What about unproven, and not-thoroughly tested "technical solutions" like sharding, which can be marketed as a "scaling solution", but in reality, can also be blockchain-snake-oil.
Seriously? You are looking forward to censoring sharding proposals?
You're right! As the stupid one in the forum, I change my mind, and I'm willing to learn, and be open, to the idea of sharding a decentalized ledger WITHOUT an auditor, learn the difficulties, and learn if it's truly viable FOR BITCOIN.
OK smart ones, bring on the proposals.
OP, Gregory Maxwell, believes in "old threads" magically having all the answers and thinking out-of-the-box being just _rehashing_ some stupid trisector type of claim.
It's good for reference, especially for old debates.
He has a right to think so, you too, BUT, and it is a really big BUT, such an attitude is not appropriate for moderating a technical subforum, neither it helps anybody to contribute effectively here.
BUT for rehashed debates, we should read and refer back to the old topics. You have your right to go back to them too, and debate them again.
Sharding has been discussed a few times in this forum and has proved itself as a decent and promising scaling idea. Ethereum folks are implementing a version of sharding meanwhile, it is not perfect, imo, but once they show up with a sharding solution that is somehow acceptable and justifiable, what you and your mentor have to say? Referring people to old threads in which ironically, nobody has ever refuted the idea?
It's promising, if it's easy for Bitcoin.
