Which scalable solution is better?

[Abiky]

Among the different types of methods, to help Bitcoin scale, which one do you think it would be the best for the pioneer cryptocurrency to expand in transaction capacity?

Will it be SegWit, Lightning Network, Sidechains, or increasing block size?

Also, is there any reason why most Chinese pools are against SegWit?

I would like to know your opinion about this. 

[1715414662]

1715414662

[MadGamer]

People have different opinions on this one and the battle is currently between SegWit and Bitcoin Unlimited. I'm starting to have my doubts honestly and I don't think we will end enabling any of them , at least not for the meantime.

I believe that most of the Chinese pools are against SegWit because SW facilitate implementing the Lightning network and LN will basically make transactions Offchain and If that ever happens and all transaction become offchain , It will no longer be profitable for the miners , I could be wrong though.

[DooMAD]

I think we should activate SegWit and then do something like this.  The bizarre fixation everyone seems to have with the blocksize being a whole number is silly, when there's literally nothing wrong with 1.1mb or even 1.21mb if we adjust by 10% increments.  Fixed, rigid caps are also ill conceived.  The most pragmatic approach is a conservative and algorithmic dynamic blocksize with built in safeguards to prevent gaming the system.

[Kprawn]

In my opinion Blockstream should drop SegWit until it is really necessary and just up the Block size for now to 3 MB, to see if that would alleviate the

problems we have now. The spam attacks will be less disruptive and more expensive and we will move forward. Yes, increasing the Block size is not the

ideal solution, but it is the option that would be more popular. 

[European Central Bank]

I believe that most of the Chinese pools are against SegWit because SW facilitate implementing the Lightning network and LN will basically make transactions Offchain and If that ever happens and all transaction become offchain , It will no longer be profitable for the miners , I could be wrong though.

that could well be what they think, but they'd be wrong. lightning networks still need on chain settlements when they open and close. if it really did attracts tens of millions of users without much block size increase the fees they collected would be absolutely gigantic.

i think it's a control thing more than anything.

[AgentofCoin]

In my opinion Blockstream should drop SegWit until it is really necessary and just up the Block size for now to 3 MB, to see if that would alleviate the
problems we have now. The spam attacks will be less disruptive and more expensive and we will move forward. Yes, increasing the Block size is not the
ideal solution, but it is the option that would be more popular.  

What you are describing would actually create a more serious and more cheap spam attack vector.
When the blocksize is increased over time, the blocks will always need to be near full as a safe guard.
That is the sad fact right now. Otherwise, in a matter of a few months to a year, Bitcoin nodes
would no longer be able to maintain the network in a way to prevent governmental control.

I would only agree on a direct blocksize increase of 3MB in the year 2023, IMO.
I could change that opinion if improvements are made technologically that grants us new capabilities.
Otherwise, IMO, the gains now or soon do not outweigh the risks that would be shortly behind.

Bitcoin only exists now because it is currently uncapturable by governments.
Bitcoin is really a cat & mouse game, not a free market "let see how things go" kumbaya circle.
Under normal circumstances, Bitcoin is a weapon. You just don't see because it guises as money.
Don't be blinded by the price. Bitcoin must balance over time or it will be annihilated.

So, due to the foregoing, Lightning Network and other like types are currently the safest scaling.

[nillohit]

Among the different types of methods, to help Bitcoin scale, which one do you think it would be the best for the pioneer cryptocurrency to expand in transaction capacity?

Will it be SegWit, Lightning Network, Sidechains, or increasing block size?

Also, is there any reason why most Chinese pools are against SegWit?

I would like to know your opinion about this. 

I think Segwit is better than Bitcoin Unlimited 

[Abiky]

People have different opinions on this one and the battle is currently between SegWit and Bitcoin Unlimited. I'm starting to have my doubts honestly and I don't think we will end enabling any of them , at least not for the meantime.

I believe that most of the Chinese pools are against SegWit because SW facilitate implementing the Lightning network and LN will basically make transactions Offchain and If that ever happens and all transaction become offchain , It will no longer be profitable for the miners , I could be wrong though.

Well, only time will tell whenever any of the proposed solutions come into effect, once they gather the full acceptance of the miners. Seeing the stats, i'd say that both SegWit and Bitcoin Unlimited are head to head, with only a few percentage of difference between the two.

I'm concerned as with what issues would scalable solutions like these cause to the Bitcoin network, as it may separate the pioneer cryptocurrency into several independent blockchains (like what happened with ETH). If this happens, then Bitcoin's value would massively decrease. Just my thoughts. 

[aso118]

Even if Segwit is implemented, we will see full blocks very quickly. Increasing block size is the scalable solution.
Unfortunately, consensus on this doesn't seem to be forthcoming. Everybody agrees that there is a problem, but we seem to be stuck in status quo.

[lottery248]

Even if Segwit is implemented, we will see full blocks very quickly. Increasing block size is the scalable solution.
Unfortunately, consensus on this doesn't seem to be forthcoming. Everybody agrees that there is a problem, but we seem to be stuck in status quo.

yeah, block size increasing is one of the solution. however, we are not sure if the RAID works on synchronising the complete blockchain, because you are needing ~150 gigabytes of spaces in order to use bitcoin core. as well, increasing block size remains a problem: the higher bandwidth requirement.

[aarturka]

Increasing block size give us nothing except huge blockchain it won't prevent spam atacks and is going to increase centralization. First we need to activate SegWit and then decide whether we need larger block size or not

[kiklo]

Increasing block size give us nothing except huge blockchain it won't prevent spam atacks and is going to increase centralization. First we need to activate SegWit and then decide whether we need larger block size or not

Segwit is dead, better come up with something else.


 

FYI:
Litecoin fixed the spamming problem by

The fix implemented in Litecoin is just to charge the sender a fee for each tiny output he creates. For example, in this specific attack, the sender is charged one fee for sending to 34 tiny outputs of 0.00001 BTC. With the fix, that fee would be 34 times as much. So it would cost the attacker a lot more to perform the spam attack. The concept is fairly simple: the sender should pay for each tiny output he/she creates.

FYI2:
Why is BTC Core Devs so Stupid they can't implement the same fix?
BTC Core Devs should be Fired!

[doomistake]

Among the different types of methods, to help Bitcoin scale, which one do you think it would be the best for the pioneer cryptocurrency to expand in transaction capacity?

Will it be SegWit, Lightning Network, Sidechains, or increasing block size?

Also, is there any reason why most Chinese pools are against SegWit?

I would like to know your opinion about this. 

For me, it would be the increasing of the block size and that is the job of Bitcoin unlimited. Since the current block size cannot handle the transaction that we are waiting to be processed and confirmed in the blockchain, Bitcoin unlimited plans to increase the size of it for the faster transactions, so that none of us would get mad anymore because of the delay of our transactions.

And they are making their actions right now about this problem, in order to bring bitcoin network in more convenient for everyone who uses bitcoin, and that goes for the SegWit team also, though, I like Bitcoin unlimited more.

[Abiky]

For me, it would be the increasing of the block size and that is the job of Bitcoin unlimited. Since the current block size cannot handle the transaction that we are waiting to be processed and confirmed in the blockchain, Bitcoin unlimited plans to increase the size of it for the faster transactions, so that none of us would get mad anymore because of the delay of our transactions.

And they are making their actions right now about this problem, in order to bring bitcoin network in more convenient for everyone who uses bitcoin, and that goes for the SegWit team also, though, I like Bitcoin unlimited more.

Everything about Bitcoin Unlimited is great, as it allows miners and nodes to set their preferred block size. However, it is up to debate whenever this may centralize Bitcoin at some point since there would be no limit on block size, making the blockchain increase in size, and preventing the ability for any average Joe to support the BTC network (as mostly data centers would be able to store the blockchain data due to their large storage capacity.)

Still, there are a variety of scalable options to choose from Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin XT, and SegWit. It would only be a matter of time before one of these gets the acceptance of most Bitcoin miners, paving the way towards the growth of the pioneer cryptocurrency and helping it become used as a mainstream currency. Just my thoughts. 

[nikkisnowe]

I think we should activate SegWit and then do something like this.  The bizarre fixation everyone seems to have with the blocksize being a whole number is silly, when there's literally nothing wrong with 1.1mb or even 1.21mb if we adjust by 10% increments.  Fixed, rigid caps are also ill conceived.  The most pragmatic approach is a conservative and algorithmic dynamic blocksize with built in safeguards to prevent gaming the system.

This is what Bitcoin Unlimited does.  There is no fixed cap but it adjusts the block size based on the historical number of transactions in the network and adjusts itself both up and down to accommodate.  Are you aware of this?  I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm seriously asking the question.  This adjustable blocksize is one of the reasons that I'm in agreement with BU and if people are made aware of this aspect of BU, they might become more receptive of it.  It also shows that if many are not aware of this aspect of BU, it shows that Roger Ver and other supporters are not doing a good job of promoting, and educating people on the benefits of BU.

[Kakmakr]

I honestly think SegWit combined with the Lightning Network is a better option, because SegWit solves many other problems, other than just the scaling issues and the Lightning Network will scale Bitcoin into infinity and beyond. No need for incremental block size upgrades over time.

Both of them will obviously have pros and cons, but I think the Blockstream < SegWit & LN > have a little less problems at this stage. 

[Amph]

first of all segwit and LN go side by side, because segwit is not a final solution, it's to buy time to have the proper solution, or mayeb you think that 2-4MB will suffice forever?

sidechain have their bad design too like for example if the dev of that chain premine too much coin that can be exchange with the unlocked bitcoin

segwit have some falalcy liek this https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/59vent/segwit_false_start_attack_allows_a_minority_of/ and many other that can come out, but the real reason is because they would earn less because of LN + segwit

[pedrog]

There's no need for increased transaction capacity, bitcoins price is at an all time high and transactions continue to flow, people are paying the fee to transact on the bitcoin network.

If there's a need for more transactions people can use other chains like litecoin, litecoin is the same as bitcoin but with increased capacity, I don't see a rise in litecoin transactions.

Market will speak and if/when there's necessity for a scalable solution to be adopted it will.

[pinkflower]

In my opinion Blockstream should drop SegWit until it is really necessary and just up the Block size for now to 3 MB, to see if that would alleviate the

problems we have now. The spam attacks will be less disruptive and more expensive and we will move forward. Yes, increasing the Block size is not the

ideal solution, but it is the option that would be more popular. 

The problem there is the supporters, miners or not, of BU dont want that. They want the miners to have more control in deciding how large or small the block sizes should be.

My answer for Abiky is nobody knows what the right path is. Thats why we are having this devate because all options have their own pros and cons.

[Xester]

Among the different types of methods, to help Bitcoin scale, which one do you think it would be the best for the pioneer cryptocurrency to expand in transaction capacity?

Will it be SegWit, Lightning Network, Sidechains, or increasing block size?

Also, is there any reason why most Chinese pools are against SegWit?

I would like to know your opinion about this. 

Chinese miners are very doubtful and they thought that if they will accept and apply Segwit and transactions will go offline they fear that if something goes off offline they will lost the coins. Another thing is that they will have no control over bitcoins if it undergoes the Lightning Network. Third the miners fee will decrease if we adopt segwit and LN.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

My personal preference is SegWit but I just hope they can reach consensus before too long. It really isn't good to still have this dragging on.

[DooMAD]

I think we should activate SegWit and then do something like this.  The bizarre fixation everyone seems to have with the blocksize being a whole number is silly, when there's literally nothing wrong with 1.1mb or even 1.21mb if we adjust by 10% increments.  Fixed, rigid caps are also ill conceived.  The most pragmatic approach is a conservative and algorithmic dynamic blocksize with built in safeguards to prevent gaming the system.

This is what Bitcoin Unlimited does.  There is no fixed cap but it adjusts the block size based on the historical number of transactions in the network and adjusts itself both up and down to accommodate.  Are you aware of this?  I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm seriously asking the question.  This adjustable blocksize is one of the reasons that I'm in agreement with BU and if people are made aware of this aspect of BU, they might become more receptive of it.  It also shows that if many are not aware of this aspect of BU, it shows that Roger Ver and other supporters are not doing a good job of promoting, and educating people on the benefits of BU.

My understanding was that node users specified the block size they were willing to accept in their own configuration.   Everything was chosen arbitrarily by the user regardless of what might be happening on the network in the real world.  If that's not correct and there is an algorithmic element based on traffic and fees, they absolutely need to make that clearer because it's the first I've heard of it.  If it is algorithmic, what's the formula and how does it compare to the one I linked?  I'm curious to know if it's still stuck in the realm of whole numbers for no particular reason.

[Abiky]

There's no need for increased transaction capacity, bitcoins price is at an all time high and transactions continue to flow, people are paying the fee to transact on the bitcoin network.

If there's a need for more transactions people can use other chains like litecoin, litecoin is the same as bitcoin but with increased capacity, I don't see a rise in litecoin transactions.

Market will speak and if/when there's necessity for a scaleble solution to be adopted it will.

I guess you're right. Perhaps, Bitcoin may never get to adopt a scalable solution and remains as is. In the bright side, it would only be used as a store of value, while the rest of the altcoins would be used for broadcasting everyday transactions. The way I see it, is the more altcoins there are the better in the sense that it would reduce BTC's network load. If only Bitcoin would've existed then it would've faced major issues with scalability as it would have more users into it.

That is to say, I would become impressed if either LTC or VIA adopts SegWit before Bitcoin does. Just my opinion. 

[calkob]

Among the different types of methods, to help Bitcoin scale, which one do you think it would be the best for the pioneer cryptocurrency to expand in transaction capacity?

Will it be SegWit, Lightning Network, Sidechains, or increasing block size?

Also, is there any reason why most Chinese pools are against SegWit?

I would like to know your opinion about this. 

I think that activating segwit will allow for a better lighting network, although as far as i am aware it dosnt need it.  Segwit will also give an instant relief to the full blocks which last for ever.  once we hit the blocksize limit agian then core would more than likely look at HF to a bigger block. 

I dont really know about the politics behind why miners are not supporting segwit, because they are also clearly not supporting BU.  they are however making a killing on fees currently which for everyone including miners is a bad thing in the long run.

[Kprawn]

In my opinion Blockstream should drop SegWit until it is really necessary and just up the Block size for now to 3 MB, to see if that would alleviate the
problems we have now. The spam attacks will be less disruptive and more expensive and we will move forward. Yes, increasing the Block size is not the
ideal solution, but it is the option that would be more popular.  

What you are describing would actually create a more serious and more cheap spam attack vector.
When the blocksize is increased over time, the blocks will always need to be near full as a safe guard.
That is the sad fact right now. Otherwise, in a matter of a few months to a year, Bitcoin nodes
would no longer be able to maintain the network in a way to prevent governmental control.

I would only agree on a direct blocksize increase of 3MB in the year 2023, IMO.
I could change that opinion if improvements are made technologically that grants us new capabilities.
Otherwise, IMO, the gains now or soon do not outweigh the risks that would be shortly behind.

Bitcoin only exists now because it is currently uncapturable by governments.
Bitcoin is really a cat & mouse game, not a free market "let see how things go" kumbaya circle.
Under normal circumstances, Bitcoin is a weapon. You just don't see because it guises as money.
Don't be blinded by the price. Bitcoin must balance over time or it will be annihilated.

So, due to the foregoing, Lightning Network and other like types are currently the safest scaling.

We are already filling up on average 80% of the current Block size and we have not even gone mainstream yet. Let's say Bitcoin can scale with a

Block size upgrade, more people will invest in projects that would use it's capacity and we would soon have to scale it again. Satoshi wanted to

scale, when the need demanded it, but he was still around and people took his word... when he said something... because it was his baby.. now,

we need to do it differently... We scale first and then the demand will come. 

[pedrog]

There's no need for increased transaction capacity, bitcoins price is at an all time high and transactions continue to flow, people are paying the fee to transact on the bitcoin network.

If there's a need for more transactions people can use other chains like litecoin, litecoin is the same as bitcoin but with increased capacity, I don't see a rise in litecoin transactions.

Market will speak and if/when there's necessity for a scaleble solution to be adopted it will.

I guess you're right. Perhaps, Bitcoin may never get to adopt a scalable solution and remains as is. In the bright side, it would only be used as a store of value, while the rest of the altcoins would be used for broadcasting everyday transactions. The way I see it, is the more altcoins there are the better in the sense that it would reduce BTC's network load. If only Bitcoin would've existed then it would've faced major issues with scalability as it would have more users into it.

That is to say, I would become impressed if either LTC or VIA adopts SegWit before Bitcoin does. Just my opinion. 

Segregated Witness softfork is currently being voted by miners on litecoin network, it is also failing to get massive support there, although it only requires 75% to become active.

http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php

[yellow1]

I know that there are a lot of politics between the BU vs Segwit drama, but for me whatever they choose or implemented, I hope this will help us bitcoiners to improved the transaction confirmation so that a lot of us will be happy and enjoy bitcoin as online payment scheme. IMHO.

[Pettuh4]

I think blockstream should hold on with segwit and rather increase the block size and hold on to see what will happen within a few months before we evaluate again and prescribe a solution for the future.

[megynacuna]

My personal preference is SegWit but I just hope they can reach consensus before too long. It really isn't good to still have this dragging on.

I likewise agree with segwit but if they can also increase the block size without forking the Bitcoin core then I prefer we look at that before any hard or soft fork.

[AgentofCoin]

In my opinion Blockstream should drop SegWit until it is really necessary and just up the Block size for now to 3 MB, to see if that would alleviate the
problems we have now. The spam attacks will be less disruptive and more expensive and we will move forward. Yes, increasing the Block size is not the
ideal solution, but it is the option that would be more popular.  

What you are describing would actually create a more serious and more cheap spam attack vector.
When the blocksize is increased over time, the blocks will always need to be near full as a safe guard.
That is the sad fact right now. Otherwise, in a matter of a few months to a year, Bitcoin nodes
would no longer be able to maintain the network in a way to prevent governmental control.

I would only agree on a direct blocksize increase of 3MB in the year 2023, IMO.
I could change that opinion if improvements are made technologically that grants us new capabilities.
Otherwise, IMO, the gains now or soon do not outweigh the risks that would be shortly behind.

Bitcoin only exists now because it is currently uncapturable by governments.
Bitcoin is really a cat & mouse game, not a free market "let see how things go" kumbaya circle.
Under normal circumstances, Bitcoin is a weapon. You just don't see because it guises as money.
Don't be blinded by the price. Bitcoin must balance over time or it will be annihilated.

So, due to the foregoing, Lightning Network and other like types are currently the safest scaling.

We are already filling up on average 80% of the current Block size and we have not even gone mainstream yet. Let's say Bitcoin can scale with a
Block size upgrade, more people will invest in projects that would use it's capacity and we would soon have to scale it again. Satoshi wanted to
scale, when the need demanded it, but he was still around and people took his word... when he said something... because it was his baby.. now,
we need to do it differently... We scale first and then the demand will come.  

When Satoshi was around it was only an experiment.
In his view, Bitcoin would either be very successful over time or fail.

Has it ever crossed your mind that Satoshi's originally intended scaling might
have led to near term failure? You (and others) are assuming that Satoshi "knew"
what the final or future result would be. That is very not likely and all he was doing
at that time was theorizing and problem solving certain questions the community had.

If you can accept that Satoshi was human, then you must accept that he may have
lacked certain viewpoints because he was dealing with different problems at the time.
Scaling, in his mind, was way into the future, not within a few years. So, IMO, for a
decentralized cryptocurrency to exists and survive long term as Satoshi intended,
we can not follow Satoshi's original viewpoint on network centralization.
That would be simple network failure.

The real truth is that Satoshi may not have fully understood what he created.
Scaling of Bitcoin should be done in a manner in which we can almost ensure a
decentralized unregulatable future. We can not sacrifice the future for short term profit.

[Creepings]

My personal preference is SegWit but I just hope they can reach consensus before too long. It really isn't good to still have this dragging on.

Segwit is a good way, I also prefer this one. Bitcoin unlimited may enlarge the block size, what will happen if the spam attacks happened again, they cant stop that from coming. Segwit is better and then find another way that will help Segwit.

[Sadlife]

If they have some solutions why not implement it instead of debating over it.
If this continues in the end no problem will be solve because of useless discussions and debates but i think segwit is better though because the current blocksize is fine and adding more to it will potentially lead to an Dos attack which will go from bad to worse in bitcoin crypto-curency.
Segwit is suggesting to move non critical data off blockchain to decrease the data size making it possible to add more transaction in a block.

[freedomno1]

It's hard to say the question is adoption versus premium in a sense.
Keeping it a 1MB maintains originality and ease of node usage, while a two-fork scares people off that said it's likely there will be an original chain and a larger growing chain in the end sort of similar to ethereum classic and ethereum still being used together.
If it comes down to it someone will force a fork.  

[Sundark]

Also, is there any reason why most Chinese pools are against SegWit?

You want to know what is going on behind the scene? I can help you with that.
I've read recently statement of ViaBTC, a Chinese Mining Pool operator about current situation of bitcoin scaling progress.
In short, they are disappointed with the Core Dev Team and think current development is conducted against Satoshi's original vision.

Here it goes:

ViaBTC is of the opinion that the current "Bitcoin Core + Blockstream” Bitcoin development team is not taking satisfactory steps to ensure the growth and advancement of Bitcoin in accordance with satoshi's original white paper, and is in fact actively harming the health of the Bitcoin economy by actively stifling efforts to solve some of Bitcoin’s most pressing problems.

The reason why this Transaction Accelerator exists is due to problems created by Bitcoin Core’s inability and unwillingness to deliver any sort of meaningful protocol upgrade over the last several years, against the desires of the Bitcoin community at large. Those who have attempted to deliver the necessary upgrade have been vilified and silenced by Bitcoin Core and their affiliated censored media channels. Average users who dare to disagree are banned and have their comments deleted.

Rather than viewing Bitcoin as a fast, affordable, and reliable payments network, as it has been for years, they aim to transform Bitcoin into what they call “a settlement layer”, defined by high fees, unreliable transactions, and a labyrinth of complex overlays that require third-party trust on top of the basic system.

This development team has further prevented the ability of the Bitcoin community to freely discuss this radical change of direction by tacitly, and in some cases explicitly, supporting censorship of Bitcoin’s largest discussion forums, along with the outright banning of many prominent developers, businesses, and community members who have differences of opinion with Bitcoin Core’s current roadmap. After years of stagnation, stalling, and broken promises, it has become clear that positive change will not come from Bitcoin Core, but rather from the diverse group of alternate development teams that have emerged as a result of Core’s tactics.

[CraigWrightBTC]

My personal preference is SegWit but I just hope they can reach consensus before too long. It really isn't good to still have this dragging on.

Yes today the strong candidate for solution for this problem is just segwit and I think the activation of segwit is just about time 
Because Bitcoin Unlimited support was on par to surpass SegWit numbers, yet that trend did not materialize in the end. In fact, the support has dropped from nearly 23% to 16.7%, indicating miners are slowly backing off from pools supporting Unlimited.

[NoiseBoy]

Fork into BitcoinGold and BitcoinSilver. (Alternately, leave bitcoin as-is, and use Litecoin for "Silver").

[jonald_fyookball]

Segwit is a bad idea.  Too many complications and risks. 

Time to kill the blocksize debate once and for all by removing
the limit (BU).

If layered solutions like LN come out and people want to use
them great, but do not force people off the main chain
with artificial scarcity.

[samus.aran]

I'm not sure if SegWit and LN are the best things, but from the information I have, it seems that the increase in the blocksize is a measure that contributes to centralization. Could anyone comment on this?

[European Central Bank]

neither will activate. there's too much invested on both sides. the longer it drags on the more entrenched everyone's gonna become.

if i had to choose one it would be segwit as it's from the vastly more experienced group. bu just piggybacks off them and introduces a bunch of dangerous and unproven shit whose support is being gamed by a tiny number of people whose agenda outweighs their objectivity. 

[jonald_fyookball]

I'm not sure if SegWit and LN are the best things, but from the information I have, it seems that the increase in the blocksize is a measure that contributes to centralization. Could anyone comment on this?

It's a trade off. 

Larger blocks mean that operating a full node becomes more costly over time, so less people would run full nodes and the network would centralize that way.  Satoshi had mentioned this as to be expected.
However, enforcing smaller blocks forces ordinary users off the main chain, so institutions will become the ultimate gatekeepers and controllers of transcations, and that is another form of centralization.

In my opinion, the latter is more dangerous.


 

[matt11235]

There are a lot of very vocal people on all sides of the argument. Read everything you can, check their sources and form your own opinioms 

[BitcoinPanther]

I have no Idea on which solution is better, though I have read proposals and fixed of both side, and I wonder if they can merge their idea and get on an agreement halfway with both features being implemented.  Anyway this is just my Idea but this may seem impossible.  Anywho, I just wanted to see the problem with scalability be fixed soon.

[freedomno1]

As long as it achieves consensus it doesn't matter which of the ones it is that makes it, it may not be the best one and we could come up with better solutions but any that are able to solve the problem well will do.
Lean towards node hard fork ^^ so other changed my answer a bit to last time thinking with a fork solution.

[Abiky]

Segregated Witness softfork is currently being voted by miners on litecoin network, it is also failing to get massive support there, although it only requires 75% to become active.

http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php

Well, at least it requires a less number of miners to accept it, unlike Bitcoin, which may be very difficult to achieve full consensus to it. The way I see it, it will be very hard for any cryptocurrency to achieve full consensus on SegWit, unless it had a very small network of nodes and miners. Up until now, there are several cryptocurrencies that have implemented SegWit into their code. Those are Bitcoin, Litecoin, Viacoin, and most recently, Vertcoin.

We'll see over time which of these coins gets to activate SegWit first. 

You want to know what is going on behind the scene? I can help you with that.
I've read recently statement of ViaBTC, a Chinese Mining Pool operator about current situation of bitcoin scaling progress.
In short, they are disappointed with the Core Dev Team and think current development is conducted against Satoshi's original vision.

Here it goes:

ViaBTC is of the opinion that the current "Bitcoin Core + Blockstream” Bitcoin development team is not taking satisfactory steps to ensure the growth and advancement of Bitcoin in accordance with satoshi's original white paper, and is in fact actively harming the health of the Bitcoin economy by actively stifling efforts to solve some of Bitcoin’s most pressing problems.

The reason why this Transaction Accelerator exists is due to problems created by Bitcoin Core’s inability and unwillingness to deliver any sort of meaningful protocol upgrade over the last several years, against the desires of the Bitcoin community at large. Those who have attempted to deliver the necessary upgrade have been vilified and silenced by Bitcoin Core and their affiliated censored media channels. Average users who dare to disagree are banned and have their comments deleted.

Rather than viewing Bitcoin as a fast, affordable, and reliable payments network, as it has been for years, they aim to transform Bitcoin into what they call “a settlement layer”, defined by high fees, unreliable transactions, and a labyrinth of complex overlays that require third-party trust on top of the basic system.

This development team has further prevented the ability of the Bitcoin community to freely discuss this radical change of direction by tacitly, and in some cases explicitly, supporting censorship of Bitcoin’s largest discussion forums, along with the outright banning of many prominent developers, businesses, and community members who have differences of opinion with Bitcoin Core’s current roadmap. After years of stagnation, stalling, and broken promises, it has become clear that positive change will not come from Bitcoin Core, but rather from the diverse group of alternate development teams that have emerged as a result of Core’s tactics.

Thanks for the information. I guess that this explains everything, and it would only be a matter of time before there is most consensus from miners and nodes, to switch to a different Core alternative like Bitcoin Unlimited. I've seen one of Gavin's tweets recently, where he encourages users to run Bitcoin Unlimited. If Bitcoin Unlimited gets the approval of the network, then it would greatly improve BTC's ability to scale since there won't be a fixed block size limit. Just my thoughts. 

[pedrog]

Segregated Witness softfork is currently being voted by miners on litecoin network, it is also failing to get massive support there, although it only requires 75% to become active.

http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php

Well, at least it requires a less number of miners to accept it, unlike Bitcoin, which may be very difficult to achieve full consensus to it. The way I see it, it will be very hard for any cryptocurrency to achieve full consensus on SegWit, unless it had a very small network of nodes and miners. Up until now, there are several cryptocurrencies that have implemented SegWit into their code. Those are Bitcoin, Litecoin, Viacoin, and most recently, Vertcoin.

We'll see over time which of these coins gets to activate SegWit first. 

Is there a website where we can see SegWit support in Viacoin and Vertcoin?

[ebliever]

Increasing the blocksize is at best a temporary fix, and comes with its own problems of increasing storage cost. We could fix the fee market situation today with a block size increase, but we are not going to scale up to compete with Visa and MasterCard simply by increasing the block size. That's why I take SegWit and LN type approaches as a given for real progress to the next level. If bitcoin rejects them, it will fade into the background as digital gold, at best, and another crypto like Dash or even Litecoin will take over as the flagship.

[d5000]

For me, the most interesting solution for "normal payments" are pegged sidechains. In contrast to Lightning Network and similar off-chain solutions, they don't change the fundamental way a transaction works, as sidechains are blockchains.

I've heard a problem with sidechains is the risk of them to be 51%ed because they are not secured with the same hashrate than the main chain. But ... couldn't that solved with merged mining? And pegged sidechains also shoud be less attractive to attack because they would hold much less value.

I am surprised sidechains are not getting more attention. Maybe there is some technical fundamental problem with them I don't understand?

For very small micropayments I favour LN and similar solutions, but I wouldn't like to get my salary with LN.

[freedomno1]

For me, the most interesting solution for "normal payments" are pegged sidechains. In contrast to Lightning Network and similar off-chain solutions, they don't change the fundamental way a transaction works, as sidechains are blockchains.

I've heard a problem with sidechains is the risk of them to be 51%ed because they are not secured with the same hashrate than the main chain. But ... couldn't that solved with merged mining? And pegged sidechains also shoud be less attractive to attack because they would hold much less value.

I am surprised sidechains are not getting more attention. Maybe there is some technical fundamental problem with them I don't understand?

For very small micropayments I favour LN and similar solutions, but I wouldn't like to get my salary with LN.

I like side-chains myself they operate co-existing to the main chain and keep the equity from leaking out to other alt-coins.
That falls under a segwit outcome as it assists as a mechanism for easy soft-forks.

An interesting topic to open would debating Hard Forks and what would be a non-consensus but set of widely supported alternatives in the case that people get tired of waiting for a soft-fork solution.

The community has had a lot of time to negotiate soft-forks but we haven't really looked at or considered seriously Hard-Fork solutions for good reason until recently when the size limit has become a real issue and as far as I can tell so that area is worth a look.

Back to sidechains it depends who controls it and how the OP code is applied same as segwit nodes/miner support is required.
http://www.coindesk.com/two-new-sidechains-proposals-change-bitcoins-dna/

"The main discussion relates to the effects of putting more power in the hands of the miners and what are the long-term consequences. More specifically, the question is what would happen if a bitcoin sidechain grows so popular that [miners mining both bitcoin and the popular sidechain] need to run higher-end computers, outcompeting solo miners," Lerner explained.

[adi33]

I thought to add scale can bitcoin by adding a block. as this will make it easier to transact and without having to wait a long time and interfere with the process of the transaction

[Xester]

As long as it achieves consensus it doesn't matter which of the ones it is that makes it, it may not be the best one and we could come up with better solutions but any that are able to solve the problem well will do.
Lean towards node hard fork ^^ so other changed my answer a bit to last time thinking with a fork solution.

I was promoting the thinking that we need not to join segwit and find other alternative solutions to bitcoin network. But I grew tired of waiting for solutions and then I changed my mind. I no longer care as to what kind of solution will the consensus can come up with, the most important thing is that the current problems on bitcoin will be settled before it gets worse.

[1Referee]

the most important thing is that the current problems on bitcoin will be settled before it gets worse.

It's nearly impossible to reach consensus regardless of what side people seem to be vouching for. At this point the community and the miners themselves are split into several sides, where each side supports their own ideology. That's the freedom open source offers to people. In most cases this freedom is what gets praised, but it can also form a heavy obstacle as we are struggling with right now.

[AngryDwarf]

If I have bitcoin on an exchange, it is just a database entry. I don't consider to really have bitcoin unless it is confirmed against a private key I have unique control over in the blockchain. I don't count unconfirmed tx's either.
So I can understand a blocksize increase.
Question is, how does segwit or LN work in this context?

[AngryDwarf]

Or perhaps maybe what I am trying to ask, are offchain solutions really bitcoin or a bitcoin facilitator?

[Abiky]

Is there a website where we can see SegWit support in Viacoin and Vertcoin?

Not that I'm aware of. I've tried looking over Google but had no luck. Still, there are a few articles which states about Viacoin and Vertcoin's SegWit code integration.

Here are the links:

http://vertcoin.org/wp/vertcoin-segwit-wallet-release/
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/which-altcoins-are-implementing-segwit-1481577969/

It would be nice to have a stats page like Bitcoin, where you could keep track of SegWit adoption in these cryptocurrencies. I believe that these altcoins might adopt the scalable solution earlier than Bitcoin, as their networks are much smaller (especially Viacoin and Vertcoin) leaving the way towards achieving full consensus. If the day where these currencies experience SegWit adoption comes first, then they would become ahead of Bitcoin and increase their way towards mainstream media recognition and adoption among everyday people.

I have the feeling that neither of the proposed solutions in Bitcoin, would become accepted, thus making it exclusively for the store of value, which other altcoins like Litecoin would become used for everyday transactions. Just my thoughts. 

[paul gatt]

There are many different opinions, but they all fall into two categories, "segwit" and "unlimited bitcoin". This is a fierce battle between the two factions, and the winners belong to miners who do not accept segwit. I had hoped for bitcoin to be segwit, however this did not happen, which made me very disappointed. But the majority has won, and we can not do anything else. On the other hand, lakes do not accept segwit because they want to preserve some of their rights, so we need to accept

[Abiky]

There are many different opinions, but they all fall into two categories, "segwit" and "unlimited bitcoin". This is a fierce battle between the two factions, and the winners belong to miners who do not accept segwit. I had hoped for bitcoin to be segwit, however this did not happen, which made me very disappointed. But the majority has won, and we can not do anything else. On the other hand, lakes do not accept segwit because they want to preserve some of their rights, so we need to accept

Since miners would support scalable solutions, which give them more fees, they would choose Bitcoin Unlimited as it gives them the option to choose their preferred block size limit. The bigger the blocks, the more fees miners would get thus making it more profitable for them. I think that is why most miners are backing Bitcoin Unlimited.

Still, if we come up to a point where neither solution gets the consensus among the miners, then Bitcoin would remain as a store of value with ever increasing transaction fees, and slow confirmation times, limiting its ability to rival traditional payment processors like PayPal, Visa and MasterCard, and becoming used as a mainstream currency anytime soon.

Also, the SEC rejecting the ETF might make BTC's price decline and it might continue to do so, if it doesn't increase in capacity, in my own opinion. Just my thoughts. 

[shinratensei_]

There are many different opinions, but they all fall into two categories, "segwit" and "unlimited bitcoin". This is a fierce battle between the two factions, and the winners belong to miners who do not accept segwit. I had hoped for bitcoin to be segwit, however this did not happen, which made me very disappointed. But the majority has won, and we can not do anything else. On the other hand, lakes do not accept segwit because they want to preserve some of their rights, so we need to accept

Since miners would support scalable solutions, which give them more fees, they would choose Bitcoin Unlimited as it gives them the option to choose their preferred block size limit. The bigger the blocks, the more fees miners would get thus making it more profitable for them. I think that is why most miners are backing Bitcoin Unlimited.

Still, if we come up to a point where neither solution gets the consensus among the miners, then Bitcoin would remain as a store of value with ever increasing transaction fees, and slow confirmation times, limiting its ability to rival traditional payment processors like PayPal, Visa and MasterCard, and becoming used as a mainstream currency anytime soon.

Also, the SEC rejecting the ETF might make BTC's price decline and it might continue to do so, if it doesn't increase in capacity, in my own opinion. Just my thoughts. 

I don't care who will be the winner on the scalable solution although there are no a lot of the drama, Too many the scalability debate just hurting the bitcoin itself. Yesterday i has made a transaction and it took around 20 hours to get delivered. That's really shit.

[Hazir]

FYI:
Litecoin fixed the spamming problem by

The fix implemented in Litecoin is just to charge the sender a fee for each tiny output he creates. For example, in this specific attack, the sender is charged one fee for sending to 34 tiny outputs of 0.00001 BTC. With the fix, that fee would be 34 times as much. So it would cost the attacker a lot more to perform the spam attack. The concept is fairly simple: the sender should pay for each tiny output he/she creates.

FYI2:
Why is BTC Core Devs so Stupid they can't implement the same fix?
BTC Core Devs should be Fired!

This is actually amazing idea but I don't see Bitcoin Unlimited developers copy this solution either. They should be fired too?
Let's fire everyone, people who worked on bitcoin for almost 10 years must be fired because there is witch hunt going on.
Then we can work with BU developers - they showed their own dose of incompetency too - remember "miscounting of bytes" bug?

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Increasing the blocksize is at best a temporary fix, and comes with its own problems of increasing storage cost.

240 GB SSD ~ $100

What do you think a 480 GB SSD will cost in two years?

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

There are many different opinions, but they all fall into two categories, "segwit" and "unlimited bitcoin". This is a fierce battle between the two factions, and the winners belong to miners who do not accept segwit. I had hoped for bitcoin to be segwit, however this did not happen, which made me very disappointed. But the majority has won, and we can not do anything else. On the other hand, lakes do not accept segwit because they want to preserve some of their rights, so we need to accept

Since miners would support scalable solutions, which give them more fees, they would choose Bitcoin Unlimited as it gives them the option to choose their preferred block size limit. The bigger the blocks, the more fees miners would get thus making it more profitable for them. I think that is why most miners are backing Bitcoin Unlimited.

Something to think about -

The way BitCoin was designed, miners are very important part of the security. The more miners we have, the higher the hash rate. The higher the hash rate, the more expensive (and thus difficult) it is for a nefarious interest to pull off a 51% attack.

With off the chain transactions, miners lose their incentive to mine. It costs them real money to mine.

As they lose their incentive to mine, the relative hash rate decreases. Miners leave mining rather than update to modern technology because the profit is no longer there.

With a lower hash rate, the ability for a nefarious interest to pull off a 51% attack becomes less and less expensive and the security of the Bitcoin network is reduced.

Miners are very important.

[Rude Boy]

Chinese minors are fear about segwit. Because, they accept and proceed the segwit transactions that time, if it go offline they fear about their coins are loss. So, they avoid the risk mining segwit and transactions. Another problem they're have is lighting network so, they don't have control on bitcoins.They believe if mining rate is high the fees will be very low. So,they avoid segwit.

[Abiky]

Something to think about -

The way BitCoin was designed, miners are very important part of the security. The more miners we have, the higher the hash rate. The higher the hash rate, the more expensive (and thus difficult) it is for a nefarious interest to pull off a 51% attack.

With off the chain transactions, miners lose their incentive to mine. It costs them real money to mine.

As they lose their incentive to mine, the relative hash rate decreases. Miners leave mining rather than update to modern technology because the profit is no longer there.

With a lower hash rate, the ability for a nefarious interest to pull off a 51% attack becomes less and less expensive and the security of the Bitcoin network is reduced.

Miners are very important.

Agree. That is why I think that Lightning Network's off-chain transactions will pose a higher security risk for Bitcoin as miners will lose the incentive they use to earn by finding blocks. However, I think that now, miners are earning more Bitcoin because of the increasing transaction fees.

The way I see it, miners would find the most profitable way for them to find blocks, thus making most of them to accept Bitcoin Unlimited soon, since the same doesn't have a fixed block size limit, allowing miners to set their own preferred size and earn more Bitcoin out of it.

Still, Bitcoin's future is uncertain and while it is the most secure cryptocurrency in the world right now, it could be subject to change if a bad decision is made within the consensus of miners and development team as well.

Nevertheless, I'm looking forward for Bitcoin to put an end of its slow transaction confirmations finally, and become great again to serve its purpose for everyday transactions. Just my thoughts.