Silly arguments by meme carry no weight. Even though this is not a new development it is an aspect of centralization due to small blocksize. I have always argued that centralization pressures exist when the blocks start to fill up.
We've yet to average over 750kb on the weekly.What "impact" exactly is this FUDster referring to? Don't you think it's possible he's merely using this propaganda to steer customers his way?
There's no such thing as "reliance on third party".
You saying that there is no such thing as "reliance on third parties"? I find this somewhat untenable. I suppose with such a position we would never face the risk of increased reliance on third parties, this I obviously disagree with.Everyone is free to transact on Bitcoin's blockchain if they choose to, as long as they pay the necessary fee.
Lets say if hypothetically the blockchain can support 1000 transactions in one instance, but say for example there are 2000 transactions. Then half of those transactions will never be confirmed and people will most likely end up waiting days for confirmation, if it gets confirmed at all that is, regardless of the fee you pay. Since even if these 2000 transactions all payed the same fee half of those transactions would still not be processed. There is presently also no way to tell how much of a fee would even be required at any one time in order to be at the front of the queue. This is what will render transactions unreliable if we do not increased the blocksize when faced with increased adoption. Under this scenario payment processors and banks will be the only groups that will realistically be able to use the blockchain directly since most users will not be able to outbid such entities for block space. Since only a limited number of payment processors and banks will be able to efficiently operate under a one megabyte limit, this would allow for the possibility of censorship to form around these points of centralization.I think that this scenario is extremely unlikely to occur since without mass adoption from the people I do not see any reason why large financial institutions would even be interested in doing this on the Bitcoin blockchain in the first place. Essentially I think that Bitcoin will be out competed if we do not increase the blocksize, I even think that this is unlikely since I do think that the incentives to increase the blocksize will allign soon and the economic majority will gets its way with or without Core.
I'm curious what advantages of transacting over Bitcoin's blockchain do you prefer over LN?
Transparency and increased reliability for a start, also ease of use and more resistance to censorship.I'm guessing you don't care for micro-transactions, increased privacy & instant settlement?
I am actually against increased anonymity in Bitcoin. There are definite advantages to having a more transparent blockchain. We already have micro transactions and zero confirmation in Bitcoin as long as we do not allow the blocks to become to full. Bitcoin was never designed to operate near and potentially over the blocksize limit.I do like the lighting network actually and I do think it should be implemented, I just do not think it should be considered as a replacement or alternative to using the Bitcoin blockchain directly, which clearly it is not, even though some people are using it as a reason to justify arbitrarily restricting the use and functions of the Bitcoin blockchain.
And maybe a little bit of desperation to infer something else to support an otherwise unsupportable position? "Bitcoin Miner uses standard Bitcoin Core feature, Better drink my XT!"
