Oh, and BTW, there are at least two Big BlockTM live "versions" of Bitcoin: BCH (a.k.a. Bcash LOL) and BSV (CSW's creation).
There is at least one other thing different about those big block coins vs Bitcoin, they intentionally took out SegWit when they forked.
It would have been interesting to see if they took BTC as is and only added bigger blocks, but that's not what they did, so here we are and the market has spoken.
Oh? So now the bigblocker tards want segwit? Maybe they want taproot, too, no?
Anyhow, they could forkening bitcoin now with segwit and increase the blocksize, no? or they could get a taproot version, right? and then forkening bitcoin with segwit, taproot and any other bug fixes that had been made along the way.. and then just add their dumbass bigger blocks to that, right?
To me, it just seems better to stick with actual bitcoin, and then if there were to be some kind of concern that something might be broken, to make a proposal for some reasonable and prudent changes. Sure, some BIG blocker know-it-alls might imagine that their concerns are NOT being taken seriously, so they may need to work on both their presentation skills and make sure that they have both facts and logic to support what they are proposing and get some others (besides just their lil selfies) to consider supporting such proposals.
I doubt that anyone, including yours truly, would be against BIG blocks (or BIGGER blocks for more onchain BIGGEDness) if there were to be some kind of perception that they were actually fixing something that needs to be fixed in bitcoin, and at the same time they would not be breaking more than they would supposedly be fixing. I doubt that I am personally technical enough to understand with any kind of exactness, so I admit that I do have to rely on some kinds of assessments of a variety of folks.. but I can read English too if there were some reasonable proposal being made in regards to both describing problems that were purportedly being addressed, and surely there are smart folks out there who are able to give more technical assessments to potential BIG blocker proposals.. I doubt it is just a technical question.. but instead as I mentioned some needs to present facts and logic and perhaps some of these currently seeming dumbass proposals could end up gaining some traction to convince technical and non-technical folks that there is some kind of problem in bitcoin that could be fixed by some kind of reasonable BIG blocker proposal.. perhaps? perhaps?
I am not moving the goalposts. Segwit passed and became a part of bitcoin in August 2017. You are the one who seems to be suggesting that something might need to be done about that or that you are complaining about something that the blocks are not big enough that relate to issues from 2017.. .. so my who fucking cares should suggest to you that you have some kind of burden to show facts and logic for it to be relevant.
Remember in late 2015, Peter wuille came up with a compromise (which was segwit), and for about 6 months (while segwit was coded and tested), there was a lot of consensus that it was great, but then with the passage of time, the disingenuine BIG blocker fucktwats just started to make up other shit about various disagreements they had with it.. .
You are the one who brought up segwit, Hueristic was asking about raising the block size limit, Marcus cast aspersions in big block advocates as a group. I replied to each of these, I
did not bring them up. Until you can keep more than one thing in your li'l head at a time, there's no point continuing.
Yes, nothing can be done about Segwit. That was one of the complaints against it at the time.
Makes hardly any sense to talk about blocksize limitation increases in a vacuum, so I have no clue if I brought up segwit first or if you were talking about various ways that big blocker concerns were purportedly NOT being taken seriously, so whether I presented context first or you presented context first, it seems that if we are talking about these various ideas about historical proposals that had been made in regard to blocksize limit increases, segwit is surely a part of that discussion and a considered partial solution that ended up coming onto the scene (like I said) in late 2015 - seemingly in connection with some BIG blocker then concerns, and it ended up getting included into bitcoin, which likely satisfied quite a few folks in connection to some of the BIG blocker concerns that you had raised.. sure, it likely did not satisfy everyone, including ur lil selfie, but it could be possible that it took some of the wind out of the sail of some folks who might have otherwise wanted to ally with you, if you had actually made a BIP and tried to get support, so your base may have ended up shrinking down from 10 whiners to ONLY one whiner (ur lil selfie), or maybe we can give you some benefit of the doubt in terms of your whining about BIG blocks base. Maybe you had 1,000 whiners in the BIG blocker camp, and then after segwit, you only could get 20 whiners thereafter? Of course, I am pulling these numbers out of my ass to some degree just to make the point that segwit might have reduced the number of BIGblocker whiners. Perhaps?
