Have you ever read read the "Bitcoin Academy" from Bitcoin.com ? A real trash

[LeGaulois]

Have you ever read the paper Bitcoin academy? If not, you are very very lucky. It's a big joke.

I couldn't read it all, I feel like they have spent more time to try to brainwash people, to say that Btrash is the real BTC. I felt an epileptic seizure coming I even started convulsing, so I had to stop and close the Tab.

I don't even remember reading something that wasn't bashing Bitcoin. In five minutes I did a better job than Bitcoin.com https://i.imgur.com/XfOGLoB.png

Going to find the contact page now to send it to them because I believe it is more trustworthy than what they posted

[BitHodler]

Everything from that site has an insane amount of bias towards their bcash garbage. If they felt their shitty fork version is the real Bitcoin, why is no one using it then? Because no one other than their own shills believe that.

They can't accept that their bcash garbage is an altcoin, where on top of that, it doesn't offer anything new or meaningful. In other words, bcash isn't any different than the other +1000 similar shitcoins.

If bcash didn't had Bitcoin in its name, and those behind it didn't had deep pockets to sustain its price, it would be a sub 0.01BTC coin by now, just like how BTG is slowly being dumped down to the bottom.

[HeRetiK]

lol... oh boy, bias is one thing, boldly spreading misinformation another.

Right after the factually incorrect infographic in the very beginning you already face the next objectively false statement:

Bitcoin (BCH) is the original and most popular decentralized digital currency. It’s used by all types of people on every continent.

In which timeline is this the case? Or did Roger Ver hardfork the universe as well? Jesus...

What's next? "Roger Ver is the original and most popular Bitcoiner. He is loved by all types of hodlers in every community."?


I always assumed that claims about Bitcoin.com's propaganda were hyperbole, but oh man was I wrong.

[LeGaulois]

Exactly!
I am going to add the domain to my blacklist used for parental control, Bitcoin.com is harmful.

There are a lot of shitcoins but a lot of them are better than Btrash. Just for the record Dogecoin, the "joke coin" has more transaction than Btrash. As an excuse they like to say, well it's only 5-6 months old. I told them well, you are the one bragging it's the bigger coin, so what...

They rarely have a valid argument. I mean, ok, the debate is open, but stop to tell me useless points give me some substance. I don't want to hear you telling me, Bitcoin core uses Bots, while you are the one using it. Don't tell me Bitcoin core is using the sockpuppets, while Btrash openly admits using it.
I even remember the case when Jamie Lee ( a Bitcoin.com writer I think) used his wrong account to tweet. He tried to delete it after but too late, someone archived it. And they spend the whole days on Twitter to do it

And while I am at it, me I don't know the name "Bitcoin core", I don't know who invented it, I only know Bitcoin. And Bitcoin is Bitcoin, no matter if people think it's a good or bad coin. We are not going to decide the name depending on the percentage of people liking it or not..
A lot of people like to say Bitcoin is bad but a lot of them copy (or try to copy) it. So I suppose it isn't as bad as they say...

And one of their problems is this: they can't admit they failed and can't admit Btrash is just an altcoin. They will try everything to keep faith in.
Look at @Bitcoin on Twitter, so desperate than he posts manipulated screenshots from Blockstream website with the hope to confuse people.
Use bots to comment his tweets (posting generic posts, like "great project sir"  sometimes I feel I am  on Bitcointalk)

Btrash should rather learn from other coins how to properly market their (useless) product. Because right now, they are going nowhere

[franky1]

though bcash is not used by merchants that say "we accept bitcoin"

bitcoin core cannot honestly say that they are the original either..
line for line of code bitcoin core is far from the original 2009-2014 codebase
and bitcoin cash does have more similarity

but from the point of view of "the original".. neither are.. the fork split and 2 different codebases of rules were activated
though bcash has more lines similar to the original 2009-2014 codebase.. NEITHER are the original

this is not about defending either. but to be realistic and to make people realise that bitcoin core. although 'distributed' is not decentralised
especially when pretty much every post above would secretly agree that if the code is not released by "team core"(centralised) then its not bitcoin

by even having the mindset that anything not core should be treated as an attack and as a future altcoin if it goes against the blockstream roadmap is an admission that bitcoin core is not decentralised.

again yes distributed.. but no to decentralised. there is a difference

you can argue all you like about how core is king and better and the monarchy of bitcoin.. but take 2 steps outside your own mindsets and realise what your actuall saying by suggesting that if any other team thats not involved with contributing to cores bips/roadmap/github should be treated as an attack

be honeet with yourself before defending core.
both core and bcash are not the original. the fork ensured that. which is the whole point of what a fork is.. NEW direction

while group A squabble and group B squabble. neither groups realised what was happening. they were both handing the reigns over to a centralised party because of "trust" "faith" "control"... all the things the bitcoin ethos did not need

the whole bandcamp argument was just smoke and mirrors to actually give a group control.
the whole treat unlimited as the enemy and then use the BScartels subsiduary Bloq to push unlimited out was under subdefuge of saying they are helping the community decide x1 or x2 was all part of the game

 what should have happened was the community refused to enter the camp debate and instead relied on network consensus to unite teams to a compromise. not avoid consensus to hand over control to a single team via altcoin creating

[LeGaulois]

@franky1
Where have you been all this time?

Well, regarding your post, what about the evolution, isn't Bitcoin allowed to evolve? The Darwin theory can only be applied to what the person likes?
No. You don't call yourself a homo sapiens.

We can notice and have a need to change some things here and there, GNU/Linux (to compare) would not be what it is today without
the literally thousands of upgrade-forks
But one thing for sure, you don't see Lubuntu claiming to be the original Debian.

Again, Bitcoin is Bitcoin, no matter who is the dev. no matter who likes it or not. If people don't like Blockstream, then can say I don't like Bitcoin because of Blockstream. But can't say Btrash is the real Bitcoin because I don't like Blockstream

[franky1]

@franky1
Where have you been all this time?

Well, regarding your post, what about the evolution, isn't Bitcoin allowed to evolve? The Darwin theory can only be applied to what the person likes?
No. You don't call yourself a homo sapiens.

We can notice and have a need to change some things here and there, GNU/Linux (to compare) would not be what it is today without
the literally thousands of upgrade-forks
But one thing for sure, you don't see Lubuntu claiming to be the original Debian.

Again, Bitcoin is Bitcoin, no matter who is the dev. no matter who likes it or not. If people don't like Blockstream, then can say I don't like Bitcoin because of Blockstream. But can't say Btrash is the real Bitcoin because I don't like Blockstream

evolution. is different than man made mutation

for instance instead of going for the ban hammer/IP banning of nodes and altcoin creation.. if instead they actually used consensus properly where by the community agreed to a single set of rules.. yes a true compromise. of say 2mb base plus segwit.. and then all DIFFERENT teams stayed on the same network but then used the same rules.. then that is evolution..

but using BLOQ to misdirect peoples choices into not being a consensus but a split, under the pretense of bloq pretending to be on unlimited side while actually being paid by the same investors as blockstream.. was just politics of ruining bitcoins 2009-2014 ethos

bitcoin core is not the same bitcoin as 2009-2014. its not evolution. its man made and controlled mutation

now then. if a future team was to develop and go against the grain of blockstreams roadmap.. and instead of using consensus to find a compromise.. instead forced another altcoin creation event. then that is just advertising those that defend core are centralists who dont care about bitcoins ethos and only care about btc token profit (two different things)

[HeRetiK]

bitcoin core cannot honestly say that they are the original either..
line for line of code bitcoin core is far from the original 2009-2014 codebase
and bitcoin cash does have more similarity

By that logic the original Bitcoin ceased to exist as soon as the first people other than Satoshi started contributing.

but from the point of view of "the original".. neither are.. the fork split and 2 different codebases of rules were activated
though bcash has more lines similar to the original 2009-2014 codebase.. NEITHER are the original

Bickering about which implementation is closer to the "original" vision is pointless.

Bitcoin is what the community decides it is. At one point in the future it may be a different fork by a different development team. Currently the majority of the community has decided that Bitcoin as implemented by the Bitcoin Core development team is the canonical protocol version.

this is not about defending either. but to be realistic and to make people realise that bitcoin core. although 'distributed' is not decentralised
especially when pretty much every post above would secretly agree that if the code is not released by "team core"(centralised) then its not bitcoin

I personally chose BTC over BCH as the canonical Bitcoin blockchain due to assessing its scaling approach as the more viable one. This has little to do with the development team behind it, although Bitcoin ABC's incompetence in some parts of the development process didn't bode well either -- at least in my book. Other members of the community may have different motivations, of course.

Please expand on what you mean by distributed vs decentralized in terms of software development.

by even having the mindset that anything not core should be treated as an attack and as a future altcoin if it goes against the blockstream roadmap is an admission that bitcoin core is not decentralised.

Bitcoin is just a name. If an alt is viable, it will thrive long term, regardless of whether it's a Bitcoin hardfork, softfork or a different coin altogether.

while group A squabble and group B squabble. neither groups realised what was happening. they were both handing the reigns over to a centralised party because of "trust" "faith" "control"... all the things the bitcoin ethos did not need

the whole bandcamp argument was just smoke and mirrors to actually give a group control.
the whole treat unlimited as the enemy and then use the BScartels subsiduary Bloq to push unlimited out was under subdefuge of saying they are helping the community decide x1 or x2 was all part of the game

 what should have happened was the community refused to enter the camp debate and instead relied on network consensus to unite teams to a compromise. not avoid consensus to hand over control to a single team via altcoin creating

Bitcoin's evolution worked out just as intended. The market decided. No need for trust, faith or control. Just permissionless currencies, competing on the free market. Nothing more, nothing less.


Regardless of where you stand in the blocksize debate and how Bitcoin should govern itself -- Many of the statements made in Bitcoin.com's Bitcoin Academy are simply factually incorrect. And that's what this thread is about.

[LeGaulois]

@franky1

So, what about if, in future we see another team, looking to follow exactly Bitcoin's ethos back in 2009. What will you think?
"oh, now Bitcoin is the real Bitcoin".

It's like saying
My wife pisses me off, she is no longer my wife...

1 week later
She prepared my dinner, it's my wife again

So what is it about, it's to say, you have to believe in, no matter the up and downside happening with the time, it's called believing in a project
Like when you marry and it says "For Better or For Worse"

[franky1]

bitcoin core cannot honestly say that they are the original either..
line for line of code bitcoin core is far from the original 2009-2014 codebase
and bitcoin cash does have more similarity

By that logic the original Bitcoin ceased to exist as soon as the first people other than Satoshi started contributing.

but from the point of view of "the original".. neither are.. the fork split and 2 different codebases of rules were activated
though bcash has more lines similar to the original 2009-2014 codebase.. NEITHER are the original

Bickering about which implementation is closer to the "original" vision is pointless.

Bitcoin is what the community decides it is. At one point in the future it may be a different fork by a different development team. Currently the majority of the community has decided that Bitcoin as implemented by the Bitcoin Core development team is the canonical protocol version.

this is not about defending either. but to be realistic and to make people realise that bitcoin core. although 'distributed' is not decentralised
especially when pretty much every post above would secretly agree that if the code is not released by "team core"(centralised) then its not bitcoin

I personally chose BTC over BCH as the canonical Bitcoin blockchain due to assessing its scaling approach as the more viable one. This has little to do with the development team behind it, although Bitcoin ABC's incompetence in some parts of the development process didn't bode well either -- at least in my book. Other members of the community may have different motivations, of course.

Please expand on what you mean by distributed vs decentralized in terms of software development.

by even having the mindset that anything not core should be treated as an attack and as a future altcoin if it goes against the blockstream roadmap is an admission that bitcoin core is not decentralised.

Bitcoin is just a name. If an alt is viable, it will thrive long term, regardless of whether it's a Bitcoin hardfork, softfork or a different coin altogether.

while group A squabble and group B squabble. neither groups realised what was happening. they were both handing the reigns over to a centralised party because of "trust" "faith" "control"... all the things the bitcoin ethos did not need

the whole bandcamp argument was just smoke and mirrors to actually give a group control.
the whole treat unlimited as the enemy and then use the BScartels subsiduary Bloq to push unlimited out was under subdefuge of saying they are helping the community decide x1 or x2 was all part of the game

 what should have happened was the community refused to enter the camp debate and instead relied on network consensus to unite teams to a compromise. not avoid consensus to hand over control to a single team via altcoin creating

Bitcoin's evolution worked out just as intended. The market decided. No need for trust, faith or control. Just permissionless currencies, competing on the free market. Nothing more, nothing less.


Regardless of where you stand in the blocksize debate and how Bitcoin should govern itself -- Many of the statements made in Bitcoin.com's Bitcoin Academy are simply factually incorrect. And that's what this thread is about.

i stand on neither side of any camp. which was the funny part of many years.. those standing on cores side kept trying to pigeon hole me into "the other camp" .. to me. there should be no camps.. if anything needs to be decided consensus will decide..
but consensus was not used.

as for your first statement.
"By that logic the original Bitcoin ceased to exist as soon as the first people other than Satoshi started contributing."

no. because they were contributing.
funny part is the github now moderated by a single team is not the same codebase as satoshi's sourgeforge codebase. yep satoshi never used github.. but even though satoshi used sourceforge and others used github they all agreed and found compromises to work on the SAME RULES and evolve equally at the same time on the same network.

no altcoin was created because of indicision between the contributors back in satoshi's day. even when there were many codebase sources on many different platforms and many different languages.

but now that many deem only bitcoin core is the 'trusted' source of network protocol rule selection... thats all changed
as soon as the band camp aruments of 'if its not core its not bitcoin' started.. thats when decentralisation died

[franky1]

It's like saying
My wife pisses me off, she is no longer my wife...

1 week later
She prepared my dinner, it's my wife again

So what is it about, it's to say, you have to believe in, no matter the up and downside happening with the time, it's called believing in a project
Like when you marry and it says "For Better or For Worse"

in my view.. there is no wife..
many girlfriends all agreeing to share the same bed and compromising on what direction is best for all those on the bed.
just remember. when you decide to marry, you are no longer free and on the open market. your then tied to  someone and start needing their permission if changes in the place you live need to be made

take LN.. its not permissionless.. its multisig. you need a counterparty to sign and agree to a payment arrangement.

[LeGaulois]

I just got an idea

Creating a coin and call it Bitcoin core $BCC, just to disturb btrash, I wonder how will they call Bitcoin then

[pitiflin]

Bitcoin.com is trash. We know it. But idiots don't. It's funny on how they say bitcoin is not the real bitcoin but bitcoin cash is the real bitcoin. Read that line again. You'll find it stupid and dumb. Well because it is.
Oh boy I don't see why anyone who's familiar with crypto would believe that, cause no one really likes Roger ver. Take the lightning network node for example:

If you actually believe what's written on bitcoin.com's very famous paper Bitcoin Academy, well congratulations, you're a stupid fuck.

I just got an idea

Creating a coin and call it Bitcoin core $BCC, just to disturb btrash, I wonder how will they call Bitcoin then

Oh you naughty.

[franky1]

I just got an idea

Creating a coin and call it Bitcoin core $BCC, just to disturb btrash, I wonder how will they call Bitcoin then

theres already a group of core devotees wanting to call LN.... wait for it....  bitcoin 'cache' to disrupt bitcoin cash
afterall opening a channel is like putting funds into a vault(cache)..

i think it was kimdotcom that first 'coined'(pun) the phrase because he wanted to use LN for his megaupload, and the core fanboys took it a stage further

[pooya87]

if the code is not released by "team core"(centralised) then its not bitcoin
by even having the mindset that anything not core should be treated as an attack and as a future altcoin if it goes against the blockstream roadmap is an admission that bitcoin core is not decentralised.

this mindset is not necessarily bad.
obviously not everyone is knowledgeable enough to know who is right and what solution is best so they have to follow someone and trust their plans. and who better than the team that has been developing bitcoin for years.
but also it is not good if everyone starts having this mindset and gives up educating themselves and thinking. and it is even worse when they try to shove it down other's throats. the second part is unfortunately what has been happening mainly last year.
i wouldn't go as far as calling it not-decentralized since this is mainly in social media like reddit for instance but this mindset should die if we want to see a better bitcoin. which means for example when you ask others why are you rejecting SegWit2x their answer should either be "i am not knowledgeable enough to answer" or they should give a logical technical answer.
i used this specific example because every time i read an argument about SegWit2x the heart of it all was "because core rejected it".

[Xester]

Have you ever read the paper Bitcoin academy? If not, you are very very lucky. It's a big joke.

I couldn't read it all, I feel like they have spent more time to try to brainwash people, to say that Btrash is the real BTC. I felt an epileptic seizure coming I even started convulsing, so I had to stop and close the Tab.

I don't even remember reading something that wasn't bashing Bitcoin. In five minutes I did a better job than Bitcoin.com https://i.imgur.com/XfOGLoB.png

Going to find the contact page now to send it to them because I believe it is more trustworthy than what they posted

You cannot blame them since it is a marketing strategy made by them so that they can gain more holders and supporters. Their effort of replacing bitcoin did not bear fruit and that is why they will make plans and programs so that they can market their coin. If they will not do it then there will be no movement on their coin and it will mean no profit.

[HeRetiK]

i stand on neither side of any camp. which was the funny part of many years.. those standing on cores side kept trying to pigeon hole me into "the other camp" .. to me. there should be no camps.. if anything needs to be decided consensus will decide..
but consensus was not used.

as for your first statement.
"By that logic the original Bitcoin ceased to exist as soon as the first people other than Satoshi started contributing."

no. because they were contributing.
funny part is the github now moderated by a single team is not the same codebase as satoshi's sourgeforge codebase. yep satoshi never used github.. but even though satoshi used sourceforge and others used github they all agreed and found compromises to work on the SAME RULES and evolve equally at the same time on the same network.

no altcoin was created because of indicision between the contributors back in satoshi's day. even when there were many codebase sources on many different platforms and many different languages.

but now that many deem only bitcoin core is the 'trusted' source of network protocol rule selection... thats all changed
as soon as the band camp aruments of 'if its not core its not bitcoin' started.. thats when decentralisation died.

Given a large enough project, divisiveness will arise and not always be solvable within the same codebase.

Best case, this is how you get the plethora of alts exploring all kinds of aspects of cryptocurrencies or the variety of linux distros, feeding the need of different people and use cases.

Worst case, this is how you get drama and discord, such as happened during the blocksize debate and BCH vs BTC.

You obviously can't have both big and small blocks, so what BCH did when splitting off was the right thing. Obviously if enough people agree that bigger blocks are the superior scaling solution, BCH will eventually prevail. Just like ETH will overtake if its smart contracts and token economy turns out productive enough or XRP will overtake if people turn out to be idiots prefer centralized solutions after all.

In practice, the market is the decision maker. Be it in market cap or in adoption and usage levels. That's the only consensus that counts when it comes to self-governance in cryptocurrencies.

That being said, while Bitcoin Cash did the right thing by splitting off, what Bitcoin.com does is rather questionable.

take LN.. its not permissionless.. its multisig. you need a counterparty to sign and agree to a payment arrangement.

Obviously you do, that's how trade works. I'm not sure how this makes LN any more permissioned -- in a meaningful way -- than on-chain transactions.

[franky1]

You obviously can't have both big and small blocks,

you mean obviously couldnt have "gigabyte blocks" and "segwit".. but then there was never actually a proposal for "gigabyte blocks" that was project fear designed by core..
however the network could handle segwitx2, which was a compromise that the community could agree on and did agree on in 2015, before alot of core members backtracked out of due to the roadmap.

thus the AVOIDANCE of using consensus and instead the employment of BLOQ to make an altcoin to throw all the x2 offtrack.

In practice, the market is the decision maker. Be it in market cap or in adoption and usage levels. That's the only consensus that counts when it comes to self-governance in cryptocurrencies.

i think you need to look up what the consensus mechanism for bitcoins evolution actually is.. because it certainly is not altcoin creation.

consensus is if you can imagine a country.. about finding an agreement to change rules the community can agree on.(democracy) . yet what actual events happaned was more like deportation of those opposing a monarchy, and if you do your research it was not the opposition that decided to split. it was the monachys cousin(bloq) that arranged the deportation.

even the king of the monarchy realised that his opposition would refuse voluntary deportation

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

hense needing to use BLOQ to implement the deportation and avoid a democratic agreement, thus a monarchy wins by default by suddenly going from 30% at the poles to 95%

take LN.. its not permissionless.. its multisig. you need a counterparty to sign and agree to a payment arrangement.

Obviously you do, that's how trade works. I'm not sure how this makes LN any more permissioned -- in a meaningful way -- than on-chain transactions.

i dont need your signature to send you funds onchain. onchain is a PUSH method.. or more like a throw money at you method
LN is not a PUSH. its a handshake method.
time it seems that many need to do their research and realise just how much bitcoin has changed and will change that has gone against the ethos of bitcoin.
but hey i bet many wont because all they care about is FIAT profits.

so lets word it this way. if bitcoin loses tomuch of its original purpose(take scarcity: the idea of adding millisats which then expands sharable units to then make sharing units of bitcoin less scarce)
no one will want it, because it becomes no better than fiat, no more scarce than fiat

anyway. it seems many people still think core should remain king. and thus decentralisation is dead, but long live distribution

[HeRetiK]

You obviously can't have both big and small blocks,

you mean obviously couldnt have "gigabyte blocks" and "segwit".. but then there was never actually a proposal for "gigabyte blocks" that was project fear designed by core..
however the network could handle segwitx2, which was a compromise that the community could agree on and did agree on in 2015, before alot of core members backtracked out of due to the roadmap.

thus the AVOIDANCE of using consensus and instead the employment of BLOQ to make an altcoin to throw all the x2 offtrack.

No, I do indeed mean that you can't have both big and small blocks. Either you try to keep the blocks as small as possible (ie. 1MB, or effectively 4MB as is the case with SegWit) or you increase the blocksize to another arbitrary number that may or may not be feasible in the long term. Either you try to move the majority of transactions off-chain with 2nd layer solutions, or you try to scale it linearly by increasing the block-size ever so often. Sure there was some political perspective to the whole debate as well, but from a technological perspective a slight increase from 1MB to 4MB -- as was the case with the SegWit softfork -- is a more prudent approach than even larger blocks.

In practice, the market is the decision maker. Be it in market cap or in adoption and usage levels. That's the only consensus that counts when it comes to self-governance in cryptocurrencies.

i think you need to look up what the consensus mechanism for bitcoins evolution actually is.. because it certainly is not altcoin creation.

consensus is if you can imagine a country.. about finding an agreement to change rules the community can agree on.(democracy) . yet what actual events happaned was more like deportation of those opposing a monarchy, and if you do your research it was not the opposition that decided to split. it was the monachys cousin(bloq) that arranged the deportation.

even the king of the monarchy realised that his opposition would refuse voluntary deportation

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

hense needing to use BLOQ to implement the deportation and avoid a democratic agreement, thus a monarchy wins by default by suddenly going from 30% at the poles to 95%

I think we're both looking at Bitcoin's governance from two very different perspectives. I actually do see alt coin creation as part of the consensus mechanism, but I also missed a lot of the political details of what happened between 2014 - 2016. So I disagree with your statement of alt coin creation not being part of Bitcoin's evolution, but have yet to form my opinion on the political happenings that you brought into play.

take LN.. its not permissionless.. its multisig. you need a counterparty to sign and agree to a payment arrangement.

Obviously you do, that's how trade works. I'm not sure how this makes LN any more permissioned -- in a meaningful way -- than on-chain transactions.

i dont need your signature to send you funds onchain. onchain is a PUSH method.. or more like a throw money at you method
LN is not a PUSH. its a handshake method.

Hence LN not being more permissioned in a meaningful way.

LN channels requiring an opening handshake doesn't make them any less censorship-resistant or trustless than on-chain transactions.

so lets word it this way. if bitcoin loses tomuch of its original purpose(take scarcity: the idea of adding millisats which then expands sharable units to then make sharing units of bitcoin less scarce)

Serious question, what lead you to the conclusion that increased fungibility would effectively increase Bitcoin's supply? That's some Zenon level shit right here.

The existence of gold dust doesn't make gold bars any less scarce or valuable. In some places gold dust is used for overly fancy dishes and cocktails. You can literally shit gold, yet its value persists.

[franky1]

No, I do indeed mean that you can't have both big and small blocks.

though i think you should really do some research on the matter, you can have small blocks and big blocks
for instance. segwit has (though they hid it with their new "serialised" and "weight" buzzwords) do have both small and big blocks
for legacy transactions. they are limited to 1mb of blockspace. but segwit transactions have upto 4mb of blockspace..

but the funny part was about the politics. that no 'other team' ever proposed "gigabyte blocks" which was the fear campaign of core members.
the compromise was where legacy AND segwit could sit side by side with 2-4mb blocks.. something that the network could handle (even core admitted 8mb was deemed safe and prudent)

Either you try to keep the blocks as small as possible (ie. 1MB, or effectively 4MB as is the case with SegWit) or you increase the blocksize to another arbitrary number that may or may not be feasible in the long term.

again the 2015-2016 proposals were in a evolutionary and feasibale and able to function amounts. not out of the realm of anything that would break the network.
.. im guessing project fear worked too well as it seems even now people still have not looked beyond the curtain vail to see the light of day

Either you try to move the majority of transactions off-chain with 2nd layer solutions, or you try to scale it linearly by increasing the block-size ever so often. Sure there was some political perspective to the whole debate as well, but from a technological perspective a slight increase from 1MB to 4MB -- as was the case with the SegWit softfork -- is a more prudent approach than even larger blocks.

first of all, LN wont solve spam. those spammers who are predominently mixers will continue to spam onchain. for multiple reasons. plus LN's niche utility is not going to be a solution for everyone. LN does have limitations and is not the utopia its presented as. its really worth doing some research

secondly segwit, as proposed as a softfork (the community consensus evolution without splitting the community.. failed with only 30%-35% of the vote. segwit did not get activated via a soft fork. it was BLOQ who were employed to create a hard fork(deportation of opposition) along with core that got segwit its 95% of the vote by casting out 60%

I think we're both looking at Bitcoin's governance from two very different perspectives. I actually do see alt coin creation as part of the consensus mechanism, but I also missed a lot of the political details of what happened between 2014 - 2016. So I disagree with your statement of alt coin creation not being part of Bitcoin's evolution, but have yet to form my opinion on the political happenings that you brought into play.

altcoin creation is not consensus.
"agreement, harmony"

altcoin creation is a political strategy. but is not the consensus mechanism of bitcoin.
the consensus mechanism of bitcoin relates to code, and orphans.. altcoin creation is about IP/node banning and human argument

take LN.. its not permissionless.. its multisig. you need a counterparty to sign and agree to a payment arrangement.

Obviously you do, that's how trade works. I'm not sure how this makes LN any more permissioned -- in a meaningful way -- than on-chain transactions.

i dont need your signature to send you funds onchain. onchain is a PUSH method.. or more like a throw money at you method
LN is not a PUSH. its a handshake method.

Hence LN not being more permissioned in a meaningful way.
LN channels requiring an opening handshake doesn't make them any less censorship-resistant or trustless than on-chain transactions.
[/quote]
its not just opening a channel.. every  payment in LN is a handshake. its also requires each participant in a route to agree to giving away an amount of funds to hop payments. all requiring their signature.

it is permissioned. think of it in simple terms
instead of a simple cash payment to pay a milkman by leaving a bank note inside a empty milk bottle for when the milkman does his deliveries. you have to sign a contract and when you make a payment the milkman has to knock at your door and hope your home for you to both sign cheques for who owes what in a joint bank account you both set up.. its then up to one of you to decide when to empty the bank account by cashing out the cheques.

its not as simple as just handing a random person cash. its really worth you doing some research

so lets word it this way. if bitcoin loses tomuch of its original purpose(take scarcity: the idea of adding millisats which then expands sharable units to then make sharing units of bitcoin less scarce)

Serious question, what lead you to the conclusion that increased fungibility would effectively increase Bitcoin's supply? That's some Zenon level shit right here.

The existence of gold dust doesn't make gold bars any less scarce or valuable. In some places gold dust is used for overly fancy dishes and cocktails. You can literally shit gold, yet its value persists.

firstly. splitting the units of measure has nothing to do with fungibility.. fungibility and scarcity are 2 separate things

secondly. if there were only 21mill units to share there would be true rarity/scarcity.. but because of splitting up the units, anyone can afford a small amount. so not many are actually buying whole bitcoins.
its actually got to such a point that due to the extra cost of 'satoshi's' being most around(byte per tx to sweep the satoshi dust) that core have implemented rules to ignore certain transactions of dust..

so not only have they made owning a whole bitcoin less appealing. but they then made it hard/impossible to own dust.
.. but take gold. with only ~175,000 tonnes.. do you see 170,000 richguys saying they each own 1 tonne of gold.  OR do you see BILLIONS of people who can claim that they own gold.. think about it

but anyway this conversation has meandered away from the topic of suggesting that core have/have not killed decentralisation.. answer is they have killed decentralisation. as there is a vector of attack that can halt development. .. but they will continue with the illusion by making people think distribution of final code is the same as decentralisation of control.. (its not the same thing)

but have a nice day and i hope you spend some time doing some research. it will help you in the long run