Less onchain scaling doesn't have to mean that Bitcoin becomes a "settlement network".
What they'd prefer is limited onchain scaing - an amount which can be implemented without having to increase the block size. The more you can just increase the block size at will, the less incentivised you are to implement new solutions which make the network more efficient.
Topic: Why Bitcoin Core Developers won't compromise - page 14. (Read 11821 times)
They cannot honestly and openly admit "yes we want to change Bitcoin from Satoshi's peer to peer cash into a settlement network" because it would be so radical that it would have a high probability of getting backlash from the community. Therefore, they have opted to be sneaky about it.
How do you maintain the promise of so called "peer to peer cash" to scale globally without centralizing the network due huge blocks that people cannot afford to run at home, therefore not anymore peer to peer cash but peer to corporation to peer transaction? (aka what we have already in the current baking system)
The Lightning Network can take a huge amount of transactions largely offchain. The idea of having all transactions fully onchain is not a matter of principle, it's a matter of control from miners so that they can receive transaction fees more often. SegWit allows a slight increase in onchain capacity which is enough for the short term while this offchain scaling can also be implemented.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Very simply, they do NOT want on-chain scaling. In their own words, "segwit IS a compromise". We can only interpret that to mean a compromise between sensible scaling and NO on-chain scaling, which is in fact what they secretly want!
They want Bitcoin to be a settlement network, but do not have the honesty to admit this.
They cannot honestly and openly admit "yes we want to change Bitcoin from Satoshi's peer to peer cash into a settlement network" because it would be so radical that it would have a high probability of getting backlash from the community. Therefore, they have opted to be sneaky about it.
Because they want bitcoin to be a settlement network, the impasse is fine with them, perhaps even better than segwit.
Segwit represents a tiny amount of on-chain scaling designed to make it APPEAR that Core is willing to offer on-chain scaling, yet designed in a way that it will not even activate (95% consensus), and even if it does, it would be years later than appropriate.
Segwit IS their compromise. Ideally, for them, no on chain scaling occurs.
To summarize: There is no need to compromise further because no change works in their favor.
They want Bitcoin to be a settlement network, but do not have the honesty to admit this.
They cannot honestly and openly admit "yes we want to change Bitcoin from Satoshi's peer to peer cash into a settlement network" because it would be so radical that it would have a high probability of getting backlash from the community. Therefore, they have opted to be sneaky about it.
Because they want bitcoin to be a settlement network, the impasse is fine with them, perhaps even better than segwit.
Segwit represents a tiny amount of on-chain scaling designed to make it APPEAR that Core is willing to offer on-chain scaling, yet designed in a way that it will not even activate (95% consensus), and even if it does, it would be years later than appropriate.
Segwit IS their compromise. Ideally, for them, no on chain scaling occurs.
To summarize: There is no need to compromise further because no change works in their favor.
Jump to: