Topic: Why Bitcoin's Block Size Debate is a Proxy War (Read 1206 times)

That's what's so amusing about you anti-Bitcoin shills; the perfect opposite of what you say is true. You cannot even rely on half truths any more.

If Core is junk, why is every challenger comprised of 99.9% of the latest code from the Core team? How many times has some Bitcoin Judas announced that Bitcoin is "about to be replaced"?

Just like everytime someone posts things you don't want to hear you call them a 'troll'.  Core is junk.  About to be replaced

Just like everytime someone posts things you don't want to hear you call them a 'troll'.  Core is junk.  About to be replaced

Core is junk.

About to be replaced

No. If anyone is going by that 'rule', then is the "people" at /r/btc. The people there keep focusing on negativity instead of the good news. Someone even justified this in a post recently.

If you look closely you would notice that a lot of people are sheep (more than I've exepected). Additionally, all you need is a good story to convince them.

Everything you don't agree with is 'FUD'.  

It's a fear instinct, it's like you put a bunch of sheep together in a pen and they start to scare eachother with wolf conspiracy theories.

this is how they explain it between themselves, by invoking FUD.

From what I understand the protocol changes need to be made for LN to work. I have no opinion on that.

Seems for a lot of people this does come down to a conspiracy argument and the more I read about this I find it's quite ridiculous.

So where is the greed and desire to profit that so many people are accusing Blockstream of?

I dont like to grab the conspiracy card on this issue, it might just be a question of arrogance and incompetence.

But it is obvious that bitcoin has to be in the hands of specialists, and luckily capital can distinguish the dumb person from the bright.

That is the single biggest feature capitalism has.

However, the Lightning Network is an open-source project. And, as opposed to Bitcoin itself, it's not even an open-source project that requires consensus among all Bitcoin users over the protocol rules. This means that anyone can fork the Lightning Network any time they want, potentially adjust the code in any way they want, and deploy their own version whenever they want. It might even be possible for users of different types of Lightning Networks to transact with each other, as long as there are nodes connecting the two.

what he says is correct..

visa's "authorization network" (the one that doesnt settle transactions but just says ok or not before the funds actually move) can handle a CAPACITY of 42,000 authorizations not settlements.

and blockstream who have consultants as part of PwC who are IBM.. yes the same company who help out VISA and the same company who were writing in the article..

so yes blockstream want bitcoin to turn into a more centralized system like visa's where it has a authorization network(handles tx's in seconds) and days later settles the accounts.

but they fail to debunk one big thing.. bitcoin does not have 900million users. and so any doomsday story that bitcoin cannot scale to visa ONCHAIN is a flawed argument. with the only intention to move the smaller population away from bitcoin and onto less secure, less distributed networks or centralized hubs.

which ultimately will dilute the pool of full nodes if people are playing with sidechains because they realise they dont touch bitcoin onchain and so ignorantly become central hubs/sidechain nodes. which along with pruned mode, no witness mode and everything else also reduces the distribution of real full bitcoin nodes.

so the slow growth ONCHAIN over many years will not disrupt bitcoins security/distribution of nodes as much as diverting people away from bitcoin will.

so yes the debate is not about classic vs core...
its about code simple change or major change.
its about security, everyone concentrating on using the same fundamental protocol rules and same network/same ledger. or different networks different rules, different ledgers.

the last part of blockstreams plan is to make bitcoin not even a ledger(record of account) by bloating each transaction by 250bytes to hide the values of spending(confidential transactions). making it harder for the network to trust that a bug hasnt suddenly created billions of bitcoins. or that a double spend has or hasnt happened. again risking the fundamentals of bitcoin.

all because blockstream has ties to VISA and multiple banks, all via the go-between PwC

I think what he is asking, is if for instance if LN is a third party service added to the protocol to add more scalability and faster transactions, but normal transactions that needs no speed, could still be done with Core or Classic, and if these two implementations can be handled separately, correct me if I am wrong?

It would essentially be a "service" added, like Xapo's off-chain solution for speed, without having to change the Core protocol, and if this can be done.. if this could ran together? Am I right...?   

But, the interesting thing about Classic’s approach is that they proposed it very openly to the community and they achieved within two months, in my opinion, a significant change to bitcoin.

To quote from the article: “In short, we have one group (Bitcoin Classic) that thinks that bitcoin should always be a payment network, aimed at ultimately replacing traditional payment methods. Then we have another group that thinks of bitcoin as more of a settlement network (Bitcoin Core), and that end users should use sidechains, the Lightning network or other future initiatives that could appear in the future as networks for payment.”
+1.

Divide and conquer...

both can happen. but as a choice of secure transactions that can settle onchain in 10 minutes like the oldent days..( like in 2009-2013).. or happily choose to lock funds into a riskier network to do fast transactions for a week, knowing ull be using it more then 2 times a week for it to be an advantage.

rather than forcing people into LN by keeping the onchain capacity low.

so basically both will and should work together. not by contention or force but from user preference of how they want to transact

So with regards to my question, are you saying that both things can't happen? I'm just curious as to why LN can't exist, yet people like yourself could still choose to NOT use it and just do your transactions directly on the blockchain (assuming blocksize limit increases continually going forward)? Maybe this technical, I don't know the technical details too well, but that's why I'm asking.