Why not both? Why not meet in the middle?

[vinaha]

Why doesn't Core release an update that includes Segwit AND a block size increase? It seems that this is the only thing that both sides would eventually cave to and agree on, that way companies needing Segwit will be able to do business and we can get a larger block size. With such a division being created, it's going to be hard to get an agreement at all unless there's something met in the middle.

Also, if Segwit works, which they think it does, then increasing the block size won't matter because not all the block size will be used. So what's the prob?

One of the arguments is that miners will get a higher fee with smaller blocks. If the miners are wanting larger blocks with BU, obviously they don't care about getting higher fees.

[pereira4]

Why doesn't Core release an update that includes Segwit AND a block size increase? It seems that this is the only thing that both sides would eventually cave to and agree on, that way companies needing Segwit will be able to do business and we can get a larger block size. With such a division being created, it's going to be hard to get an agreement at all unless there's something met in the middle.

Also, if Segwit works, which they think it does, then increasing the block size won't matter because not all the block size will be used. So what's the prob?

One of the arguments is that miners will get a higher fee with smaller blocks. If the miners are wanting larger blocks with BU, obviously they don't care about getting higher fees.

Because segwit fixes the quadratic hashing problem, so segwit first, then a blocksize increase later once we have seen the behaviour of the network under segwit.  All experts tend to agree:



http://bitcoinist.com/nick-szabo-bitcoin-censorship-resistance/

But that is not the main problem, the main problem is, BUcoiners are trolls that just want to destroy Core at all costs (not realizing the entire thing will be destroyed in the process). So, even if Core sat down in a table with the miners and offered them a package of SW+2MB increase, Jihan Wu would reject it. They will reject anything Core does, and they hate the idea of the LN because they think they will get less money from it.
Case in point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JarEszFY1WY

Bruce Fenton asked Jake (BU guy who filled in after Roger left) "is there anything Core can do to change your mind and get you to support the efforts of Core?" He responded "no". Bruce continued, "Even if Core advocated exactly what BU is advocating as a scaling solution?" He again responded "No". This reminded me of Ken Ham's response to Bill Nye when he was asked if there was any evidence that could possibly convince him to change his mind, and Ham said no, because he values a strict adherence to his faith over reason. My point is that Ver has essentially created an anti-core cult. Bitcoin Jesus, indeed.
We are dealing with trolls and brainwashed cultists at this point.

[jonald_fyookball]

Why doesn't Core release an update that includes Segwit AND a block size increase?

Ask Core.

[vinaha]

True, but if Segwit fixes the problem, why not give a (even small) block increase too? Just because a block is permitted to be 2mb, doesn't mean it will be 2mb - if Segwit works, then the blocks will be much smaller but have the capability of being larger if needed.

[Kprawn]

Well, SegWit needs smaller blocks to justify the need for the LN. The BU solution increase the Block size significantly, so the LN will not be a

critical need for some time, but eventually yes..  I am more a SegWit supporter than a BU supporter, but I can see why Core in slowing the

Block size upgrade to pave the way for LN. If you ask them, the they would say a Block size upgrade is not necessary, if you implement the LN.

So what they have done, until the LN is implemented... was to incorporate a small Block size increase to satisfy the current need.. until LN is

later activated... The LN is the permanent solution.... not incremental Block size upgrades. 

[Foxpup]

SegWit does meet in the middle by providing a block size increase. It didn't have to; the block size could just as easily (perhaps more easily) be kept at 1MB, but when SegWit was being developed, everyone was screaming for a block size increase, so the devs said "fine, here's that block size increase you keep asking for, since SegWit makes that possible in a backwards-compatible way". But now it seems nobody wants it, and the big-blockers were all full of hot air. No matter. If SegWit fails to gain support in its current form, it can always be proposed again without the controversial block size increase.

[jonald_fyookball]

Well, SegWit needs smaller blocks to justify the need for the LN. The BU solution increase the Block size significantly, so the LN will not be a

critical need for some time, but eventually yes..  I am more a SegWit supporter than a BU supporter, but I can see why Core in slowing the

Block size upgrade to pave the way for LN. If you ask them, the they would say a Block size upgrade is not necessary, if you implement the LN.

So what they have done, until the LN is implemented... was to incorporate a small Block size increase to satisfy the current need.. until LN is

later activated... The LN is the permanent solution.... not incremental Block size upgrades. 

Even if they are right in their long term plans for scaling, Blockstream/Core is being shortsighted and reckless because they are NOT satisfying the current need
(if they were, alts wouldn't be surging and there wouldn't be backlogs of uncomfirms).  

What is the value of being technically prudent when we're being foolhardy with ensuring Bitcoin maintains maximum utility, adoption, and network effect?

[Kprawn]

Well, SegWit needs smaller blocks to justify the need for the LN. The BU solution increase the Block size significantly, so the LN will not be a

critical need for some time, but eventually yes..  I am more a SegWit supporter than a BU supporter, but I can see why Core in slowing the

Block size upgrade to pave the way for LN. If you ask them, the they would say a Block size upgrade is not necessary, if you implement the LN.

So what they have done, until the LN is implemented... was to incorporate a small Block size increase to satisfy the current need.. until LN is

later activated... The LN is the permanent solution.... not incremental Block size upgrades.  

Even if they are right in their long term plans for scaling, Blockstream/Core is being shortsighted and reckless because they are NOT satisfying the current need
(if they were, alts wouldn't be surging and there wouldn't be backlogs of uncomfirms).  

What is the value of being technically prudent when we're being foolhardy with ensuring Bitcoin maintains maximum utility, adoption, and network effect?

Again.... Why are there backlogs and congestion? Answer - Spam attacks. The reason why these people are spamming the network, is to "fake"

a congestion situation to force the issue. Users will only want immediate action, if there were some "problem" .... So what do they do? ...They

create a problem by spamming the network... something that Roger Ver conveniently ignore and blame Bitcoin Core for. The Core supporters

are blaming the BU team for the spam..... but the fact is... this crisis situation is "faked" on purpose to create a crisis... because it suits their agenda.  

[jonald_fyookball]

Again.... Why are there backlogs and congestion? Answer - Spam attacks. 

1. I disagree that this is the entire reason - it may cause spike but look at the long term trend

2. the reason doesnt matter - spam or not...the ONLY way to mitigate this effectively is bigger blocks.

[SvenBomvolen]

Why doesn't Core release an update that includes Segwit AND a block size increase? It seems that this is the only thing that both sides would eventually cave to and agree on, that way companies needing Segwit will be able to do business and we can get a larger block size. With such a division being created, it's going to be hard to get an agreement at all unless there's something met in the middle.

Also, if Segwit works, which they think it does, then increasing the block size won't matter because not all the block size will be used. So what's the prob?

One of the arguments is that miners will get a higher fee with smaller blocks. If the miners are wanting larger blocks with BU, obviously they don't care about getting higher fees.

Because segwit fixes the quadratic hashing problem, so segwit first, then a blocksize increase later once we have seen the behaviour of the network under segwit.  All experts tend to agree:



http://bitcoinist.com/nick-szabo-bitcoin-censorship-resistance/

But that is not the main problem, the main problem is, BUcoiners are trolls that just want to destroy Core at all costs (not realizing the entire thing will be destroyed in the process). So, even if Core sat down in a table with the miners and offered them a package of SW+2MB increase, Jihan Wu would reject it. They will reject anything Core does, and they hate the idea of the LN because they think they will get less money from it.
Case in point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JarEszFY1WY

Bruce Fenton asked Jake (BU guy who filled in after Roger left) "is there anything Core can do to change your mind and get you to support the efforts of Core?" He responded "no". Bruce continued, "Even if Core advocated exactly what BU is advocating as a scaling solution?" He again responded "No". This reminded me of Ken Ham's response to Bill Nye when he was asked if there was any evidence that could possibly convince him to change his mind, and Ham said no, because he values a strict adherence to his faith over reason. My point is that Ver has essentially created an anti-core cult. Bitcoin Jesus, indeed.
We are dealing with trolls and brainwashed cultists at this point.

I also was thinking about "meeting in the middle" and in my head this idea sounded pretty easy and logical. But after this explanation I see all the reasons and minuses of why this is just impossible to happen.

[ImHash]

Exchanging services/big companies managing the market for the cryptocurrency community will not recognize a hard fork of BU nature as a valid BTC even if it's the longest chain.

[jonald_fyookball]

Exchanging services/big companies managing the market for the cryptocurrency community will not recognize a hard fork of BU nature as a valid BTC even if it's the longest chain.

What if there were multiple implementations supporting a >1MB chain?  What then?

[BillyBobZorton]

Again.... Why are there backlogs and congestion? Answer - Spam attacks.  

1. I disagree that this is the entire reason - it may cause spike but look at the long term trend

2. the reason doesnt matter - spam or not...the ONLY way to mitigate this effectively is bigger blocks.

Don't you see how by that logic, you would need an infinite block size because as you raise it, it can get quickly filled with spam again as there will always be bad actors with the resources to massively move satoshis left and right? The only way to stop this is via fees.

Im not saying lets keep 1MB forever, LN will need further blocksize increases, just pointing a logical fallacy.

The problem anyway now is, no matter what Core does, miners (Jihan Wu) and Roger Ver /r/btc morons will never be happy because it's now a cult trying to kill Core and Theymos, that's all.

[jonald_fyookball]

Don't you see how by that logic, you would need an infinite block size because as you raise it, it can get quickly filled with spam again as there will always be bad actors with the resources to massively move satoshis left and right? The only way to stop this is via fees.
 

I hear you and you are correct -- there's no block size that is spam proof. 

However, bigger blocks HELP the situation because make it more expensive for spammers to sustain any attack.  Simply letting the fee prices soar during congestion is less effective because it's an approach that only works with demand, rather than both supply and demand.  And this limiting of supply also makes things more expensive for users.
 

[Carlton Banks]

Well, SegWit needs smaller blocks to justify the need for the LN.

Nope

The justification for Lighting is that it allows increases in transaction rate that are impossible with blocksize increases. And Lightning transactions don't need confirmations, because they're verified off-chain.

I can see why Core in slowing the Block size upgrade to pave the way for LN.

That's wrong, see above

If you ask them, the they would say a Block size upgrade is not necessary, if you implement the LN.

That's literally not what they would say. You clearly don't know the first thing about Lightning

So what they have done, until the LN is implemented... was to incorporate a small Block size increase to satisfy the current need.. until LN is

later activated... The LN is the permanent solution.... not incremental Block size upgrades.  

Completely wrong.

Lightning is only good for what it does well: rapid, small transactions.

On-chain will still be needed for large transactions, and for opening Lightning channels (i.e. getting money onto the Lightning Network) in the first place



Your idea of how Lightning works is nuts, where are you getting this nonsense from?