Perhaps we would be better focused on how to make decentralization itself scale once Bitcoin assumes industrial levels, rather than trying to keep it decentralized by focusing on small miners and small nodes.Because of this, it seems that fighting tooth and nail to preserve what has already been lost is like trying to patch a hull breach in a sunken ship.I hope you understand how bigger blocks increases centralization incentives.After bit 4 locks in they will use some of their hash rate to create clean bitcoin-abc fork with wipe-out and replay protection.However, I am certain it will be all the rage in the coming weeks.
If only technically naive people, or those who do not understand the balance of security and risk, would stop pushing for simplistic solutions that, in actuality, solve nothing and would threaten the network in the end.If everything goes well, in one year maybe some big merchant will open some channel but then we will probably have something else prepared.Trying to limit the cost of user nodes to maintain decentralization might be a losing battle.Now instead of helping out, all you do is piss on all other porposals from your high horses, including one (segwit2x) that has more then twice the support than your solution and actually gives you what you say you want (segwit).Only requests for donations to large, recognized charities are allowed, and only if there is good reason to believe that the person accepting bitcoins on behalf of the charity is trustworthy.With no additional improvements to block structuring, VISA-level throughput would actually require standard blocks to range from 666MB to 8GB in size, depending on the day.In my opinion, the best solution -- even better than Core backing the hard fork -- would be for Core to compromise, include a 2x increase into Segwit, for Segwit2x as well as BIP148 to become therefore pointless and dropped, and for everyone to happily upgrade together with a soft fork.This tells me that either I have missed something fundamental, or they are out of touch with the reality of the situation.And from the response to SegWit2x by Peter Todd above and the other core developers, it seems like they are ready to let that happen.
But like you said, they are making a huge gamble giving up the Bitcoin brand.The Core developers seem to be blindly hoping that the less powerful majority will come to their aid, but it seems we may have already moved past the era where that was possible.How the incentives and fees shift to other parts of the system and so on.Gleeful pronouncements of opposition for any of the options which have significant support make me so frustrated.That mining centralization has occurred is already plain for everyone to see, and it should be apparent that the current paradigm has been ineffective at preventing this.
Its like a kid got a copy of Photoshop 6 off Pirate Bay and made a print to sell at the. It is the relationship between tribes in the United States and Canada.
I personally immagine that in the first 6 months we will have no more than few thousands of channels open on the main net.I said any LN with modest success meaning a few million users.Now what are the requirements for a block size increase after Segwit.If everthing goes as planned they will slowly abondon legacy bitcoin and move to bitcoin-abc with flippening.It would be interesting to see some models on how this would play out.And once that resolution is achieved, the bulk of investment money is going to continue flow right into whichever chain won the name.
And yet, despite all this, you have some Core developers actively promoting BIP148.Tradechat Archive 2017 Jan 19 Page3. One of my sell orders went missing from dash sell book, but was still in my outstanding order box.Because the immutability of transactions is introduced through the blockchain, and there are lots of blockchains.Multiple implementations makes for increased chances of bugs.The only thing an attack on the bitcoin chain would cause is core to actually release an update that changes the pow.But the reason I do not think this is likely is because if the intent of the power community were simply to get Segwit without a hard fork, this could have easily been achieved by simply backing BIP148.Testing on testmet5 is ongoing, with very few issues discovered thus far.Something like the lightning network is indeed exactly what Bitcoin needs - but it is apparently at the bottom of the priority barrel, of course.
Its already giving a much larger than neccessary blocksize increase to future proof it, even though it will not be utilized until many years from now.If on chain transactions are expensive then off chain solutions will be used.Well its a good thing that some of the most well respected and experienced developers in the world (Rusty Russell) are working on 2nd layer solutions to do exactly that.None of these layers can, or will, threaten the base network in any way.At what point specifically did I say anything about 2MB blocks.A hyper-popular layer 2 application would itself require additional on-chain scaling, so we should begin to prepare for that eventuality ASAP, not later.
When you have large numbers of people investing in paper bitcoin, when you have ticker symbols and ETFs and hedge funds holding bitcoin on behalf of their customers, you have a situation where they all want brand resolution to be immediate.Coming to agreement on the right size is also a challenge which cannot be solved easily or quickly.Who is equipped to most swiftly resolve a dispute over the brand.Exchange Union (XUC) initial coin offering (ICO) information.However, there are several other solutions that will make bitcoin viable for other markets like micro payments and smart contracts.Years later these two juggernauts of Bitcoin would find themselves on opposite ends of the debate.The first person on record I know of to recognize this phenomena was Gavin Andresen.Put differently, Bitcoin was designed to allow a minority powerful players in the space to wield disproportionate control over it -- whether that be the miners or the economically powerful nodes.Promotion of client software which attempts to alter the Bitcoin protocol without overwhelming consensus is not permitted.
I think it is telling that they did the HF 3 months after the SegWit activation.Chinese Miners advantages are hardware and electricity costs not bandwidth.Eventually what is likely going to happen is that Bitcoin is going to achieve such a critical level of success, that powerful players from outside the ecosystem are going to enter with vast amounts of capital and power.Given that, a homogenous network where something like 98% of the nodes on the network run software derived from the same codebase should be terrifying.Saving Screens is available for members only. Please register and / or login to save this screen Login.