text
The blocksize will obviously need to be larger or the fees will become too big. Why is that hard to understand tho?
The fees need to become too big to accelerate development of long term scaling solutions like LN. Why is that hard to understand tho?
The current code has a true "bug" (i.e., transaction malleability) that miners seem unwilling to fix (with SW). If miners won't fix semi-serious bugs now, then what trust do we have for them accepting fixes for more serious bugs going forward?
Why is that hard to understand tho?
Increasing blocksize will not fix transaction malleability. It will made the "bug" even bigger. Why is that hard to understand tho?
Agreed. Why is that hard (for the BU lynch mob) to understand tho?
Can we assume that miners will oppose bitcoin price appreciation even by using silly arguments to counter improvements? Bitcoin price appreciation will allow new competitors to enter mining space and that is the most undesirable development for key mining players.
I've always wondered why companies like Intel and AMD are not yet in the bitcoin mining field with their own ASICs? I've wondered the same.
Also, these Chinese miners should worry about following a version of Bitcoin that only benefits them (i.e., creating an environment where centralizing bitcoin more into their mining pools and thus more under their centralized control). They will literally be following it off a cliff.
There's nothing stopping thousands of bitcoin users from mining a 1MB Bitcoin version at a loss (for altruistic reasons) in order to secure the network. In fact, this could indeed be the future of the Bitcoin network.
I'm all for a MB limit increase if and when it makes sense. But it should make sense to both the core developers and the miners simultaneously, and it should be for purely technical/scaling/bug fixing reasons as opposed to financial or political ones.
A hostile takeover will never work, in the end trust will be lost. At the very least, many core devs will walk out.
