Topic: Hardfork, the best thing that happened to Bitcoin since scaling debate started - page 2. (Read 1432 times)

I wouldn't say though that this is bitcoin or will replace bitcoins. Viabtc has their own motivation why they created their own bitcoins. Now it is just going to die, look at the prices, it dropped tremendously in the pass few days. It will be worthless in the next few days. Especially when the exchanges opened their deposits for BCC, everybody just dumped their bcc.

Those who want seggy weggy and 1mb blocksize, can now have it using the alt Bitcoin Core. The compromise of 2mb is pointless.

There are those who don't trust seggy weggy and won't transact using seggy weggy.

Thus, those who want 8mb blocksize with no seggy weggy, can use the alt Bitcoin cash.

An insurance is most pointless and could lead to another hardfork therefore another alt... Bitcoin 2SW (2mb segregated witness) or whatever....

Bitcoin is the example of a instant boom altcoin as we can see, it is like an another channel in television with the same broadcast but different viewers(investors)

and for me somebody is supporting it because the price of it bubbles and with that people profited, they are obviously making out of it.

With the mass adoption of blockchain technologies that is expected in the the next year. Couldnt we speculate that Bitcoin Cash is indeed a solid crypto? It was forked and is maintained by some of the OGest of OGs.

I find it funny that these that buy into the "opposition is good, let's have 100000000 different bitcoins" don't even entertain the idea that all of these efforts to split bitcoin aren't funded and promoted by enemies of Bitcoin that want to see it fall.

"The Powers That Be" have been using "divide and conquer" successfully for years. Do you really think that they wouldn't do the same with bitcoin? Consider that next time you buy into the next hardfork hype.

opposition if constructive can lead to improvement and possibly even competition.
but opposition if led to split is more destructive than anything else.
and in any case it has nothing to do with decentralization in my opinion.

no it will make things horrifying. we need a decentralized network when peers are defined as a user, or an individual person as long as possible. if these individuals stop being able to run a full node then it is the death of decentralization.

doesn't make any different. you are still describing a heavily centralized system.

same as above about opposition.
and it will only be good and constructive as long as both sides are working on the same thing not on different projects (split/forked off chain)

No, because then you won't make an ancap dreamland with unicorns where everyone agrees not to be mean to each other with an "NAP"  .

Seriously though, it wouldn't be because governments have common interests.  SPV wallets don't verify that the blocks are following consensus rules - what if a government decided to increase the block reward?

We also know that governments aren't going to collectively run nodes anyway, because they are somewhat opposed to Bitcoin becoming the de facto means of payment.

---

However, I don't subscribe to the notion that all block size increases are bad or that decentralisation is impossible with larger block sizes.  A larger block size -> more transactions or lower fees -> more users -> more people who might want to run a node.  This does not continue to apply forever, but it applies at least to some extent.  It's also notable that malicious people have to pay for nodes in the same way that ordinary users do.

There is no good dynamic blocksize technology solutions as to date, if there were we would be using it already, the problem is, it just doesn't work, everything we've seen doesn't cut it, the game theory becomes easily exploited with the dynamic blocksize solutions seen thus far.

Therefore conservative blocksize and fee market remains the only option. Increase of blocksize is possible, but not with NYC agreement type of nonsense. At least 1 year from now, then consider a hardfork, we don't need more drama, we just got out of BCash drama, let's drop the hardforks for a while.

It's an alt. People want to control Bitcoin.

I don't see what the problem with a 2MB increase is. I do see a problem with the timeline. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to jump blindly into code that doesn't seem to exist yet and I don't think all that many people will do it.

If the timing is reappraised and agreed on then great, but I have my doubts about that. In that scenario things may turn proper sporty. We'll be back to square one again in terms of Bitmain agitation plus they have that coin to pile the pressure on.

Forking to raise the block size to 2MB doesnt make sense now. Why do we have to go through all that risk for a 2MB block size? Theres an 8MB block size available in Bitcoin Cash, why dont the groups who want bigger blocks like Bitmain support that?

Bitcoin Cash is now insurance against not raising block size to 2MB in November as Segwit2x prescribes to do.

the healthy middle ground is simple

slap anyone with a wet fish who exaggerates 1mb to become 'gigabytes by midnight' (i mean this comically, not literally)
shake hands with anyone that says logical natural and incremental dynamic changes over time.

these incremental changes would occur by nodes showing what they are capable of and only adjusting to consensus of node capability.
in short. it only grows if nodes say yes without devs needing to puppet control the growth/stalling of the blockchain.
thus the "server farm" fud doomsday wont happen

however
doing things like filtering data, pruning data dilutes the capability/function/effectiveness of a nodes. thus not making it a full node, which is far worse than giving nodes power to decide when the blockchain should grow.
take FIBRE. imagine the only full nodes being FIBRE as the top tier of bitcoin network, controlling what direction the network goes. and the only publicly available codebase nodes are second tier cludgy implementations that have all these pruned, filtered options set.

(warning to fanboys. dont reply purely defending the devs(humans) instead think long and hard about the reality of people using the code/features)

remember if its not a full archival and full validation node. its not a full node.
all this filtering, stripping, bridging, pruning and 'treat as valid' checkpointing. is just ripping the main purposes of decentralised security away and just pretending to be decentralised. when infact its just faking the whole validation process. which in reality is the real threat.

but it takes alot of effort to look beyond the short term/temporary drama of dev's and to think about the long term viability of bitcoin to see that its not who is coding bitcoin, because devs can come and go.. but to see what is happening to the code features devs add which can affect things long term.

The Debate Has Mostly Been About Decentralization

There are good people on both sides of the debate, and I think that most of them simply support the plan that they believe will keep Bitcoin “decentralized”.

The small-block camp says that if we make blocks too large, then only huge data centers will be able to run nodes, which are then easily coerced and controlled by governments.

The big-block camp says that if we keep blocks small, Bitcoin will become a settlement layer. Ordinary users will be priced out of making direct blockchain transactions, and will be forced to use corporate banking solutions complete with AML/KYC requirements.

Both of these situations would obviously be bad and should be avoided if possible. So how do we do that? How do find the healthy middle ground and avoid the perils of centralization on both ends?

Read more...