Topic: Why Bitcoin's Block Size Debate is a Proxy War - page 2. (Read 1206 times)

Bitcoin is a settlement layer since it's the nr1 currency, and it has intrinsic value as the nr1 crypto currency.

It's also a commodity and as a settlement layer like gold in a vault backing paper money (but one that is actually transparent and 100% backed and not a ponzi scheme)

So yes, bitcoin is more a commodity money like gold, which needs a separate faster payment system, because obviously 10 min confirm time is not meant for it.

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.

If the modifications needed to accommodate Lightning Network (LN) were implemented now, it would be possible to evaluate its utility for scalable, low fee transactions. Something like LN or sidechains will be needed sooner or later anyway: now, if we stick with core, or in 2 years with classic.

@btcbug - I think that it is a more urgent issue that LN be implemented, as opposed to debating block sizes. 1MB, 2MB - either way you have slow confirmations and malleable fees. LN would really address the actual debate: payment vs settlement, so that it can be evaluated by users for scalability and performance.

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.

Divide and conquer... It's so old but always new.

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

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-block-size-proxy-war/


So based on the opinion in that article. I have the following question:

Why is there no third scenario where Bitcoin adopts SegWit, plus increases block size limit and then continues to increase the block size limit going forward? Essentially allowing both Lightning Network and the increased block size to both address the issue of scalability? Why can't both solutions work side by side?