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. 

[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.