if you small blocker truly believe the shit you say you should from a group that wishes to lower block limit to 0.5MB.
you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.
I know that you know that most people want bigger blocks - sooner or later.
Why keep saying stuff like this?
Indeed.
Core makes BTC much faster (helps scaling) and resilient with 0.12, fixes malleability bug / introduces Segwit in a couple of months (1.7MB capacity) and commits to future blocksize increase that puts capacity at >2mb which classic provides. And we are still discussing "small blockers"? Why?
The amount of stirring shit for the lolz, resurrecting 5-10-20 day posts from the garbage, creating fictitious drama and "problems", saying that the end is coming because "blocks are full" when even 1c or even 4 tenths of one cent fee txs go in in a few hours despite "blocks are full" and backlogs, saying people can't be anonymous with bitcoin because with high fees there can't be no mixing (when fees are at practically zero cost AND the fact that
cheap mixing is USELESS mixing due to the sybil attack vector where other parties can pretend to be mixing with you just to unmask you - I mean, if they pay almost zero fees, they can be pretending to be mixing coins all day so that they can see who else mixes with them), pretending there is some official camp that wants 1MB forevah and intentionally creating friction out of nowhere when there is no such camp (everyone is doing scaling work)....wtf? Are you all retarded and/or paid shills?
Blockstream/Core NEEDS segwit for their future plans. It fixes malleability, which could be fixed in a multitude of ways, but is CRITICAL for LN type scrip systems. Importantly, it gives a 75% fee discount to signature heavy transactions, economic favoritism for the settlement network. Most importantly, it only needs miners to soft fork it in, not nodes... non-upgraded nodes are left blissfully unable to verify segwit transactions (a "nice" bifurcation of the full node structure)... no node level referendum on Core's dominance. 1.7MB equiv is a rosy view... a slower uptake from outside developers integrating the changes into their apps means more like 1.3MB. They dangled the carrot of a HF in
July 2017, just to get the miners to go along.
Fees aren't prohibitively expensive
today... but that means we have near 0 potential for growth... it's not a coincidence that the exponential uptrend in price has been thoroughly broken. Also, no coincidence that alts are exploding (lucky iCE), taking massive share from BTC.
It's obvious to everyone after 6 months of debating that Blockstream
wants a constrained on-chain environment to artificially incentivize off-chain solutions... which (totally incidentally) will siphon off miner fees to hub operators. How the fuck do you think Blockstream is gonna get an ROI on $76mm of loot?
Look... I'm not against a form of seg-wit in principle, nor off chain solutions... but they need to compete on a level playing field. I'm sick and tired of scare mongering, DDoS, and censorship being employed to steer this boat in the most favorable direction for Blockstream. It may be going there despite my protestations, but I'm not going to just shut up and get steamrolled without complaining loudly about it.
