Topic: Compromise between SegWit and BU - page 2. (Read 5753 times)

Then why not say that, then shut your mouth?

Every other part of your post is simply subtle politicking, as if you're somehow the voice of reason if you say "I'm the only one who says this is political", when in fact at least 2 other posters have made the same essential point already (demonstrating you're manipulating the narrative to make yourself appear trustworthy, pah)


Danny's post is covertly political, he publicly states that BU is actually an attempt at a genuinely intended dynamic block sizing concept, but really it's just a dressed up way of allowing miners to entirely control the blocksize, and to cut the honest hardworking professional software developers out of Bitcoin development. Danny never addresses any of this, he simply says "I don't do politics" when invited to discuss the technical "merits" of BU


If Danny was really interested in the technical argument, he would be mentioning the serious technical attack vector that BU represents. But of course, because no real Bitcoin users are actually interested in having any aspect of what should be a system with limits becoming unlimited, Danny has no choice but to continue the social engineering attack on Bitcoin instead (currently the only effective attack against it)

You are dealing with a very political problem, not a technical one.

You can see this in that 5 people all responded to your thread already and NONE of them answered your question.  Instead, they ALL gave you answers about why they think it shouldn't be done, or why they think nobody will do it.


The simple answer to your question is:

YES.  It is technically possible.  There is nothing about SegWit that makes it technically impossible to also implement Unlimited, and there is nothing about Unlimited that makes it technically impossible to also implement SegWit.

If anyone eventually choose to do so, we will probably just fragment the system even more. You'll some some users that hate SegWit and will ONLY run Unlimited, some users that hate Unlimited and will ONLY run SegWit, some users that hate BOTH and will refuse to upgrade beyond Core version 0.12, and some users that don't care and are willing to run your "compromise".

This isn't a problem that is going to be fixed by introducing more options to fight about. Bitcoin is quite possibly destined to tear itself in half. Either there will eventually be a fork with two chains each trying to call themselves the REAL bitcoin, or a very charismatic person will show up that convinces an overwhelming majority to agree on something. All the trolls and zealots in all the discussion forums only make the fork with two chains each trying to call themselves the REAL bitcoin more likely.  They'll all blame "the other side" if it all falls apart, it's always easier to be angry at what someone else did than feel responsible for one's own actions.

There is no need to compromise with BU. It is a broken implementation that gives miners power to decide block sizes and is nothing but a political tool invented by those that want to see Bitcoin become centralized. Why would anyone compromise when the solution that is ready is superior in every way and also increases block size?

Sadly, it has got to the point where personal pride and stubbornness appears to be getting in the way of what is best for the network and it's users...

Neither side wants to admit "defeat" and both think they have "The Best Solution"™ to the issues currently facing the network.

In my opinion, SegWit isn't really trying to compete with BU directly... is it an attempt to fix some other issues (transaction malleability etc) and the increase in blocksize is more of a side effect than the main goal. BU seems to be solely focused on increasing the blocksize.

Meanwhile, the mempool has been well over 30K transactions for almost a week... and everyone is "suffering"... hopefully, one side or the other will prevail soon so at least we'll find out if one of the solutions works (if not, we can always just try the other I guess )

Because those who know segwit well enough to implement it and change it do not like BU and thus do not know BU well enough to implement both Segwit and BU in a client. Nor do those people want to because they think that BU is a stupid idea.

Those who know BU well enough to implement it and change it do not like Segwit and thus do not know Segwit well enough to implement both BU and Segwit in a client. Nor do those people want to because they think that Segwit is a stupid idea.

Lightning does not require SegWit, and SegWit already is a compromise on block size by increasing it to 4MB.

Hello,
I have only a little knowledge about these scaling solutions so I want to ask if it's possible to somewhat combine these two solutions. Like, change the transaction protocol according to SegWit to allow off-chain solutions (Lighting Network) while letting the miners choose a size of the block. Is this possible?