Why didn't bitcoin scale using both proposed solutions?

[LtMotioN]

Hi Forum
Hoping you can educate me a bit here. I wasn't heavily into crypto at the time this all took place.
When the whole scaling debates began basically two solutions were proposed, which as we know lead to the creation of BCH.
Why did we not move BTC to 2MB blocks while work on the layer 2 scaling was being finalized? As I understand LN right now when a channel is closed the transactions in it get processed by the main chain, thus a bit of extra blocksize would help scale LN even more.

To me, I personally like the idea of layer 2 scaling more because of all the features it would add to BTC and new things it would make possible. I see some merit in both solutions though.

Is there a good reason apart from politics that we couldn't have just done both? It would have carried us for now until new scaling solutions are done and fully tested.

The BTC vs BCH has really split the community, yea there's some funny memes around this and all, but its not good that we are all fighting each other and getting super opinionated around this. I hope we don't see more separation in the community in the future.

P.S. lets not turn this into a BTC vs BCH argument here, make love not war

[Anti-Cen]

Blocks and timing could get a little more steam out the old steam engine and we know this because
ETH runs at 15 transactions per second and BTC is at seven TPS and Segwit takes some of the data
out of the block and puts it in a separate file but this does not solve the problem because each of
the 20,000 full nodes are still forced to host 200gb of data

Basically we have data replication and not distributed processing of the block chain or what
some people call block-matrix and I would be happy as pie to say that Lightning is the solution
but it's not and this ignores BTC going off block.

Try doing a ICO and tell everyone that your money is all off block and see how well that sells
because effectively that's just what people are buying here with Bitcoin 

[Carlton Banks]

Why did we not move BTC to 2MB blocks while work on the layer 2 scaling was being finalized? As I understand LN right now when a channel is closed the transactions in it get processed by the main chain, thus a bit of extra blocksize would help scale LN even more.

Bitcoin had five 2 MB blocks at the weekend just gone. Blocks are regularly 1.2 or 1.1 MB.

The maximum block limit is 4MB, and has been for four months. So your wish came true already.

[Anti-Cen]

The maximum block limit is 4MB, and has been for four months. So your wish came true already.

it's just a tab under 4mb with half the data being written to a separate file and I read that Segwit data
in the block gets some discount on how they count it as being a byte so they seem to be cooking the
numbers.

apart from the Segwit having a "3" instead of "1" what else did they need to change in the transaction
sent from the wallet to the nodes ?

They broke client code with this update and users get to pay mining fees to fix it when converting
wallets and I for one would like to understand why

[Carlton Banks]

You forgot something: Segwit addresses are banks. And the old style addresses, banks, all of them!!!

[amishmanish]

You forgot something: Segwit addresses are banks. And the old style addresses, banks, all of them!!!

And when LN comes then Bob will have no coffee at end of month for he will pay half his money to the grocery shop'
for 30$ transaction fee and this is so because i am telling you so and i know everything infact i know so much about
banks and all the bitcoin code to be put in decentralized computing hardware with multiple configurations to be done
easily on blockchain and i am so fast that i cannot use punctuations.

That does not mean I cannot change the paragraph and start talking about something else for a while to make me sound
like i know the shit i am typing.

because if old steam engine run then why get new engine let us first put all money into the bank where it will run our engine
and engine engine bank bank LN  SegWit  Bank Core blockstream bank segwit bank

ERROR CODE: 404 BOT UNRESPONSIVE

[Anti-Cen]

You forgot something: Segwit addresses are banks. And the old style addresses, banks, all of them!!!

You have been debunked and now want to act like a child instead of admitting it like a man

 

[Anti-Cen]

because if old steam engine run then why get new engine let us first put all money into the bank where it will run our engine
and engine engine bank bank LN  SegWit  Bank Core blockstream bank segwit bank

ERROR CODE: 404 BOT UNRESPONSIVE

Is this your bedroom



Nothing green about Bitcoin miner CPU-Wars but do you think its worth my time taking
an in depth look at this moonlite.io

[monkeydominicorobin]

Because nobody can impose on it. Nobody can change it in a snap. If you want a new Bitcoin then create your own through hard fork. Nobody can stop you from implementing hard forks. The problem is how to maintain it. Can you?

[amishmanish]

Hi Forum
Hoping you can educate me a bit here. I wasn't heavily into crypto at the time this all took place.
When the whole scaling debates began basically two solutions were proposed, which as we know lead to the creation of BCH.
Why did we not move BTC to 2MB blocks while work on the layer 2 scaling was being finalized? As I understand LN right now when a channel is closed the transactions in it get processed by the main chain, thus a bit of extra blocksize would help scale LN even more.

To me, I personally like the idea of layer 2 scaling more because of all the features it would add to BTC and new things it would make possible. I see some merit in both solutions though.

Is there a good reason apart from politics that we couldn't have just done both? It would have carried us for now until new scaling solutions are done and fully tested.

The BTC vs BCH has really split the community, yea there's some funny memes around this and all, but its not good that we are all fighting each other and getting super opinionated around this. I hope we don't see more separation in the community in the future.

P.S. lets not turn this into a BTC vs BCH argument here, make love not war

Sorry for that post above.
As you know the bitcoin code has been constantly updated with several improvements over the years as an open source project. There was a general agreement that scaling had to be achieved somehow. One side wanted a simple solution by increasing the block size. The other side was in opposition because the block size increase has a direct effect on the requirements to run a full-node. A full-node can validate the block-chain and accept or reject transactions depending on their validity. THIS "VALIDITY" is determined by the set of rules that transactions are following.

When you do a fork (Soft or Hard), you are making changes to these rules. The difference is subtle but very important.
In a soft-fork, Its not mandatory for EVERYONE to upgrade immediately. Because blocks produced under new rules will still be valid on old systems.
In a Hard-fork, It is mandatory for all systems to upgrade, otherwise the blocks produced under new rules will be invalid on old systems. This essentially creates two chains and opens up several possibilities discussed here.

That I think is reason enough for the core developers to not want a block size and a hard fork.
You are right, in a perfect world, everybody would have agreed that a hard-fork is risky and that solutions like SegWit and LN should be implemented first. The block size increase could wait until the ecosystem was mature enough to form consensus. (On what is the safe limit for block size to keep the network decentralised enough and whether everyone is ready for a hard fork). When such a consensus would be available, a size increase could've been incorporated.

What has happened now instead is that a few powerful individuals (2 i think) have colluded to co-opt the bitcoin and scream to the whole world that they are the original. What Roger Ver is as a person is quite clear from his "Ï am a self made millionaire", "Whats your gross annual revenue" outbursts.. He is a egoist with a lot of money and one talented but disgruntled developer to support him.
He just decided to benefit from the disgruntlement amongst the bitcoin developers and launch his own coin. That was really sad.

[amishmanish]

You forgot something: Segwit addresses are banks. And the old style addresses, banks, all of them!!!

You have been debunked and now want to act like a child instead of admitting it like a man

 

Nobody and nothing has been debunked except in your imagination. Its just that nobody likes to engage trolls for too long. Goodbye!

[Anti-Cen]

Nobody and nothing has been debunked except in your imagination. Its just that nobody likes to engage trolls for too long. Goodbye!

Whats these MNL tokens and i see they pay people to spam the ICO but they pay them in ETH
and not Bitcoin and shock, horror they will even take donations in Ripple.

So just how do you become green if your competing with other miners in a game of CPU-wars
to create new coins because you my friend sure seem full of contradictions so clear off back to the
marketing section of the forum where you belong. <<< Full stop as not to offend teacher dear 

[cellard]

I don't think there is such a thing as "blockchain size scaling solution". How can we ever agree 100% on it? There will always be people against it, and this will always create a new coin as a result, that will co-exist within the existing chain just like BCash.

I see very difficult that we will ever have a blocksize increase, because as I said, it will always result in "a new BCH" and the legacy chain will go on, unless you have 100% people involved onboard.

[Carlton Banks]

I see very difficult that we will ever have a blocksize increase, because as I said, it will always result in "a new BCH" and the legacy chain will go on, unless you have 100% people involved onboard.

It was increased, 4 months ago.

[Anti-Cen]

It was increased, 4 months ago.

I agree and fees kept going up afterward to peek at $55 and I was corrected today about Tx fees being at $30 because they
are at $15 when i checked so from now onward I will use $25 when talking about the fees to reflect the mid price

See mempool https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size
At about 135,000 so given the backlog how come before now the miners have been charging $35 +
when we were at these levels if it was market forces and not out and out collusion within the mining
pool monopoly and I have a graph for that too https://blockchain.info/pools

Ten top miners control 90% of the network

[Samplex]

Hi Forum
Hoping you can educate me a bit here. I wasn't heavily into crypto at the time this all took place.
When the whole scaling debates began basically two solutions were proposed, which as we know lead to the creation of BCH.
Why did we not move BTC to 2MB blocks while work on the layer 2 scaling was being finalized? As I understand LN right now when a channel is closed the transactions in it get processed by the main chain, thus a bit of extra blocksize would help scale LN even more.

To me, I personally like the idea of layer 2 scaling more because of all the features it would add to BTC and new things it would make possible. I see some merit in both solutions though.

Is there a good reason apart from politics that we couldn't have just done both? It would have carried us for now until new scaling solutions are done and fully tested.

The BTC vs BCH has really split the community, yea there's some funny memes around this and all, but its not good that we are all fighting each other and getting super opinionated around this. I hope we don't see more separation in the community in the future.

P.S. lets not turn this into a BTC vs BCH argument here, make love not war

Sorry for that post above.
As you know the bitcoin code has been constantly updated with several improvements over the years as an open source project. There was a general agreement that scaling had to be achieved somehow. One side wanted a simple solution by increasing the block size. The other side was in opposition because the block size increase has a direct effect on the requirements to run a full-node. A full-node can validate the block-chain and accept or reject transactions depending on their validity. THIS "VALIDITY" is determined by the set of rules that transactions are following.

When you do a fork (Soft or Hard), you are making changes to these rules. The difference is subtle but very important.
In a soft-fork, Its not mandatory for EVERYONE to upgrade immediately. Because blocks produced under new rules will still be valid on old systems.
In a Hard-fork, It is mandatory for all systems to upgrade, otherwise the blocks produced under new rules will be invalid on old systems. This essentially creates two chains and opens up several possibilities discussed here.

That I think is reason enough for the core developers to not want a block size and a hard fork.
You are right, in a perfect world, everybody would have agreed that a hard-fork is risky and that solutions like SegWit and LN should be implemented first. The block size increase could wait until the ecosystem was mature enough to form consensus. (On what is the safe limit for block size to keep the network decentralised enough and whether everyone is ready for a hard fork). When such a consensus would be available, a size increase could've been incorporated.

What has happened now instead is that a few powerful individuals (2 i think) have colluded to co-opt the bitcoin and scream to the whole world that they are the original. What Roger Ver is as a person is quite clear from his "Ï am a self made millionaire", "Whats your gross annual revenue" outbursts.. He is a egoist with a lot of money and one talented but disgruntled developer to support him.
He just decided to benefit from the disgruntlement amongst the bitcoin developers and launch his own coin. That was really sad.

I get it that Rodger is just a bussiness man and he likes to make money and that is what he is trying to do the best here.

If SegWit and LN in general is more to "like a bank system" why do we have it even? These new addresses that starts with "3" and "bc1" what about them?? Are they not "on chain" and everything with them is done off chain?? Raising blocksize or making blocks faster+decreasing reward should be okay solution I guess. Look at ethereum it holds much harder load in terms of speed of blockchain growth and faster blcoks etc. and I don't particulary see that theres not any problem, of course ether has some problems regarding transactions here and there.

Could you explain why is LN like urgently needed? To my understanding people saw that scaling debate was going nowhere , you had litecoin activating SegWit??? which may pushed people towards LN even more, and said enough and they opted for SegWit while other rich dudes went for BCH. But why is LN that much advanced.

[Anti-Cen]

and the condition become worse because slow adoption.

Maybe because of the conversion fee to new address and few exchanges or known wallets like Exodus and Jaxx work with it and the output
addresses also have to be Segwit to save you money on fees and then (i am told) the savings are low

Never again will I bet taken in by "Virtually free transaction fees" and that includes LN and the banker/hub fees because it will be
the miners that are running the big banking hubs that they like to hide when talking about Bob playing ping-pong with Alice

[hatshepsut93]

First, lets define scaling as having enough capacity to provide very cheap transactions for all the active users. Currently Bitcoin has 4-7 transactions per second, while Visa processes 4,000 transactions per second. This means that to get to that level blocks should be 1,000 times bigger, and this is bad, because users won't be able to participate in the network - and when it happens, it stops being cryptocurrency and turns into another payment processor. And what is worse, it can happen pretty fast even 8-12 MB blocks would dramatically decrease the node count, while not giving any significant boosts in capacity. So, increasing blocksize is by no means can be called a scaling solution, it is very-very short term, and we shouldn't care about short term, because Bitcoin is a fundamental technology.

[Kakmakr]

The SegWit upgrade was just a temporary stop-gap implementation to prepare for the final solution, which is the Lightning Network. Why would you want to implement bigger Block sizes, if your ultimate goal is to provide a alternative for that?

SegWit was basically ignored and still is, by most of the major wallet providers and exchanges and this adds to the problems with high fees. <People using these services are forced to use Legacy Bitcoin addresses, because SegWit addresses is not  provided as a alternative>

These third party services are exploiting their users, by charging higher fees than would be necessary, if they used SegWit addresses. ^grrrrrrr^

[Anti-Cen]

First, lets define scaling as having enough capacity to provide very cheap transactions for all the active users. Currently Bitcoin has 4-7 transactions per second, while Visa processes 4,000 transactions per second. This means that to get to that level blocks should be 1,000 times bigger, and this is bad, because users won't be able to participate in the network - and when it happens, it stops being cryptocurrency and turns into another payment processor. And what is worse, it can happen pretty fast even 8-12 MB blocks would dramatically decrease the node count, while not giving any significant boosts in capacity. So, increasing blocksize is by no means can be called a scaling solution, it is very-very short term, and we shouldn't care about short term, because Bitcoin is a fundamental technology.

They have got to spread the block-chain across nodes instead of just doing data replication
but I think they are dead set on this path with Lightning and you know just what I think of that.

Several times now I have tried to image how to do this but the concepts I come up with just end
up as a big complicate mess and its as if some elegant simple solution is just out of reach but it's
not coming to me.

Whispers, gossip and gossip about gossip just don't sit well with me