Seriously devs, segwit adoption and LN needs more time

[somac.]

So fees are getting stupid (some as high as $160), Segwit adoption is slow and the lightning network is still a ways off. The price is being affected and BTC market dominance is almost at all time lows.

I think it is about time that we raise the block size, to give segwit adoption and LN more time. Being that the blocksize increase would be done by core we can trust they'll do it right, so why shouldn't it be done?

If we delay too long BTC will lose its dominance and when that happens it is all over.

Let's drop the tribalism, the bickering, and just do what is in the interest of BTC. An increase in blocksize will not be the end to decentralization, it's been almost 10 years since BTC began hard drive sizes have increased substantially in that time and the cost has come down substantially.
 

[1715104351]

1715104351

[pooya87]

I think it is about time that we raise the block size, to give segwit adoption and LN more time. Being that the blocksize increase would be done by core we can trust they'll do it right, so why shouldn't it be done?

i agree. we needed the block size increase with SegWit2x (New York) agreement. everyone was on board, miners, businesses, wallets,... but developers weren't so the community didn't get on board either. and that was the thing that activated SegWit in first place!

and now nobody is implementing SegWit, the big wallets like blockchain.info and Coinbase aren't doing it. exchanges apart from 2 or 3 aren't implementing it. and people are still not using it.

If we delay too long BTC will lose its dominance and when that happens it is all over.

it will lose dominance but it won't be for long.
because altcoins have the same scaling issues and then some more.
what will bitcoin lose its dominance to?

bitcoin cash? BitPay is going to start accepting it so i am expecting more adoption of it but it is just delaying the inevitable with its block size increase alone without a second layer solution like LN. and if it implements something like LN then why use BCH then!!!

ETH? the scaling issue of it is worse than bitcoin's! it can't even handle ICOs on it and everything goes south with a simple smart contract like cryptokitties!

LTC? it is the copy of bitcoin with more orphans. so no solution there.

XRP? it is not even a currency and it is heavily centralized, if you want a centralized currency then use Paypal or credit cards,...

these new DAG-based coins? they aren't handling that much more transactions than bitcoin. they still have to scale more, and running a full node and becoming a witness is nearly impossible, in other words lack of decentralization.

what else?

[HeRetiK]

I think it is about time that we raise the block size, to give segwit adoption and LN more time. Being that the blocksize increase would be done by core we can trust they'll do it right, so why shouldn't it be done?

i agree. we needed the block size increase with SegWit2x (New York) agreement. everyone was on board, miners, businesses, wallets,... but developers weren't so the community didn't get on board either. and that was the thing that activated SegWit in first place!

and now nobody is implementing SegWit, the big wallets like blockchain.info and Coinbase aren't doing it. exchanges apart from 2 or 3 aren't implementing it. and people are still not using it.

Problem being, once the blocksize is increased, there's effectively no going back. So I do understand Core's conservative blocksize philosophy.

It may hurt short- to mid-term, but I think in the long term BTC will be fine, because...

If we delay too long BTC will lose its dominance and when that happens it is all over.

it will lose dominance but it won't be for long.
because altcoins have the same scaling issues and then some more.
what will bitcoin lose its dominance to?

[...]

^ this.

I have yet to see an alt with a scaling approach that actually convinces me. So in the end I personally am still on-board with SegWit1x blocks for a safer, long-term perspective, despite the current short-term problems. You gotta look at the bigger picture. If all goes well these 1-2 years of shitty fees we are looking at right now will be nothing but a minor bump on the road.

[pooya87]

true but we still need "on-chain" scaling. even with LN you still need to make transactions on bitcoin blockchain not to mention people will still want to use on-chain transactions more and more every day as the adoption grows. and SegWit only gives 1.6-2 and it is opt-in so people can choose not to use it, and it will never be a 100% adoption.

[iamTom123]

So fees are getting stupid (some as high as $160), Segwit adoption is slow and the lightning network is still a ways off. The price is being affected and BTC market dominance is almost at all time lows.I think it is about time that we raise the block size, to give segwit adoption and LN more time. Being that the blocksize increase would be done by core we can trust they'll do it right, so why shouldn't it be done? If we delay too long BTC will lose its dominance and when that happens it is all over. Let's drop the tribalism, the bickering, and just do what is in the interest of BTC. An increase in blocksize will not be the end to decentralization, it's been almost 10 years since BTC began hard drive sizes have increased substantially in that time and the cost has come down substantially.
 

This is the best time that we all show the unity needed to push Bitcoin forward. The core team must step in and do the right thing otherwise we might as well forget all about Bitcoin and move on to other alternatives. We don't want that to happen with Bitcoin though we welcome any new alts as the market is big and there is no need to kill each other. I am hoping that this message can be able to penetrate those who are in charge in deciding for the many problems affecting Bitcoin now. This is just a temporary setback am sure but we need an ASAP solution in an emergency situation.

[jseverson]

I honestly don't know what core can realistically do. Increase block size? While that looks good on paper, I think it legitimizes Bitcoin Cash in a sense. Sure they don't have Segwit, and they're not planning on implementing anything like the Lightning Network, but I'm worried about the political repercussions.

It's sad about Segwit because it's apparently enough to erase all of our problems right now, but as mentioned, there are some big exchanges (which amount to a lot of traffic) that haven't implemented it yet, and some wallets haven't polished the feature enough. Maybe the best thing to do for the long term is nothing. We might need something for the short term to even begin to think long term though. People are pissed.

[somac.]

There are obviously issues either way, but, the amount of congestion we are seeing on the network will turn people off. Also there may be no alts at the moment, but, that will eventually change,Bitcoin needs to get ahead of them.

[Zebra.Guy]

I honestly don't know what core can realistically do. Increase block size? While that looks good on paper, I think it legitimizes Bitcoin Cash in a sense.

From what you are saying and I seem to incline that way too, bitcoin is flawed from the beginning. The expectation that you could store every transaction in the world in many copies (each node holds everything) is simply unrealistic

[somac.]

I honestly don't know what core can realistically do. Increase block size? While that looks good on paper, I think it legitimizes Bitcoin Cash in a sense.

From what you are saying and I seem to incline that way too, bitcoin is flawed from the beginning. The expectation that you could store every transaction in the world in many copies (each node holds everything) is simply unrealistic

not flawed, because of things like the lightning network. Problem is we need it sooner not later.

[OmegaStarScream]

i agree. we needed the block size increase with SegWit2x (New York) agreement. everyone was on board, miners, businesses, wallets,... but developers weren't so the community didn't get on board either. and that was the thing that activated SegWit in first place!

The services and wallet providers didn't even try SegWit (which has zero downsides If implemented) to judge If it's good or bad. SegWit2x looks like an attempt to take over bitcoin If you ask me and the same supporters are the ones who are delaying activation of SegWit.

[somac.]

i agree. we needed the block size increase with SegWit2x (New York) agreement. everyone was on board, miners, businesses, wallets,... but developers weren't so the community didn't get on board either. and that was the thing that activated SegWit in first place!

The services and wallet providers didn't even try SegWit (which has zero downsides If implemented) to judge If it's good or bad. SegWit2x looks like an attempt to take over bitcoin If you ask me and the same supporters are the ones who are delaying activation of SegWit.

Very true, no way would I want an increase in the blocksize unless it is done by core. and your right about the supporters not implementing segwit, very arseholeish and bad for business

[penig]

Bitcoin devs have sat on their hands about these problems for years, they aren't going to do something about it now. Fact is, Bitcoin was never designed to cope with wide adoption.  Glaring issues have been there from the beginning with "fix it later" markers, the community argue about any fix because they think its against the original concept or that the devs are out for themselves.  

[AlwaysJanuary]

More info :
1. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy

Read this resource first.

[somac.]

Fact is, Bitcoin was never designed to cope with wide adoption.  

Bitcoin is software, software evolves, windows 3.1 was not designed for the modern workload. But, here we are, with windows 3.1 now evolved into windows 10, and windows 10 performs well.

[penig]

Fact is, Bitcoin was never designed to cope with wide adoption.  

Bitcoin is software, software evolves, windows 3.1 was not designed for the modern workload. But, here we are, with windows 3.1 now evolved into windows 10, and windows 10 performs well.

Yeah, great example - we no longer use Windows 3.1, there's only some branding in common, with nominal 16bit support only provided through emulation and janky third party tools.  

Its time we had Bitcoin 2.0.

[hsmst4]

Decentralization is always the highest priority for core.  Increasing the block size directly threatens that this since it highly favors the larger miners.  Therefore should only be used as a last resort which we are not even close to. 

Core doesn't care one bit about returns, futures, ETFs, or even mass adoption.  They cannot be bought or influenced and will protect the integrity of the code at all costs.  That philosophy is the very reason why Bitcoin is even here.  I for one am thankful for their patience and diligence.

[penig]

Decentralization is always the highest priority for core.  Increasing the block size directly threatens that this since it highly favors the larger miners. 

That ship sailed a loooong time ago, when the first ASIC went to production.

[hsmst4]

Decentralization is always the highest priority for core.  Increasing the block size directly threatens that this since it highly favors the larger miners. 

That ship sailed a loooong time ago, when the first ASIC went to production.

But wouldn't larger blocks make it more difficult to run a node?  The chain would grow too fast.

[Tesorex]

Block size of 2MB should fix the fees for a while.

[bambazamba]

So fees are getting stupid (some as high as $160), Segwit adoption is slow and the lightning network is still a ways off. The price is being affected and BTC market dominance is almost at all time lows.

I think it is about time that we raise the block size, to give segwit adoption and LN more time. Being that the blocksize increase would be done by core we can trust they'll do it right, so why shouldn't it be done?

If we delay too long BTC will lose its dominance and when that happens it is all over.

Let's drop the tribalism, the bickering, and just do what is in the interest of BTC. An increase in blocksize will not be the end to decentralization, it's been almost 10 years since BTC began hard drive sizes have increased substantially in that time and the cost has come down substantially.
 

 Obviously ligheneing network has been in talks from months now . But is increasing the block size too easy ?
No !! That is not . That would need a major updation and that is something they are not able to achieve from months now .  This is just the point where everybody has gone far from their threshold points because of the transaction thing . I think things will get better . Just don't simply dump bitcoin when it needs the most support . Just a temporary thing which is going to get resolved very soon.