...
You don't need to tote any party line, it is not necessary. You made some nonsense assertions that bitcoin is supposedly broken because it doesn't have dynamic blocks or something goofy like that and you coming off as if you have some kind of wisdom on this point, when you have not backed it up with evidence or logic
....
Who is entrenched? You brought up some nutty post and you have not backed it up, and supposedly you have some kind of innovative knowledge? Since you seem to want to continue to argue some kind of innovative and creative point, I am continuing to wonder what the supposed point is, besides making a false assertion that "you guys are entrenched"?
...
Fair enough, I posted my opinion and really don't want to debate it. If you don't agree that fine. The transaction cost do to scaling is unacceptable IMO and therefore it is my opinion that BTC is in need of repair and dynamic blocksize would help. I'm not sure why that was somehow nutty to you. I wish I had the energy to get into this discussion but I don't. Why don't you link me to your sides revisionist history so I can compare the two.
Usually the truth is in the middle although I'm pretty sure it's not close to the bcrap side in this case.
I may not have been clear I sometimes don't balance my meds well.
I believe that I do not have any burden to show evidence or to show logic to maintain the status quo, because I am not asserting that anything is broken. My understanding is that things in Bitcoin are going quite splendedly. In about mid-2015, there began to be some arguments put forth that bitcoin needed blockchain size increases, and there were proposals such as XT and classic and unlimited, and none of those proposals were very persuasive, but increasingly caused a lot of whining about bitcoin being broken, supposedly. Furthermore, there were some spam attacks in order to attempt to provide evidence that fees were too high and that transaction times were too slow, and there were further attempts at suggesting that bitcoin was somehow broken. In late 2015, segwit was proposed as a possible scaling solution and in early to mid 2016 segwit was tested and in late 2016, segwit voting went live. There was not a lot of voting support for segwit and it tended to float in the 20% arena, and in early 2017, some closed shop nutjobs came on some resolution (aka NY agreement) to attempt to force through segwit2x. That segwit2x baloney caused some other forced alternatives such as USASF and then compromises, such as BIP 91 that allowed segwit to go forward first and also allowed for miners to make a choice, and really at that point segwit came to consensus and locked in however, the BIGBLOCKER nutjobs did not like the fact that segwit was going to likely resolve a lot of their nonsensical talking points about the supposed high fees and slow transaction times, so therefore, they decided to perform a renegade hardfork, which later became Bcash... that also ended up largely failing to sabotage bitcoin in terms of their real agenda to attempt to undermine bitcoin's governance and to make it easier to make changes in bitcoin. ... anyhow, a lot of the nutjobber proposals about bitcoin failing to scale are not really justified in terms of facts or logic, and they continue to have the burden to show facts and/or logic about how bitcoin is supposedly broken and how your proposed solution (including some ill-defined proposal of "dynamic blocks") is going to solve more problems than it causes or that it should be adopted into bitcoin...
So, in essence, what I am saying Hueristic is that any kind of burden to show that there is a needed change in bitcoin is on you and not on me, and personally, I believe that bitcoin is going in a lovingly direction, and changes are coming along great enough for people to continue to adopt and to build on top of its various apparatus, whether they are planning to operate on chain or off chain, so I continue to also believe that bitcoin is very undervalued, and that transaction times and fees are very adequate and likely to adequately adapt through time with systems that are already in place. There seems to be no emergency in bitcoin and no rush, and changes are coming along adequately, even though it is possible that more spam attacks may come in the future, there seem to have been fewer successes in spam attacking bitcoin since the most recent one that lasted largely between December 2017 and January 2018.
Well said, I appreciate the nice encapsulated timeline you just provided. I didn't read the arguments that were going on during the 2X time and didn't realize you term "bigblockers" was referring to the 8mb crowd so now I understand why you were throwing that term at me. I personally just hate bandaids so even though segwit is in and we're at 4mb it doesn't change the fact that it is a short term fix.
You seem to maintain some kind of presumption that there is something broken in bitcoin. Yeah, bitcoin was designed as a kind of unlimited, but somewhere along the early day times, a 1mb blocksize limit was put into place. Like you mentioned, segwit seems to have caused some theoretical ability to go up to 4mb while maintaining a 1mb blocksize limit.. something like that.
Apparently there is batching and other processing of transactions that can be monitored to see whether blocks are filling up or if there is some way to address the issue, whether you suggest it is a bandaid or not, you are presuming that there is something wrong with the resolution that achieved consensus... and that is segwit...
there is no consensus about increasing blocks, such as increasing to 2mb or anything else, even though quite a few technically knowledgable bitcoin supporters have conceded that "someday" "perhaps" an actual blocksize limit might be necessary, but we are not there at this time, and in that regard, it becomes a BIG SO WHAT because it is a theoretical future that is not currently here.
The fact that the need for 2mb is not here does not mean that BITCOIN has implemented a bandaide solution.
In fact, segwit provides for all kinds of possibilities for bitcoin to be built upon, including lightning network and sidechains, and the combination of on chain and off chain solutions have to be seen in actual practice before we conclude that they are insufficient as bandaids.
Such supposed short term solution could last several years or 20 years, and in the mean time, bitcoin continues to be used and continues to be developed, so when you assert that segwit is a short term fix, you seem to be picking up some non-specific talking point without really saying why it may not end up being a long term fix... we do not know the future, so how are we going to know about how all of this is going to play out in terms of on chain traffic, versus off chain traffic. Let's say for example that on chain traffic seems to go to slow and fees are getting too high, then at that time, would it not justify considering whether blockchain size limits need to be increased, but we are not there and such thoughts are theoretical rather than actual.
If it has to have the same issue addressed in the future that just had to be addressed then by definition doesn't that make it broken?
If the issue has to be addressed in 20 years, then surely we could have people planning for such future, but it does not mean that the solution should be implemented at this time.
Kicking the can down the road is not acceptable and that is a fundamental flaw in most every part of the world we live in and is not to be accepted but to be changed as a rule.
I don't see that as a problem... the system is fit for currently, and scaling is likely going to always be a bit of an issue, to build the system BIG enough for currently, but not too BIG. There are downsides to building a system that is TOO BIG, so from my understanding, there continues to be a concern that TOO BIG could lock folks out... and there are also arguments for smaller at the current time...
that is all I ever see is problems getting kicked down the road for others to fix.
You seem to be just making shit up. Others do not need to fix anything if it is not broken, and when the scaling solution of "BIGGER" becomes necessary, then that is the time that such BIGGER system would go into place.. NOT SOONER than necessary.
This is a movement that I thought had more foresight than that.
Again, you are implying such system to be broken. My understand that having a system that is difficult to change is a feature and NOT a bug for it maks it much more difficult for whimsical folks to attempt to fuck with a system that is not broken... and one of the great values of bitcoin remains that it is a system that allows for true and meaningful decentralized proof of work and incentives around that, and developers can build upon it without worrying that it is going to be changed to some shitty thing, such as bcash and not going to become controlled by any group such as bcash seems to be.. with Ver, Jihan wu and craig wright.
But I guess it's inherent in the system itself, the flaw is us not being able to agree because of self interest.
Bitcoin is built to be difficult to change and consensus difficult to achieve and seems to be progressing in a great direction, even though it is a decentralized sytem, we are very lucky that bitcoin did not implode or blow up because of the many attacks over the past few years... and we are lucky that segwit got adopted through regular consensus mechanisms, including in early to mid-2017 what had seemed to be a near impossible feat to achieve more than 95% consensus. fucking amazing... and 2x nor any other onchain increase of the blockchain size limit had come even close to achieving that kind of consensus.. and has not even been testing, except perhaps if you consider bcash to be a testing ground for onchain scaling?
And no I don't have an answer to that nor to how a dynamic size can be accomplished.
It seems to me that a BIP would have to be submitted first and get peer reviewed and accepted, and thereafter tested and then thereafter get adopted into the bitcoin system, if it were to get past the first several steps? Once it gets accepted then there would be a determination whether it would need to be a hardfork or a softfork, with considerable reluctancies seeming to exist in bitcoin in regards to hardforks... but anyhow, if it were a hardfork, then perhaps 95% consensus would need to be achieved, too, before it were to actually go live onto the bitcoin network?
I also have not read that much on lightning as from what little I do understand on the subject sidechains are less secure and therefore it's just another bandaid.
Lightning and sidechains seem to be in pretty early stages, so why would we be complaining that neither lightning nor sidechains work if we do not know how they are going to be implemented. My understanding is that both lightning and sidechains can already be built upon systems that already exist in bitcoin, but it is just a matter of testing and adopting which can take a while, as we can see with lighting network having been started in a kind of test mode on bitcoin since January 2018, and nodes continuing to be added. I am supposing that the longer that lightning is tested and expanded then it will become adopted more and the values that are transacted will increase, too.
