You don't necessarily have to sacrifice something (If done right). If we take increasing blocksize vs SegWit.
SegWit have no downsides while increasing the blocksize could give us centralization to a certain degree as the blockchain size increases over the years.
We're far from having Bitcoin 2.0 but BIPs are definitely being put on the table and constantly being worked on so with time, the limitations will you're talking about will start to fade.
SegWit have no downsides while increasing the blocksize could give us centralization to a certain degree as the blockchain size increases over the years.
We're far from having Bitcoin 2.0 but BIPs are definitely being put on the table and constantly being worked on so with time, the limitations will you're talking about will start to fade.
SegWit came with the effective blocksize increase, but it was small enough to not cause any harm. The main goal of segwit wasn't scalability though, it was a fix for signature malleability that now allows developers to work on new networks more easily. and to allow upgrades without consensus more easily
fixed that for you
bitcoin needs to go back to true consensus. not the trojan back door they just opened. many many people outside a certain group are noticing that bitcoin is now weaker security because of this new backdoor.
yes the certain group will promote that it makes their job of activating features easier. but it also makes malicious actors who also use the same method easier.
if you care about bitcoin security. you should not be thinking about whats easiest for a certain dev team. but whats most secure for a decentralised user to fight off code changes that the decentralised users may not want.
...
as for scaling BITCOIN. instead of moving users OFF the bitcoin network. into vaulted co-permissioned factory managed networks of unaudited payments and requiring watch towers, etc. how about just trying to actually stop making bitcoin other network compatible. and instead make bitcoin actually scale beyond 7tx/s(600k tx a day)
satoshi himself expressed the numbers back in 2009-10 that the limitation is 600k tx a day.. mempools are always containing transactions, people are waiting more than 1 block. thus obviously segwit has not fixed, offered or given any scaling benefit to solve the issue.
segwits purpose to to make bitcoin compatible with other networks so that people dont use bitcoin
lastly
although segwit fake counts bytes of a baseblock. to bypass a rule.
the rule was put inplace for hard drive storage count.
hard drive bytes per transaction of actual full nodes have shown that segwit has NOT helped bring more transactions per hard drive byte storage.
blockchain stats have shown the average transaction count decline
and th updates have also made is so bloated spammers used to be able to bloat a block with just 5tx of 4k sigops. can now bloat a block of 5tx of 16k sigops. which is not helpful. its the opposite of helpful
...
for those trying so hard to promote LN
LN is not a layer 2 of bitcoin.
LN was not designed to be a feature for bitcoin.
bitcoin had to be altered to fit LN
LN is a separate network for multiple coins. meaning what will happen for them people that want to be fullnodes to monitor channels locks to avoid double spends. is they will end up needing to be masternodes where they will have to monitor litecoin, vertcoin, bitcoin and other LN compatible coin lock mechanisms
LN does not help reduce hard drive bloat. instead its just taking users away from 100% sole control push transactions and moved it into another network that will require masternode watchtower factories who will charge to be the vaults of onchain funds to then pass out unaudited channel payments of 12 decimals. so that they can charge a fee for their service
people need to really understand not just the rose tinted empty promises. but also the stark realities of proposals. just taking a proposal as good because "trust a dev" is not a good mindset of a decentralised network
