the essential power should lie in the private key holder's hands, because their value makes up the network essentially, the mining machines and node computers are just third party devices just like the bank servers or building that may be rented.

your analogy should be:

electrician / IT guy = dev
bank server = node operator

where the bank is free to choose which IT/electrician they use to fix a bug in the system.
where the node is free to choose which dev group they use to fix a bug in the system.

where the bank customers are free to choose a different bank or remove their funds
where the coin holders are free to choose a node or sell their coins

just saying "im rich, please change bank rules" does not cause any change.
especially if you are not part of a specific bank you wish to change.

EG rich guy uses webservice at virginmoney.com but wants HSBC to change.. rich guy doesnt even have a proper bank account.. goodluck to him

[RealBitcoin]

its called a discount day when the price drops. people get to buy coins cheaper due to a whale dump, so essentially a dump is an empty threat and the opposite of a threat.

in short the whale has no power.
money and being rich should=no vote over how the network works. instead those actually securing the network should have a vote.

That is not how markets work. If the demand is constant and price drops, the price wont go back high. So if many whales dump, the price will stay low at least for a considerable time period.

So that is bad for all people. The only direct power a whale has is the power to veto, if they dislike bitcoin, they sell, it's that simple. And then we shall see who will remain then.

But as I said, this is not a problem at all now, we are talking about very theoretical things. I love bitcoin, most whales , nodes, and miners love it too, so there is no point debating this.

if a rich guy wants a vote on security he should actually be part of the security by running a node. then he gets a vote

Well a rich guy also has the money to hire programmers and contribute to the code ***cough*** the Blockstream you are against ***cough***  and create security items like hardware wallets, to help bitcoin.

And they are already doing this, so dont tell me rich people are useless. Everyone contributes to bitcoin, be that a faucet user, or a hardware wallet creator.

[thejaytiesto]

in the UK the royal family.. as someone who shant be named would say.. owns the country by right. and has then due to the peoples wish formed 2 oligarchies. the house of lords and the house of commons.. to have the authority over the country and manage her estate. and they would par-lay(negotiate) in a meeting place called parliament.
the queen invites her chosen people into authority in the lords chamber and the people choose their desire for who has authority in the commons chamber.
the queen still reigns over parliament and has veto power over any consensus agreed in parliament

this is still not good because there is still a power house that can become onesided.

many people now want local councils to have authority of their own area's while coming to a general agreement of national issues within parliament. without the oligarchy of 2 chambers.

american version would be the senators meeting at the senate to discuss U.S. national issues and come to an agreement, while still having local powers to do their own thing within the national rules.

however i see no point in one guy "presiding" over the senate, one women reigning over parliament with veto powers over any consensus made

I would have no problem with democracy in politics if people were smarter and more informed when voting, and of course given better candidates.

But bitcoin is not subject to public vote, it is wrong to consider bitcoin public property, while it has a public essence to it, in the sense that anyone can join, that doesnt make them automatically legitimate bitcoin authorities.

The only people that should have authority in bitcoin should be the bitcoin owners. So if the top 1000 bitcoin holders want Segwit, their wish should be granted, since they are the majority of the owners. Just like any company, this is the default organization system.

there are millions of bitcoiners.
but the votes are not done by the millions of lite-node/webwallet users.
relax its not hill billy jack or scouser jake voting for bitcoin rules. its usually smart people doing more then just "spending".

they are going to full node users/pool owners (usually smarter than average joe) and the 'pledge' they vote for is not made by the users but the devs (smarter then node operators) where the node operators vote for the pledge they deem best.

having just one pledge is bad. one leader is bad. thats a dictatorship

these pledges have been developed over time, with compromises and concessions in most cases, to ensure there becomes no single dictatorial ruler presiding or reigning over the network. but instead adjustments in all the pledges untill they all meet to get to a 95% agreement. allowing all parties to not be a central authority but all come to an agreement.

but as you say if it was opened up to a uninterested public vote of millions of people. it may end up like the UK talent show..
voting a dog as the most talented brit.. twice..
or
voting in politics, a pigs-head f**ker twice.

but suggesting only centralized elitists should vote, is worse.

If you aren't willing to run a node, your opinion doesn't count. People shitposting on reddit and on forums opinion is irrelevant. You need to put proof of work in other words, people running nodes and supporting the software, not some nonsense about how "people" want bigger blocks. Notice the big quotes on "people".

but suggesting only centralized elitists should vote, is worse.

This is what would happen with bigger blocks. Fewer and fewer people would be able to run their own node at home. Use your brain for once.

[RealBitcoin]

I was only saying that by holding bitcoins you essentially own a part of the network. The nodes/miners are like the custodians or caretakers of the network.

So it's like the electrician or IT guy at the bank, he makes sure that the cables work and the bank servers are online. He does not own the bank, he is just making sure that the bank is online and can do it's job. The bank owns itself.


Same way with bitcoin, private key owners own the network, while the maintenance job is delegated to the miners/nodes. It is they who own the network, because if everyone were to sell, they would be hosting/mining a 0$ marketcap coin.

So all the essential power should lie in the private key holder's hands, because their value makes up the network essentially, the mining machines and node computers are just third party devices just like the bank servers or building that may be rented.

your analogy should be:

electrician / IT guy = dev
bank server = node operator

where the bank is free to choose which IT/electrician they use to fix a bug in the system.
where the node is free to choose which dev group they use to fix a bug in the system.

where the bank customers are free to choose a different bank or remove their funds
where the coin holders are free to choose a node or sell their coins

Yes.

just saying "im rich, please change bank rules" does not cause any change.
especially if you are not part of a specific bank you wish to change.

EG rich guy uses webservice at virginmoney.com but wants HSBC to change.. rich guy doesnt even have a proper bank account.. goodluck to him

That depends how rich you are, if you hold 100,000$ you are considered rich in Ghana. But you probably cant change a major banks rules.


If you hold 10 billion$, you can buy a lot of shares in a bank and have enormous influence. In bitcoin if you hold 100 BTC, you are rich in some people's eyes.


But if you hold 2 million BTC, you have the power to crash the price by 12%, that can cause a lot of miners to go out of business, so that is raw power in of itself.

Having bitcoins is just like having shares in a company, it gives you real leverage.

[franky1]

its called a discount day when the price drops. people get to buy coins cheaper due to a whale dump, so essentially a dump is an empty threat and the opposite of a threat.

in short the whale has no power.
money and being rich should=no vote over how the network works. instead those actually securing the network should have a vote.

That is not how markets work. If the demand is constant and price drops, the price wont go back high. So if many whales dump, the price will stay low at least for a considerable time period.

So that is bad for all people. The only direct power a whale has is the power to veto, if they dislike bitcoin, they sell, it's that simple. And then we shall see who will remain then.

But as I said, this is not a problem at all now, we are talking about very theoretical things. I love bitcoin, most whales , nodes, and miners love it too, so there is no point debating this.

first part. if whales sell.. invstors buy.. price drama is meaningless and is just a shift of wealth.. on a global long term out of box.. bothing changes.
for every sell there is a buy.
what however would change.. is if whales didnt sell.. but  put their coins into a address where their is no privkey. taking a large amount of coin out of circulation permenently has more persuasive power.. but just selling them doesnt.

if a rich guy wants a vote on security he should actually be part of the security by running a node. then he gets a vote

Well a rich guy also has the money to hire programmers and contribute to the code ***cough*** the Blockstream you are against ***cough***  and create security items like hardware wallets, to help bitcoin.

And they are already doing this, so dont tell me rich people are useless. Everyone contributes to bitcoin, be that a faucet user, or a hardware wallet creator.

second part.
exactly my point. if the rich want power over bitcoin they need to get involved and actually be part of the consensus. you have proven my point.
blockstream investors get a vote by being part of blockstream and thus have a connection to the nodes.

but just standing on the sidelines not even having a real tie to security of bitcoin has no power.
$1mill funded address vs $0.10 funded address does not matter. it does not cause more hashing power to magically protect the network more. or less.
what does protect the network is the diversity in getting involved with the network by being part of the peer to peer(node)  security

do not confuse the tx peer to peer spending. with the network peer to peer security. they are 2 separate things.
hoarding coin in an address does not affect difficulty. does not affect hashing blocks does not affect consensus.

rich people cant just proclaim their wealth. they actually have to DO something

[franky1]

If you hold 10 billion$, you can buy a lot of shares in a bank and have enormous influence. In bitcoin if you hold 100 BTC, you are rich in some people's eyes.

just having $10bill but not buying shares.. makes you powerless

so yes if you have money you can buy alot of shares/ have alot of NODES to gain influence.(though this can be deemed a sybil attack)

again just having funds in a bank does not make you own the bank. you have to be part of board of share holders
again just having BTC in address does not make you own network. you have to be part of consensus of nodes

[RealBitcoin]

for every sell there is a buy.

I dont think you understand how markets work, because only the bid column counts, if there are no buyers you cannot liquidate your wealth into equal amount of value in other currency. So a deep bid column is critical.

If people are selling, the bid column gets thinner, and as a result price usually drops to (ask+bid)/2 levels.

So a whale selling is a big deal, because if nobody buys up the excessive ask orders, then the price will go down. It is a powerful form of veto.

second part.
exactly my point. if the rich want power over bitcoin they need to get involved and actually be part of the consensus. you have proven my point.
blockstream investors get a vote by being part of blockstream and thus have a connection to the nodes.

but just standing on the sidelines not even having a real tie to security of bitcoin has no power.
$1mill funded address vs $0.10 funded address does not matter. it does not cause more hashing power to magically protect the network more. or less.
what does protect the network is the diversity in getting involved with the network by being part of the peer to peer(node)  security

do not confuse the tx peer to peer spending. with the network peer to peer security. they are 2 separate things.
hoarding coin in an address does not affect difficulty. does not affect hashing blocks does not affect consensus.

rich people cant just proclaim their wealth. they actually have to DO something

Of course, I am sure people who have > 500,000$ in bitcoin host their own node, and broadcast their transactions from there. It would really be a small cost to for that security.

Especially if they are investors, they probably invest in other businesses, that host nodes as well.

So a whale owning bitcoins, and investing it in many places, is good for bitcoin, and makes the node count grow.

If you hold 10 billion$, you can buy a lot of shares in a bank and have enormous influence. In bitcoin if you hold 100 BTC, you are rich in some people's eyes.

just having $10bill but not buying shares.. makes you powerless

so yes if you have money you can buy alot of shares/ have alot of NODES to gain influence.(though this can be deemed a sybil attack)

again just having funds in a bank does not make you own the bank. you have to be part of board of share holders
again just having BTC in address does not make you own network. you have to be part of consensus of nodes

I am sure most rich people have shares in the banks they hold their money in, there is no reason to not have a stake in your own financial protection.

Same with bitcoin, rich people host nodes, hire programmers , fund audits of code, ,etc...

[franky1]

for every sell there is a buy.

I dont think you understand how markets work, because only the bid column counts, if there are no buyers you cannot liquidate your wealth into equal amount of value in other currency. So a deep bid column is critical.

If people are selling, the bid column gets thinner, and as a result price usually drops to (ask+bid)/2 levels.

So a whale selling is a big deal, because if nobody buys up the excessive ask orders, then the price will go down. It is a powerful form of veto.

its a powerful DISCOUNT DAY. .. temporary price drama.. sellers lose due to price drop, buys gain due to discount..
infact id take my buy orders off the market and let them drop it and then buy even cheaper.
now for the big picture.
its just temporary price drama.. Past: person A had it.. future: person B has it.. overall bitcoin has not been destroyed, there are stil 16m coins in circulation. all that has changed is whos hand it is in..

second part.
exactly my point. if the rich want power over bitcoin they need to get involved and actually be part of the consensus. you have proven my point.
blockstream investors get a vote by being part of blockstream and thus have a connection to the nodes.

but just standing on the sidelines not even having a real tie to security of bitcoin has no power.
$1mill funded address vs $0.10 funded address does not matter. it does not cause more hashing power to magically protect the network more. or less.
what does protect the network is the diversity in getting involved with the network by being part of the peer to peer(node)  security

do not confuse the tx peer to peer spending. with the network peer to peer security. they are 2 separate things.
hoarding coin in an address does not affect difficulty. does not affect hashing blocks does not affect consensus.

rich people cant just proclaim their wealth. they actually have to DO something

Of course, I am sure people who have > 500,000$ in bitcoin host their own node, and broadcast their transactions from there. It would really be a small cost to for that security.

Especially if they are investors, they probably invest in other businesses, that host nodes as well.

So a whale owning bitcoins, and investing it in many places, is good for bitcoin, and makes the node count grow.

but just holding 200k in coins. has no power alone.. it does not improve security if 1 person has 200k coins or 100 people have 2k coins.. actualy being a node and actually doing something more then holding makes you worthy of having a say of the network.

If you hold 10 billion$, you can buy a lot of shares in a bank and have enormous influence. In bitcoin if you hold 100 BTC, you are rich in some people's eyes.

just having $10bill but not buying shares.. makes you powerless

so yes if you have money you can buy alot of shares/ have alot of NODES to gain influence.(though this can be deemed a sybil attack)

again just having funds in a bank does not make you own the bank. you have to be part of board of share holders
again just having BTC in address does not make you own network. you have to be part of consensus of nodes

I am sure most rich people have shares in the banks they hold their money in, there is no reason to not have a stake in your own financial protection.

Same with bitcoin, rich people host nodes, hire programmers , fund audits of code, ,etc...

and they should use the nodes as the vote. not just waving a public key in the air.

[RealBitcoin]

its a powerful DISCOUNT DAY. .. temporary price drama.. sellers lose due to price drop, buys gain due to discount..
infact id take my buy orders off the market and let them drop it and then buy even cheaper.
now for the big picture.
its just temporary price drama.. Past: person A had it.. future: person B has it.. overall bitcoin has not been destroyed, there are stil 16m coins in circulation. all that has changed is whos hand it is in..

You still dont understand.

If the bid column is thin, the price collapses. The ask column usually follows the bid, because matching orders get executed.But if there is no bid column, the coins are worth shit, there is no market then.

So it does matter how thick the bid column, is and how much you can sell. If there is not enough orders, or not enough oders in the future, then bitcoin price drops.

What is the price? Its the highest bid order you can sell, if you cant sell at that level, then you lose money.

If you bought for 1m $ @ 600$ ASK price, and sell at 580 bid price, then you lose 33,333.33$. It's that simple.

I hope I dont have to explain basic math to you.

but just holding 200k in coins. has no power alone.. it does not improve security if 1 person has 200k coins or 100 people have 2k coins.. actualy being a node and actually doing something more then holding makes you worthy of having a say of the network.

There are no people who are rich and do nothing. Most people who got rich like Voorhes and others, are building projects and doing good service for the bitcoin economy.

If you got rich outside, and put your money in bitcoin just for safekeeping, even then, you might use your other powers to promote bitcoin.

I see dozens of big investors constantly on TV talking about bitcoin, sure they are bitcoin owners, and they are promoting it, call it greed or whatever, but they are helping.

So pretty much everyone who has a lot of coins is helping bitcoin, because they have a direct stake in it. Thats how greed works,

and they should use the nodes as the vote. not just waving a public key in the air.

Why are you so obsessed with the nodes?

A very rich guy can setup 100,000 fake nodes easily with multiple IP addresses. But he wont, so they have the power to rule over bitcoin , but they wont, because it is not in their interest.

But you should not ignore money, it is a big power to have a lot of money, and one way or the other they will have influence in bitcoin.

[franky1]

You still dont understand.

i do. if im a buyer. why would i be grabbing coins at $600 if the price was $580.

like i said id cancel my buy orders.. which means i am not a "taker", but a "maker" my orders would be on the the orderline 0-580. i would not be part of the 600+ group.
so id cancel my orders, which as you said to make the price easier to drop and make the discount day even better offer for me.

i would ask why are you so obsessed with the price drama that is only temporary and has no affect on security.
remember a seller cannot sell unless there is a buyer.. it doesnt matter what the price is. they cannot get rid off their coins unless some one buys them.
bitcoins dont just disapear and sellers may not even be able to get rid of all of their coins even if they tank the price.
their power is limited and buyers have more power and dropping the price is not a threat but a positive.

Why are you so obsessed with the nodes?
But you should not ignore money, it is a big power to have a lot of money, and one way or the other they will have influence in bitcoin.

but saying just having money and waving a public key at some website by signing a message to say "i vote for A" is not helping. and has nothing to do with bitcoin security.
we both agree if those with money want a vote, they should get involved. and not just wave their money in the air.

again waving a signed message to say "i vote for A" should cause a bitcoin rule to change. then thats just "buying votes".
those involved in the rules should have the power to vote on what rules they want to have.. not some rich guy, who is just there to be rich.
as for why im obsessed about nodes. its simple nodes are the security of bitcoin.
afterall seems in spring this year you and others were arguing that R3 investing funds into bitcoin was bad. but this autumn your saying R3 investing money is good.
hint if you deem blockstream funding which then funds matt corallo, gmaxwell, luke jr and others is good. then check out R3 involvement in blockstream since March.. hypocrisy: hate XT due to R3 funding, love blockstream due to R3 funding

anyway.. this brings us back round to the main topics hypocrisy

people have been telling you that the lefty-righty debate is deceptive because it explains nothing.
you do realise that banks love socialism.. they love having the social pot of money and when things go wrong they get to cry and get a bailout from that social pot.
you do realise thatt at the same time they love authoritarianism because they want a monopoly and be in control.
simultaneously they hate authoritarianism because regulations are a headache and they want deregulation.
they love monarchy because the peoples "trust" in what is illustrated on a bank note. (queens head in the UK) brings value to the bank note. yet they hate monarchy for the same reason as hating regulation.

as for individual people.
everyone can fit into both left and right both at the same time. because they may hate something for one reason but be shown to love it for another reason.
left and right are an empty non descriptors to cause a divide by confusion. where only the sheep think they belong in one of the options because they dont see the big picture.
and then in politics one party says "im left" and another says "im right" where really they are as bad/good as eachother

[CasioK]

its called a discount day when the price drops. people get to buy coins cheaper due to a whale dump, so essentially a dump is an empty threat and the opposite of a threat.

in short the whale has no power.
money and being rich should=no vote over how the network works. instead those actually securing the network should have a vote.

That is not how markets work. If the demand is constant and price drops, the price wont go back high. So if many whales dump, the price will stay low at least for a considerable time period.

So that is bad for all people. The only direct power a whale has is the power to veto, if they dislike bitcoin, they sell, it's that simple. And then we shall see who will remain then.

But as I said, this is not a problem at all now, we are talking about very theoretical things. I love bitcoin, most whales , nodes, and miners love it too, so there is no point debating this.

if a rich guy wants a vote on security he should actually be part of the security by running a node. then he gets a vote

Well a rich guy also has the money to hire programmers and contribute to the code ***cough*** the Blockstream you are against ***cough***  and create security items like hardware wallets, to help bitcoin.

And they are already doing this, so dont tell me rich people are useless. Everyone contributes to bitcoin, be that a faucet user, or a hardware wallet creator.

Yes, everyone contributes to bitcoin including those noise makers on this forum because one way or the other you get to see them make good suggestion that can help improve the condition of bitcoin not to talk more of a rich person that has all the resources to sponsor people who can bring positive impact with bitcoin.

[RealBitcoin]

\
i do. if im a buyer. why would i be grabbing coins at $600 if the price was $580.
......

Ok, what do you think about this post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/59kflj/its_becoming_clear_to_me_that_a_lot_of_people/


While increasing the bitcoin capacity one way or the other is good (preferably not hardfork).

You have to realize that by making the burden of nodes harder, we are losing on the bitcoin security.

This is the hypocrisy that you are telling, you would love a 2mb hardfork, but you also ignore that that diminishes the node count, which you have been talking about being so important to you.

[DooMAD]

This is the hypocrisy that you are telling, you would love a 2mb hardfork, but you also ignore that that diminishes the node count, which you have been talking about being so important to you.

Even when Lightning is available, opening and closing a payment channel still involves an entry to the blockchain, so an increase to the blocksize at some point is inevitable.  It says in the Lightning whitepaper itself that, even in ideal circumstances, it could only scale to ~35 million users without touching the blocksize.  To put that into perspective, that's roughly the population of the Greater Tokyo Area.

[RealBitcoin]

at some point is inevitable

Yes at some point but not now. Not now when a large portion of earth population has shitty mobile internet with like 500mb daily limit download.

Lets stretch it another 5 years, and hope that in that amount of time, these shiity ISPs will uppgrade their junk and give a decent internet to people.

[franky1]

You have to realize that by making the burden of nodes harder, we are losing on the bitcoin security.

This is the hypocrisy that you are telling, you would love a 2mb hardfork, but you also ignore that that diminishes the node count, which you have been talking about being so important to you.

lol core weight is upto 4mb
whether its 1mb base 4mb weight
whether its 2mb base 4mb weight

the burden is the same

but i do love your endless uses of umbrella terms that do not have defined explanations.
you say things like left-right that anyone can flip anyone into either side.
but also from other topics.. you use "hard fork" as a single answer..
however, there are atleast 3 possible outcomes, due to atleast 3 different scenarios that all are under the umbrella term hard fork
1. consensual upgrade
2. controversial
3. intentional split

as for your rich guy deserves a vote..
if he USES the coin to:
pay for devs to develop a more secure implementation
starts a business making prebuilt nodes
good.
but if he just waving an address in the air like he just dont care, but still demands a vote.. bad
and him saying he will sell coins if he doesnt get his way.. is not a threat but a discount day. people will actually taunt him on to sell his coins so they can get cheap coins.

as for the node count
by having more capacity onchain people can transact more onchain. so will want to protect the chain thing they are actually using each day..
however if people only use off chain or sidechains. they will only use the LN node or protect the sidechain where they are transacting. thus offchain and side chain has the psychological risks of diluting the node count more.
EG you protect core/blockstream because its what you use.. you dont protect satoshi-qt0.3 because you dont use it.
as things develop you will protect the thing you will be using daily

[hv_]

love the numbers. but i also love how those numbers keep adding up without the context.

smart people have done actual counts, so in context
out of 4427 core node:
only 1615 desire segwit (0.13 flag)
the other 2812 break down as
only 1737 that agreed to the consensus round tables segwit then baseblock pledge(0.12 flag)
and 1075 have not decided anything in the last year.

out of 5276 network node:
only 1615 desire segwit (0.13 flag)

saying 1615 adamant about segwit, beats 2812 other nodes in the same camp.. is wrong on so many levels.
saying 1615 adamant about segwit, beats 3661 other nodes in the network.. is wrong on so many levels.

even funnier, even amungst those numbers desiring segwit some are hoping that core sticks to the pledge of eventually raising the base blocksize.
so if it was a segwit debate with no hope of base blocksize growth, its less than 1615 out of 5276 nodes.

but have a nice day with your brushed over numbers that does not explain reality.
much like saying someone is going to vote for hilary clinton because they have bumper sticker has been there since bill clintons era.

You know what smart people are doing? they are coding and inventing things like segwit, condifential transactions, lightning network and so on, instead of posting on forums all day.
The smart people are working on the software.

What kind of 'work' is needed to change or remove a single line of code concerning the max block size?
You cannot earn any merrits with that. Yes SW is cool, but done brutally complex i.o. to skip the HF (politically?).

[RealBitcoin]

lol core weight is upto 4mb
whether its 1mb base 4mb weight
whether its 2mb base 4mb weight

Well yeah but segwit wont make the blocks 4 mb, it will just process that amount of data. The extra data will be discarded I think, i am not exactly sure how it works technically.

But if a hardfork to 2mb happens, that will increase the blocksize directly, and the future size of the blockchain, which will inevitable make full nodes run harder.

And segwit also allows running partial nodes, where you process less data and dont need that high bandwitdh.