Topic: Seriously devs, segwit adoption and LN needs more time (Read 221 times)

I dont understand why a lot of exchanges are not even using segwit right now, that is the most important thing that they could do.
That is the only way in that they could lower the fees at the moment before LN gets implemented.

Thanks for the link! Seeing how there have been multiple proposals regarding dynamic increases of the maximum blocksize I've actually been wondering why there hasn't been any hardfork yet trying to implement one of them -- unless there is, I sort of lost track.

Nonetheless I'd probably just go for a straightforward static periodical block size increases every year or halving period instead of an algorithm based on network traffic. Assuming the latter can be gamed in one way or another (I still need to let your proposal sink in a bit, but I'm not yet fully convinced that it can't be exploited to force the maximum block size increase anyway) this would at least skip the extra step of trying to anticipate transaction workload.

That's only a problem if we're talking about a static blockweight, though.  And for the life of me, I can't figure out why, as a community, we still think in such limited, primitive terms.  If you make it adjustable by algorithm, then it can either increase or decrease depending on set parameters.  You can also make those parameters as restrictive as you like to prevent any sudden, large increases.  You can even work out the maths so it effectively caps increases per year at a level the community would be comfortable with.  There's no limit to how "conservative" you can make it.  But, for whatever reason, still people can't seem to get behind the idea in any considerable number.  Everyone needs to get a clue and understand that blockweight doesn't have to be defined as an integer.  Why can't the maximum blockweight increase during busy periods by 0.01MB or 0.04MB to ease the congestion?  And then why not allow it to reduce down again when the legitimate traffic dies down again?  If it's done responsibly, the blocks would easily still be far smaller than BCH's maximum after 4 or more years.  

There's being "conservative" and then there's being "unreasonable and myopic".  I think I've used up nearly all the benefit of the doubt I'm prepared to give and now feel that both developers and certain vocal minorities within this community are drifting dangerously close to the latter.  These people need to show some nous and soon.

I fully comprehend the reasons why people are so concerned with the overall size of the blockchain and how rapidly it grows.  Decentralisation is vital for the network and it's likely the forks like BCH haven't paid nearly enough attention to that aspect.  But what we have at the moment is unsustainable.  It completely shifts the emphasis of what Bitcoin was intended to be.  In all my time on these boards, I've maintained implacably that the users won't support a network that doesn't support them.  But it appears to be heading in that direction.  If Bitcoin is going to redefine itself as a decentralised settlement layer for the elites and a bunch of idiots who think they should still be able to run a node on a Raspberry Pi, don't expect everyone to play along.  There will be further splits and forks if we go down that path.  The market won't abide completely abandoning the concept of digital cash for the internet.



Not an issue if we're sensible about it.  Small (and I mean small) increases over time in direct correlation with observable demand is preferable to sudden floods of spare room that could be abused by spammers.  At all times, we'd retain full control over the maximum increase over any given period of time.  If we happened to miscalculate at first and the chain was still growing too quickly, it's technically only a softfork to make the rules more restrictive (although it could potentially lead to a hardfork if some decide to allow it to keep growing as per existing rules at the time while others elect to cap it off, so it's better to get it right on the first attempt).



Doubling is unnecessary and too reckless.  Stop thinking in terms of whole numbers.  There's nothing wrong with fractions.  If you can handle 8 decimal places in the currency itself, you can manage a couple in the blockweight as well.  This is exactly the kind of thing I'm referring to.  Less blunt and simplistic, more subtle and considered, please.

Absolutely, long term its not a great solution.  However its not an immediate problem for existing full nodes (they'd increase new blocks).  Today the immediate and major problem is blocks are full and fees are high. Fix the block size later.  Or we can continue to do neither, let the BCH option gain momentum.

 Obviously ligheneing network has been in talks from months now . But is increasing the block size too easy ?
No !! That is not . That would need a major updation and that is something they are not able to achieve from months now .  This is just the point where everybody has gone far from their threshold points because of the transaction thing . I think things will get better . Just don't simply dump bitcoin when it needs the most support . Just a temporary thing which is going to get resolved very soon.

Block size of 2MB should fix the fees for a while.

But wouldn't larger blocks make it more difficult to run a node?  The chain would grow too fast.

That ship sailed a loooong time ago, when the first ASIC went to production.

Decentralization is always the highest priority for core.  Increasing the block size directly threatens that this since it highly favors the larger miners.  Therefore should only be used as a last resort which we are not even close to. 

Core doesn't care one bit about returns, futures, ETFs, or even mass adoption.  They cannot be bought or influenced and will protect the integrity of the code at all costs.  That philosophy is the very reason why Bitcoin is even here.  I for one am thankful for their patience and diligence.

Yeah, great example - we no longer use Windows 3.1, there's only some branding in common, with nominal 16bit support only provided through emulation and janky third party tools.  

Its time we had Bitcoin 2.0.

Bitcoin is software, software evolves, windows 3.1 was not designed for the modern workload. But, here we are, with windows 3.1 now evolved into windows 10, and windows 10 performs well.

Read this resource first.

Bitcoin devs have sat on their hands about these problems for years, they aren't going to do something about it now. Fact is, Bitcoin was never designed to cope with wide adoption.  Glaring issues have been there from the beginning with "fix it later" markers, the community argue about any fix because they think its against the original concept or that the devs are out for themselves.  

Very true, no way would I want an increase in the blocksize unless it is done by core. and your right about the supporters not implementing segwit, very arseholeish and bad for business

The services and wallet providers didn't even try SegWit (which has zero downsides If implemented) to judge If it's good or bad. SegWit2x looks like an attempt to take over bitcoin If you ask me and the same supporters are the ones who are delaying activation of SegWit.

not flawed, because of things like the lightning network. Problem is we need it sooner not later.

From what you are saying and I seem to incline that way too, bitcoin is flawed from the beginning. The expectation that you could store every transaction in the world in many copies (each node holds everything) is simply unrealistic

There are obviously issues either way, but, the amount of congestion we are seeing on the network will turn people off. Also there may be no alts at the moment, but, that will eventually change,Bitcoin needs to get ahead of them.

I honestly don't know what core can realistically do. Increase block size? While that looks good on paper, I think it legitimizes Bitcoin Cash in a sense. Sure they don't have Segwit, and they're not planning on implementing anything like the Lightning Network, but I'm worried about the political repercussions.

It's sad about Segwit because it's apparently enough to erase all of our problems right now, but as mentioned, there are some big exchanges (which amount to a lot of traffic) that haven't implemented it yet, and some wallets haven't polished the feature enough. Maybe the best thing to do for the long term is nothing. We might need something for the short term to even begin to think long term though. People are pissed.

This is the best time that we all show the unity needed to push Bitcoin forward. The core team must step in and do the right thing otherwise we might as well forget all about Bitcoin and move on to other alternatives. We don't want that to happen with Bitcoin though we welcome any new alts as the market is big and there is no need to kill each other. I am hoping that this message can be able to penetrate those who are in charge in deciding for the many problems affecting Bitcoin now. This is just a temporary setback am sure but we need an ASAP solution in an emergency situation.