How does block size harm decentralization?

[pawanjain]

Reading the comments makes me come to a conclusion that increasing the block size of bitcoin will lead to centralization and will probably make bitcoin more prone to various attacks.
This again leads to the same problem of scalability of bitcoin. My suggestion here would be to create a sidechain (an alternative blockchain) that will store all the old transactions in it.
The newer blockchain can be treated as the main source of verifying the transactions while the sidechain could be used to verify all the older transactions.
Obviously we can decide a point of time from where the older and newer transactions can be split and put into the sidechain and the newer blockchain.

[1715152734]

1715152734

[1715152734]

1715152734

[franky1]

doomad

the kingscorpio thing has nothing to do with centralisation. its just a crappy website that no one really views or considers important, but kingscorpio treats it like the network relies on it.

however. in regards to things that actually do affect the bitcoin network/centralisation..  even by your own admission and such has shown that the network is far too reliant on core. your admiration and devotion to their tactics of control alone shout loudly how its the case. let alone the stuff i said

in short. show me how the network has changed due to code/protocol changes that didnt not involve core devs in the last say 4 years.

your own words of "compatible" when you talk about no vote needed. and "permissionless" when talking about their consensus bypass and how you admire that they get to control the network changes is where the centralisation lays. you really need to learn what the 2009-2013 consensus was all about, what the byzantine generals problem of pre2009 was about and how satoshi found the solution around it to make it so there doesnt need to be a single leader/controller/reference of the rules.

as for the fee formulae. delving into your mindset of your admiration for core and your (sometimes denial, sometimes loudly spoken) thoughts about cores permissionless ability.. yes i said core could write a fee priority formulae and activate it. after all with all the controversy around segwit, core still got their x1 via all the tactics they employed in summer 2017. so its not impossible. core are not just chimney sweeps that are powerless.

and i find it funny that when an idea is suggested that can improve things. suddenly the core defense league of echo chamber people suddenly pretend and flop around that core are then powerless and shouldnt be trusted to implement it.. purely because its not on their roadmap thus should not be implemented.

so atleast try to stick to one narrative. either man up and admit the centralised code updates and then only a DISTRIBUTION(sheep follow or thrown off network) of that code and stick to one narrative. or man up that your waffles are just social drama in an attempt to bore people into giving up discussing things not in cores roadmap via your meandering flip flops, just so core can follow through with their centralist plans unhindered by the community

by the way. reading all your insults. you are the cranky one. you especially get cranky and insulting when getting told to do something useful.. like research.

maybe spend less time on your social drama sideshow of personal waffles and actually start caring about bitcoin (not alternative networks/commercial services)

but have a good year.

[buwaytress]

If you're looking from the outside, there are people who think it's sad that people still believe in Bitcoin, whichever form it is they are using

That's not a rational assumption

It is not rational simply because 1 bitcoin is still somehow worth over 3000 dollars. That a huge price tag from any sane point of view. And given that anyone can easily buy and sell bitcoins (a lot easier that buying stocks, for example), I don't think there are many such people (who think it's sad that people still believe in Bitcoin) since if they were in fact many and actually thought so, some would be shorting Bitcoin now. But if they are afraid to short, they should also question whether their attitude is valid

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not on the outside, but I know how they feel and think about me or those cut from the same Bitcoin cloth. And you're right, it isn't a rational assumption at all. The problem with looking at price as the explanation for the irrationality is precisely that price isn't really the only rational we should be using. In fact, that those looking in from outside can't understand why something they feel is worthless should cost so much.

You're lucky not to have met more people (who think it's sad that others still believe in Bitcoin)... but haven't you seen the orderbooks on futures for the past year? Using your rationale of them shorting Bitcoin that is.

[deisik]

You're lucky not to have met more people (who think it's sad that others still believe in Bitcoin)... but haven't you seen the orderbooks on futures for the past year? Using your rationale of them shorting Bitcoin that is.

I haven't seen them and what was there?

It made sense to short Bitcoin then as in retrospect (aka hindsight) we understand that there was nothing rational about those prices. It may in fact turn out in the end that there is nothing rational with these prices too, but that's not my point. If people say something and moreover if they mean that their words should be taken as a guide (like "sell everything right now while Bitcoin is still worth something"), you would expect them to follow their own advice, and in this particular case that would amount to shorting Bitcoin (as they don't have any bitcoins of their own to sell). Otherwise, it is all empty talk and no walk