Frankly,
It’s a “Triple-S Maneuver”, violating a “Triple-S Principle”. “Stupidly Short-Sighted” for the necessary principle reasons of “space”, “security”, and “sobriety”.
Right now Bitcoin wisely benefits from a 1 MB block restriction (planned for 2MB in a few weeks). With Segregated Witness — which is apart from a block size increase—almost 3/4
more space is available in each block
for transactions. Another way of putting it, SegWit immediately quadruples the On-Chain transaction capacity, even “before” a block size increase.
After 7 years of history, the entire user-auditable Bitcoin blockchain fits inside 136.5 GB. Absolutely
BRILLIANT. With the (current) 1MB limit, the blockchain only increases in size 1MB every 8 minutes or so. Again,
BRILLIANT.
With SegWit, we obtain 2 very valuable benefits
before increasing the physical block size.
The first benefit is: Quadrupling the effective capacity of
each 1 MB block. The following is what this looks like:
1st Block(now): 1MB (8 present mins) worth of transactions.
1st Block(SegWit): 1MB (
4MB compressed) (
32 present mins) worth of transactions.
2nd Block(now): 2MB (16 present mins) worth of transactions.
2nd Block(SegWit): 2MB (
8MB compressed) (
64 present mins) worth of transactions.
3rd Block(now): 3MB (24 mins, present) worth of transactions.
3rd Block(SegWit): 3MB (
12MB compressed) (
96 present mins) worth of transactions.
and so on…
With an
uncompressed 8MB block, every 8 mins, the brilliantly-executed, user-accessible blockchain just became “
user-unmanageable”, “
user-inaccessible”, and “
user-unauditable”.
“Stupid.”
("Prune" is not an acceptable solution for
real full nodes and
real user auditing).
The second valuable benefit provided by SegWit:
“SegWit also solves the problem where a receiver could intercept and modify the sender’s transaction ID in a bid to get more coins from the sender. Since the digital signature would be detached from the input, the unscrupulous party would have no way of changing the transaction ID without also nullifying the digital signature.”
—
http://www.investopedia.com...
Removing SegWit without a sufficient,
tested substitute:
“
Stupid.”
Regarding the third reason, “sobriety”:
a) The miners can now process 8 times the uncompressed transactions per block, asking for a compensating fee rate which, for the vast, most part, has been “the standard”, and
not the exception. It has
only been in recent times of market congestion — which for my experience has usually only been during the Western Hemisphere’s daytime — that the demand
sometimes exceeded
reasonable transaction fees. Many well know that at night the transaction rate
almost always dropped to a regular, Memory Pool-clearing level. Did we have a scaling problem?
What endeavor comparable to Bitcoin never did??? We have largely, hitherto managed to address it at a market-acceptable pace.
As if BCC and supporters are making this decision in the Far-sighted best interest of Bitcoin…
“
Stu-
b) This maneuver immediately i)
artificially inflates the Bitcoin value ( "
AIRDROPPED MONEY" 
ARE YOU KUFFING SERIOUS???), and ii) continues to contribute to the damaging, somewhat-undeserved reputation of Bitcoin being a shady, grey-black market,
law-less and controlled by “Power” as opposed to “Pensament”.
-
Pid”
