Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.
Bitcoin is about decentralized, transferable value. That's what is important. Keeping that system robust is paramount. Security and consensus come first. What a few corporate executives think should have no bearing on that.
It goes like this: adoption --> scaling. We are missing the first part.
Maybe you should understand that for big businesses it goes like this:
System that guarantees scaling --> marketeer (which cost money) --> adoption
Not the other way around.
That's not logical. There is no logical reason why an increased block size limit will encourage adoption. It could enable more transactions per block, sure. That has nothing to do with what you're suggesting. I can increase the size of my bed. Doesn't mean I can expect an ever-increasing number of women to get in it, simply because there is more room. (In fact, there may be unexpected problems. Someone may notice all the unused space in my ever-larger bed, and start using it for storage or other activities that =/= my original intention of getting women in my bed)
Regardless, what a few corporate executives think means nothing, particularly if their ideas threaten the robustness of bitcoin. I don't care how they want to market their products -- bitcoin will be adopted because it is a decentralized, transferable form of money, with or without them. Bitcoin is not a product. We are not dependent on companies marketing it.
The question is, to what extent does adoption warrant scaling? And how can we do that responsibly, keeping the network secure?
It might not make sense to you but from any investors perspective it makes tons of sense. You might not care about what they think but be sure that they don't care about what you think either and they have deeper pockets than you. You are delusional if you think adoption will happen by "itself" because of "decentralization". The poeple on the street doesn't give a damn about this.
And yes, bitcoin IS a product.
Interesting. Which company manufactured bitcoin? Pretty sure that six years ago, the bitcoin "network" consisted of one, and later, a few people. So you are telling me that adoption to this point was due to some corporate advertising campaign? Which one?
They may have deep pockets, but if their plan is to push an agenda that is at odds with the majority of devs and miners, good luck. They'd be better off buying up the hashing power required to subvert consensus.
I don't think asking for a clear path of scalability should goes against the majority of miners and devs. It is just logic do to so to attrack investors at large. Putting a time frame for decision making =! to do it wrecklessly.
This is not an adequate argument. If there is a clear path for scaling, it is not apparent at this time. Nobody gives a shit about attracting investors -- that is not the purpose of bitcoin. We need to keep bitcoin robust and secure. And making an arbitrary time limit for protocol changes that threaten security is destructive.
