Why Bitcoin Core Developers won't compromise

[jonald_fyookball]

Very simply, they do NOT want on-chain scaling. In their own words, "segwit IS a compromise". We can only interpret that to mean a compromise between sensible scaling and NO on-chain scaling, which is in fact what they secretly want!

They want Bitcoin to be a settlement network, but do not have the honesty to admit this.

They cannot honestly and openly admit "yes we want to change Bitcoin from Satoshi's peer to peer cash into a settlement network" because it would be so radical that it would have a high probability of getting backlash from the community. Therefore, they have opted to be sneaky about it.

Because they want bitcoin to be a settlement network, the impasse is fine with them, perhaps even better than segwit.

Segwit represents a tiny amount of on-chain scaling designed to make it APPEAR that Core is willing to offer on-chain scaling, yet designed in a way that it will not even activate (95% consensus), and even if it does, it would be years later than appropriate.

Segwit IS their compromise. Ideally, for them, no on chain scaling occurs.

To summarize: There is no need to compromise further because no change works in their favor.
 

[1715198745]

1715198745

[1715198745]

1715198745

[Nagadota]

The Lightning Network can take a huge amount of transactions largely offchain.  The idea of having all transactions fully onchain is not a matter of principle, it's a matter of control from miners so that they can receive transaction fees more often.  SegWit allows a slight increase in onchain capacity which is enough for the short term while this offchain scaling can also be implemented.

[cellard]

They cannot honestly and openly admit "yes we want to change Bitcoin from Satoshi's peer to peer cash into a settlement network" because it would be so radical that it would have a high probability of getting backlash from the community. Therefore, they have opted to be sneaky about it.

How do you maintain the promise of so called "peer to peer cash" to scale globally without centralizing the network due huge blocks that people cannot afford to run at home, therefore not anymore peer to peer cash but peer to corporation to peer transaction? (aka what we have already in the current baking system)

[Qartada]

Less onchain scaling doesn't have to mean that Bitcoin becomes a "settlement network".

What they'd prefer is limited onchain scaing - an amount which can be implemented without having to increase the block size.  The more you can just increase the block size at will, the less incentivised you are to implement new solutions which make the network more efficient.

[jonald_fyookball]

They cannot honestly and openly admit "yes we want to change Bitcoin from Satoshi's peer to peer cash into a settlement network" because it would be so radical that it would have a high probability of getting backlash from the community. Therefore, they have opted to be sneaky about it.

How do you maintain the promise of so called "peer to peer cash" to scale globally without centralizing the network due huge blocks that people cannot afford to run at home, therefore not anymore peer to peer cash but peer to corporation to peer transaction? (aka what we have already in the current baking system)

Satoshi's vision was that eventually, when the network gets large, only miners need to run full nodes.   Ordinary users can use SPV clients.

As the network gets larger, running a full node will become more expensive, but please realize that:

A)  part of that cost will be offset by the natural decline in processing and bandwidth costs.

and...

B)  By that time, Bitcoin network will be so big that it will still be very decentralized even if the cost barriers to mining increase.

You can have a different opinion than Satoshi, but I find it very suspicious that those who do aren't forthright about it.  

Less onchain scaling doesn't have to mean that Bitcoin becomes a "settlement network".

What they'd prefer is limited onchain scaing - 

This is what they want you to believe, but the fact they are unwilling to compromise AT ALL, even if the face of quickly rising fees, terrible congestion, and frightening losses of marketshare...should tell you something.   Actions speak louder than words.

[Slark]

The evolution of bitcoin scaling is not to have on-chain scaling solution. We can see other way to upgrade bitcoin network through off-chain infrastructure.

You see Coinbase is keeping bitcoins on its system. Same as Purse.io they will credit customer instantly and we don't have to pay any fees on chain.
And now imagine that Coinbase and Purse will engage in bilateral trades. If I would like to send coins to Purse, Purse will ask Coinbase, is this an address you control?
Then all we need is signed message from Coinbase (a cryptographic proof). There will be no transaction necessary on the blockchain, no fees, no wait  time, no confirmation.

I see SegWit as a first step in the right direction of building off-chain network, and compromise is not necessary.

[Paashaas]

Segwitt +side-chains are the only possible way to make Bitcoin mainstream. Some people cannot see how aswesome all those chains will be.

[Carlton Banks]

jonald's totally right, Segwit 4MB blocks do not change the scale of the Bitcoin network's use of resources.

But jonald's preferred plans only make that situation worse, too. He goes on and on and on about on-chain scaling, but always presents ideas (about 5 different non-scaling ideas in 2 years, and counting) that don't change the scale the Bitcoin network performs at, they just increase the capacity, at the expense of a decentralised network where the users are in control.

We can have both. We can have capacity increases, and safeguard the Bitcoin network so that regualr users are in control of the rules. Anyone would think that jonald doesn't want that, by the way he carries on

[Holliday]

Beg your pool operator overlords if you want a compromise.

[franky1]

The Lightning Network can take a huge amount of transactions largely offchain.  The idea of having all transactions fully onchain is not a matter of principle, it's a matter of control from miners so that they can receive transaction fees more often.  SegWit allows a slight increase in onchain capacity which is enough for the short term while this offchain scaling can also be implemented.

malicious spammers wont use segwit keys nor will they use lightning.
they will continue to native spam the baseblock which will still distrupt segwit keys users and lightning open/close channel operations

segwit/lightning does not solve the real problems. it just pushes innocent people away from native bitcoin with hopes and utopian dreams, but no promiss/guarantee's

[Viper1]

I'm so tired of all the propaganda. Even if the big block (BU) side could convince me it was the right thing to do (and studying both sides of the argument from an actual technical and risk standpoint failed to do that), I'm so sick of it I would side against them simply due to all the bullshit I hear from that side. You want to win people over, then do it with hard facts, data and logical reasoned debate etc. Franky I think both sides are filled with prima dona arrogant twats. I think segwit is a good idea but I also think the whole hard fork bad, let's not do 2Mb blocks is ridiculous. Taken in it's entirety, I'm "stuck" opposing big blocks and supporting what core is doing.

[Nagadota]

The Lightning Network can take a huge amount of transactions largely offchain.  The idea of having all transactions fully onchain is not a matter of principle, it's a matter of control from miners so that they can receive transaction fees more often.  SegWit allows a slight increase in onchain capacity which is enough for the short term while this offchain scaling can also be implemented.

malicious spammers wont use segwit keys nor will they use lightning.
they will continue to native spam the baseblock which will still distrupt segwit keys users and lightning open/close channel operations

segwit/lightning does not solve the real problems. it just pushes innocent people away from native bitcoin with hopes and utopian dreams, but no promiss/guarantee's

The resources that spammers need to pressure the network wouldn't necessarily change very much with larger blocks.  They can just send lower transaction fees for their transactions that never confirm.  Higher fees mean that spam can only take the network so far as the resources needed for it rise, and therefore solutions like LN are good for there to be low fees overall due to reuse of payment channels, and low fees for larger transactions because as a percentage those fees would still be miniature.

[jonald_fyookball]

I'm so tired of all the propaganda. Even if the big block (BU) side could convince me it was the right thing to do (and studying both sides of the argument from an actual technical and risk standpoint failed to do that), I'm so sick of it I would side against them simply due to all the bullshit I hear from that side. You want to win people over, then do it with hard facts, data and logical reasoned debate etc. Franky I think both sides are filled with prima dona arrogant twats. I think segwit is a good idea but I also think the whole hard fork bad, let's not do 2Mb blocks is ridiculous. Taken in it's entirety, I'm "stuck" opposing big blocks and supporting what core is doing.

But we've been there, done that.   For example Gavin did actually testing on 8MB blocks 2 years ago.  And there are SIMPLE solutions to QH.  Everyone knows 2MB would be fine.  Not sure would you oppose this because you don't like certain personalities. 

[Viper1]

I'm so tired of all the propaganda. Even if the big block (BU) side could convince me it was the right thing to do (and studying both sides of the argument from an actual technical and risk standpoint failed to do that), I'm so sick of it I would side against them simply due to all the bullshit I hear from that side. You want to win people over, then do it with hard facts, data and logical reasoned debate etc. Franky I think both sides are filled with prima dona arrogant twats. I think segwit is a good idea but I also think the whole hard fork bad, let's not do 2Mb blocks is ridiculous. Taken in it's entirety, I'm "stuck" opposing big blocks and supporting what core is doing.

But we've been there, done that. For example Gavin did actually testing on 8MB blocks 2 years ago.  And there are SIMPLE solutions to QH.  Everyone knows 2MB would be fine.  Not sure would you oppose this because you don't like certain personalities.

Gavin is a really nice guy but I've read a lot of his stuff on here and IMO he's naive when it comes to risks. Funny cause I read a comment he made about that somewhere as apparently others have made the same observation. As I said. IMO 2Mb was a no brainer and I have an issue with  core taking a "no hard fork" stance (at least yet as they haven't taken bigger blocks off the table). But when I compare the two from a technical and risk standpoint, I'm forced to go with core. Not because I really want to but because the alternative is far less acceptable to me. And to be clear, I really don't like certain personalities on either side.

And I know you like to bring out Satoshi as if he was an all seeing all knowing deity that foresaw where things would be decades from the time he created bitcoin. But his short little 1 line comments about some of these large issues forces me to question whether he really gave them the sort of serious thought they apparently needed. At the end of the day, much has changed and we don't have a clue what he might think or do now. Anyone pulling out those old one liners as some sort of "proof" is simply trying to use him to suit their agenda.

[jonald_fyookball]

And I know you like to bring out Satoshi as if he was an all seeing all knowing deity that foresaw where things would be decades from the time he created bitcoin. But his short little 1 line comments about some of these large issues forces me to question whether he really gave them the sort of serious thought they apparently needed. At the end of the day, much has changed and we don't have a clue what he might think or do now. Anyone pulling out those old one liners as some sort of "proof" is simply trying to use him to suit their agenda.

But even if I didn't really agree with Satoshi, i would still likely think the core team needs to bend more from their roadmap since 2mb is entirely reasonable, the miners aren't agreeing to "segwit only" and the impasse is damaging Bitcoin. (Yet, core doesn't seem to care and in fact is happy with this.  That was my point.)

[Lauda]

To summarize: There is no need to compromise further because no change works in their favor.

Whose favor are we talking about exactly?

They cannot honestly and openly admit "yes we want to change Bitcoin from Satoshi's peer to peer cash into a settlement network" because it would be so radical that it would have a high probability of getting backlash from the community. Therefore, they have opted to be sneaky about it.

Stop quoting Satoshi out of context to please your shilling overlords.

[Viper1]

And I know you like to bring out Satoshi as if he was an all seeing all knowing deity that foresaw where things would be decades from the time he created bitcoin. But his short little 1 line comments about some of these large issues forces me to question whether he really gave them the sort of serious thought they apparently needed. At the end of the day, much has changed and we don't have a clue what he might think or do now. Anyone pulling out those old one liners as some sort of "proof" is simply trying to use him to suit their agenda.

But even if I didn't really agree with Satoshi, i would still likely think the core team needs to bend more from their roadmap since 2mb is entirely reasonable, the miners aren't agreeing to "segwit only" and the impasse is damaging Bitcoin. (Yet, core doesn't seem to care and in fact is happy with this.  That was my point.)

"Everyone" is damaging Bitcoin. Core, Ver (BU), Jihan, "you". Playing the blame game is damaging. Saying only one side is at fault is damaging. As for "miners", as far as I can see it has nothing to do with segwit only but because maxwell pissed them off. They activated segwit on LTC just on the "promise" of a bigger block size once they get half full (I predict LTC will magically get to half full far quicker than it should). So it looks to me like it's all just out of spite now. As for core, last I heard the "plan" was something like segwit, LN and if it's still needed a block size increase. As I said, I think not doing hard forks while bitcoin is still "young" and learning lessons from doing them is foolish. So IMO a 2Mb change would have been a good idea for a variety of reasons. But we are where we're at and everyone is entrenching. I see it ending very badly for all of us users that just want to move forward.

[BillyBobZorton]

They cannot honestly and openly admit "yes we want to change Bitcoin from Satoshi's peer to peer cash into a settlement network" because it would be so radical that it would have a high probability of getting backlash from the community. Therefore, they have opted to be sneaky about it.

How do you maintain the promise of so called "peer to peer cash" to scale globally without centralizing the network due huge blocks that people cannot afford to run at home, therefore not anymore peer to peer cash but peer to corporation to peer transaction? (aka what we have already in the current baking system)

Satoshi's vision was that eventually, when the network gets large, only miners need to run full nodes.   Ordinary users can use SPV clients.

As the network gets larger, running a full node will become more expensive, but please realize that:

A)  part of that cost will be offset by the natural decline in processing and bandwidth costs.

and...

B)  By that time, Bitcoin network will be so big that it will still be very decentralized even if the cost barriers to mining increase.

You can have a different opinion than Satoshi, but I find it very suspicious that those who do aren't forthright about it.  

Forget about "satoshis" vision and focus on the facts.

Fact: If you raise the blocksize up to a point where people can't run their own nodes, you cannot call it a peer to peer network anymore.

No amount of tricks can overcome the importance of a full validating node, so forget about SPV. The moment people can't have full validating nodes the whole concept of "peer to peer cash" it's game over.

Fact: Technology is not going to catch up with the huge blocksizes we would need, not in terms of storage and not in terms of bandwith. Mainstream level transaction onchain will always be ahead of the curve when it comes to running full validating nodes, which means mainstream level transactions are impossible onchain without a centralized network where corporations run the nodes.

If satoshi wanted datacenters to run full nodes then he was objectively wrong in calling his project a peer to peer cash network because it's not peer to peer and certainly not cash.

[jonald_fyookball]

And I know you like to bring out Satoshi as if he was an all seeing all knowing deity that foresaw where things would be decades from the time he created bitcoin. But his short little 1 line comments about some of these large issues forces me to question whether he really gave them the sort of serious thought they apparently needed. At the end of the day, much has changed and we don't have a clue what he might think or do now. Anyone pulling out those old one liners as some sort of "proof" is simply trying to use him to suit their agenda.

But even if I didn't really agree with Satoshi, i would still likely think the core team needs to bend more from their roadmap since 2mb is entirely reasonable, the miners aren't agreeing to "segwit only" and the impasse is damaging Bitcoin. (Yet, core doesn't seem to care and in fact is happy with this.  That was my point.)

"Everyone" is damaging Bitcoin. Core, Ver (BU), Jihan, "you". Playing the blame game is damaging. Saying only one side is at fault is damaging.

Miners not signaling a scaling preference are also to blame, I would agree with that.   I don't blame either Bitfury or Bitmain -- they are at least signaling what they perceive to be the best solution.  How are investors  to blame for trying to make logical arguments about what is happening?

As for "miners", as far as I can see it has nothing to do with segwit only but because maxwell pissed them off. They activated segwit on LTC just on the "promise" of a bigger block size once they get half full (I predict LTC will magically get to half full far quicker than it should). So it looks to me like it's all just out of spite now.

Bitcoin core devs Would agree to a similar agreement?  Very doubtful.

As for core, last I heard the "plan" was something like segwit, LN and if it's still needed a block size increase.

Yes, that's their roadmap, but who decides when "if its needed"?  Greg?  He'll never say its needed.  If they can't agree we already need it badly right now, I don't see why there would be any logical explanation for them to act reasonably in the future.

As I said, I think not doing hard forks while bitcoin is still "young" and learning lessons from doing them is foolish. So IMO a 2Mb change would have been a good idea for a variety of reasons. But we are where we're at and everyone is entrenching. I see it ending very badly for all of us users that just want to move forward.

Could be.   I hope it doesn't end bad as I'm a hodler.   Maybe there will be a network split.  Who knows.

[jonald_fyookball]

No amount of tricks can overcome the importance of a full validating node, so forget about SPV. The moment people can't have full validating nodes the whole concept of "peer to peer cash" it's game over.
 

But why?  What's wrong with SPV and fraud proofs for my own transactions?   Why do I need to validate the entire blockchain ?