Compromise between SegWit and BU

[hv_]

Miners Pools ... play it well as we see.

SPV Mining is the opposite of playing well!

We can get lost in any detail. The message to the outer world is claer: Bitcoin (as Satoshi designed) is rekt in any case if
nobody steps back from own prios - even with 1MB and no SW (reduced to bank like store of value and infinit tx costs).

'Core' has failed to deliver / merge the 'no-brainer' that fits to all.
Others take over.

Disruption is hard to take if it hits you.

[mezzomix]

'Core' has failed to deliver ...

Core has delivered. If you like it or not is a different topic.

[hv_]

'Core' has failed to deliver ...

Core has delivered. If you like it or not is a different topic.

Bitcoin and its code is too important to be just 'liked or disliked' by a single individual.

I liked the fact that they delivered - made decisions and got sth out - hard task!!

I'm agnostic to things that work but are not full in line what I would do.

I only see that we have gotten nothing like German beer we all would agree that we like 

What did you order, banana split  ?

I still hope / like  we can rather repair than throw away.

[d5000]

I have only a little knowledge about these scaling solutions so I want to ask if it's possible to somewhat combine these two solutions. Like, change the transaction protocol according to SegWit to allow off-chain solutions (Lighting Network) while letting the miners choose a size of the block. Is this possible?

It's technically possible, as already pointed out by others. But many of the community, including me, consider the Bitcoin Unlimited mechanism to be potentially dangerous as it maybe could lead to network splits and gives the mining pools too much power what could lead to centralization.

"Softer" flexible blockchain proposals are BIP 100 and 106. In this thread some of us are discussing a possibility to restrict miners' power in BIP 100 even further by imposing a hard-coded upper blocksize limit that only moves in slow steps, in addition to Segwit.

[rav3n_pl]

How about implement Bitpay adaptive block size aside of SegWit?
https://github.com/bitpay/bitcoin/issues/42

[d5000]

How about implement Bitpay adaptive block size aside of SegWit?
https://github.com/bitpay/bitcoin/issues/42

It has the same problem as Unlimited: Can easily be gamed.

In BIP 100/106 a try to game the system to get really high block size value would last years and would be prohibitively expensive (if the increment rate is 5%).

[misterbigg]

I want to ask if it's possible to somewhat combine these two solutions.

The goal of BU is to gain control of the Bitcoin name and software (Roger Ver already owns bitcoin.com). So BU will never "compromise" since that fails to achieve the goal.