Why do you bother, just repeating all the lies.
First of all, I apologize for my bad English.
From my point of view they are not lies.
I live in a Latin American country. Little by little, they approach my people interested in bitcoin, and before yesterday, one of those people bought. It made its transaction with a fee of 1.5 dollars, and it took a couple of hours to be confirmed. An unattractive experience for someone who starts with cryptocurrencys.
For a person from the United States, Europe, or any developed country, $ 1.5 may seem like a small amount, but here, in a country with high inflation, it is no small matter.
In theory, bitcoin emerged as an alternative system in the midst of a crisis, as an opportunity for unbanked people, to make things more just. Bitcoin, slowly, is giving away users, merchants and utility to other cryptocurrencys.
In addition, Sewgit with regard to code, is much more complex than an increase in block size. I agree that changes to the protocol should be well tested and audited, but Core has had much more than a year to do the research and testing needed for a block size increase.
Independent of the quality of its developers, Core has shown great intransigence, lack of will, and poor political coordination.
There is lots of spam in the mempool you can see the transactions, look at what they contain.
Ok, it's not real adoption ... and we do not need cheaper transactions and predictable confirmations.
There is no such thing as lightning coins, and it won't support fractional reservere.
Lightning Coin is a euphemism.
As another user mentioned in this thread, it would take 30 years for each person on the planet to open and close a lightning channel. And although maybe bitcoin will never use it all, eventually 1MB will not cater. How will I get my bitcoin bought in an exchange if the network does not support low-cost transactions?
Most Core Devs believe that the block size will increase when its actually necessary.
I would be very grateful if you could indicate where these statements are. However, Core is not a unified entity. As you will know, developers in the past have already signed up for an increase in block size, agreement that is not respected.
There are even developers who think 1MB per forever is enough.
The more people who run a node the better, strength of the network comes from everyone having a stake and not just relying on miners to protect us.
I agree, nodes are important, but we must also consider that the more users get the bitcoin network, we will potentially have many more nodes than they now exist.
These are not even points for debate, your statements are just lies.
I repeat, they are not lies. It was just an absurd and ironic point of view.
I love Bitcoin, it's always been that way. But it frustrates me to see intransigence, discord and hate in the community. It bothers me that some want to move forward and leave others out, when those "others" were the ones who gave life to the network in its early years (I mean foot users, not speculators, small businesses, miners, etc).
I'll speak more generally, we all want Bitcoin to scale, eventually to probably millions of transactions every few minutes.
If transactions are extremely cheap (such as $0.01) the blocks will be full of spam, some jerk will fill them up. So we need a fee market to find an equilibrium between cheapest fees and spam prevention.
Although it is probably technically possible, it seems excessive to require a payments system to remember & process every single transaction, I mean if I buy a coffee in Tokyo, do I really need to send that information to 1000's of nodes around the world. Can we achieve security & decentralised consensus of my holdings without that?
So this is where lightning comes in, you get all the benefits of Bitcoin without the on-chain foot print. I'm not sure how lightning will develop but I can imagine you will occasionally create an on chain transaction to open the channel, it will have a some of your coins in, and this last you days/weeks/months before you need to close it.
One of my biggest issues with Bitcoin has been the 10 minute confirmation time, 0-conf is insecure, so how do I reliably buy a something in say a shop without waiting for confirmation, L2 is the answer.
So rather than perpetually increasing the block size, which is the lazy approach to scaling, I think the Core Dev's are trying to implement a bunch of other optimisations and improvements to maximise the efficiency of the network.
I don't have references to Core Dev's saying they would like a block size increase to happen at some point, but the only Dev I know who wants small blocks (actually he wants a reduction in size to 300k) is Luke-jr. I believe we will need to increase the block size, probably very substantially at some point, but first we need to optimise the entire system, MAST, Schnorr, side chains etc. Then we can scale the blocks as required.
If you want Bitcoin to improve rapidly in a co-ordinated and efficient approach then a centralised power structure would be far better. Bitcoin is the first de-centralised system, we are all learning how its going to work (or fail). The best hope we have of retaining a non-centralised power structure is by fighting to keep it away from corporations and other powerful entities. If we fail to do this, it just becomes just another payments system and loses all it's value.
Throughout history centralised power structures have emerged from almost every situation, but Bitcoin is hopefully different. It's going to take time, but we have time, lets not rush it, let's get it right. The people desperate to fix the block size are those who are financially invested, they need these upgrades to support their businesses. They think Bitcoin should adjust to fit in with what they need so they can build faster and therefore Bitcoin can
grow faster. If we placate these businesses, Bitcoin will grow faster, but it will be at the expense of de-centralisation.
This fork is not about 2x block size increase, it is about sacking core and replacing them with dev's who will conform. I know high fees are painful, but if the miners hadn't resisted segwit a couple of years ago we would be a lot further down the road of Bitcoin improvements. It is not the Core Devs who are holding back development. This is illustrated by the 'no replay protection' in 2x, clearly this is designed to attack the existing chain and destroy it, thereby sacking the Core devs.
I believe the best solution for those who don't like Segwit and the current chain is to go to BCash, we can then compete in the market without the war.
Thank you very much for your answer.
In general, I quite agree with you, and although I would like to be able to develop ideas more elaborately on the subject, the language barrier makes it very difficult for me.
But, in simple words, it seems to me that increasing the size of 2x block is not about dispatching Core developers, or anything like that. They will no longer have the hegemonic and centralized power of bitcoin development. That for me is called decentralization and I see it as a positive point.
Core perfectly can continue to develop for bitcoin, I even think that many of its proposals are interesting (and it is the market that must decide which paths we should take), but their threats to leave bitcoin if x2 wins, I seem childish.What bothers me of them, I insist, is their intransigence, lack of will and poor political coordination. Much of the hatred in the community comes from themselves. Threatening miners for example and endangering their business.
From another point of view, it could also be worth saying that it was the Core devs who slowed the development of bitcoin by not listening to a large part of the community, and imposing their vision over any other.
Poll
