This is very rushed because it is 4am, I haven't slept yet, and I have
a serious health issue. Thus this may not be carefully worded nor well thought out...
But BU has a block limit. The difference here is that it is adjusted in an ongoing manner by a community process.
It is controlled by hashrate voting per your FAQ. Look I don't want to get into another long debate, but BU does not have a protocol limit on block size and the optimal mining strategies will come into play by secret selfish mining colluding hashrate (driven by economic opportunity cost of not colluding), which afaics your models don't fully take into account.
I realize there are skeptics that scoff at the emergent consensus idea, but there is science behind this concept.
Your researchers are ostensibly not well peer reviewed. I already I think demonstrated that upthread. I don't have time to peer review Andrew Stone's whitepaper also, because you are not paying me and from my perspective, I have more important work to do.
From my perspective, no. You are not going to convince me to abandon the scalable blocksize vision. With the caveat that I'm still thinking about your previous post.
I detect no deviation in the BU community at large from this principle either. Especially as -- after over a year of hard effort -- the tide seems to be turning in our direction.
Unfortunately Satoshi's design is fundamentally centralized and there is nothing you nor Core can do to fix that. That is why your idealistic vision has to be myopic, otherwise you'd give up. I gave up already and let Core have the centralization and started to work on a replacement. Analogous to I wish Trump would give up already on the dysfunctional protectionism and let China eat the dying Industrial Age.
It seems y'all think you are going to achieve some decentralization, but IMO you're deceiving yourself... but to paraphrase Satoshi's rebuff of Daniel Larimer, "I don't have time to convince you...".
Not trying to be condescending though and respectfully I apologize I can't put enough effort into this to engage on every last detail needed to make you depressed and give up.
I tried to suggest a K.I.S.S. compromise as reasonable middle-of-the-road scaling interim measure for the next few years while we prepare a suitable replacement for Bitcoin. But my perspective (which drives my priorities for Bitcoin, see below) is way too far out-of-the-box, so I don't bother to try to convince anyone right now about vaporware. Just do what ever you want. I am hedged.
On the protocol side, bitcoin got just more decentralized with the fight between classic, Core and BU, because it wasn't and there was leadership, but there isn't much any more, which is good.
The ability of miners to 51% attack the protocol is not decentralization. To paraphase Benjamin Franklin in our context, those who would trade a huge loss of decentralization in the functioning of the protocol for a tiny morsel of decentralization attacking the protocol immutability, deserve neither decentralization nor protocol adaptability.
The root problem is that Satoshi's design isn't sufficiently adaptable without centralized control.
We recognize that malleability is something that is worthy of addressing. However, it is really a tertiary concern. For all the heat and light, I have yet to be shown that malleability has actually caused any systemic failure. Or significant value loss. The restriction of ~250,000 transactions per day, on the other hand, is a systemic problem that needs fixing RFN.
So yes, let us fix malleability. Once we are past this tps barrier. If my read of the BU community is correct, segwit (likely without the centrally-planned magic number signature discount) is a contender for this fix. There is a conversation comparing and contrasting with (e.g.) FlexTrans that first needs to happen though.
Lightning Networks isn't a priority, even if for the confidence building value of at least deluding ourselves into thinking instant transactions are coming soon?
Ethereum is preparing to launch a beta of a LN clone Raiden. Python code.
(I don't have enough time to study that code)
I suspect LN will lead to centralization and bad things, but is there really any other option within the current design?
Of course there will be attrition, but we don't need many to double or quadruple our dev bandwidth.
My priority need from Bitcoin right now is for it to not blowup while the experimentation to find real solutions is ongoing in the altcoin arena. Ditto I guess for most of the SegWit Takeover Omnibus thing...(a simple blocksize increase would have been sufficient and Core is probably lying!)
For me you are treating Bitcoin like an altcoin. I say you go make your own BTU fork which is what you are really doing.
You can't just say you will gradually build up competency to be BTC. In that case, you are an altcoin.
IMHO, you really can't have it both ways. But you can try and find out the hard way.
Look. This narrative really ought to stop. Neither Ver nor Wu have any official relation to the BU community.
Reality is that as long as your have de facto spokesman that make your fork look like another RogerCoin (e.g. Dash), then many in the community are going to view the affiliation that way.
You can reprimand me, but IMO it doesn't rectify what I believe to be the confidence problem. Fooling n00bs via simplistic incorrect technical summaries is altcoin marketing strategy.
Sorry not trying to be a pita, so I'll try to STFU now.
