Which scalable solution is better?

[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.