{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub149tvqh6gesh22h60jrehl5clrxscx6q65wznq9ty6pae8sxq00esg5vasy","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub149tvqh6gesh22h60jrehl5clrxscx6q65wznq9ty6pae8sxq00esg5vasy","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-03-29\n📝 Original message:\u003e While Segwit's change from 1 mb size limit to 4 mb weight limit seems to\nbe controversial among some users [..] I don't think it's very interesting\nto discuss further size increases.\n\nI think the reason for this is largely because SegWit as a blocksize\nincrease isn't very satisfying.  It resolves to a one-time increase with no\nfuture plans, thus engendering the same objections as people who demand we\njust \"raise the number to N.\"  People can argue about what N should be, but\nwhen N is just a flat number, we know we'll have to deal with the issue\nagain.\n\nIn that light I think it is even more essential to continue to discuss the\nblocksize debate and problem.\n\n\u003e I find more interesting to talk to the users and see how they think\nSegwit harms them,\n\n\u003eFrom an inordinant amount of time spent reading Reddit, I believe this\nlargely comes down to the rumor that has a deathgrip on the BU community -\nThat Core are all just extensions of Blockstream, and blockstream wants to\nrestrict growth on-chain to force growth of their 2nd layer\nservices(lightning and/or sidechains).\n\nI believe the tone of the discussion needs to be changed, and have been\ntrying to work to change that tone for weeks now.  There's one faction that\nbelieves that Bitcoin will rarely, if ever, benefit from a blocksize\nincrease, and fees rising is a desired/unavoidable result.  There's a\ndifferent faction that believes Bitcoin limits are arbitrary and that all\npeople worldwide should be able to put any size transactions, even\nmicrotransactions, on-chain.  Both factions are extreme in their viewpoints\nand resort to conspiracy theories to interpret the actions of\nCore(blockstream did it) or BU(Jihan controls everything and anyone who\nsays overwise is a shill paid by Roger Ver!)\n\nIt is all very unhealthy for Bitcoin.  Both sides need to accept that\nmicrotransactions from all humans cannot go on-chain, and that never\nincreasing the blocksize doesn't mean millions of home users will run\nnodes.  The node argument breaks down economically and the microtransaction\nargument is an impossible mountain for a blockchain to climb.\n\n\nOn Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e While Segwit's change from 1 mb size limit to 4 mb weight limit seems to\n\u003e be controversial among some users (I find that very often it is because\n\u003e they have been confused about what segwit does or even outright lied about\n\u003e it) I don't think it's very interesting to discuss further size increases.\n\u003e I find more interesting to talk to the users and see how they think Segwit\n\u003e harms them, maybe we missed something in segwit that needs to be removed\n\u003e for segwit to become uncontroversial, or maybe it is just disinformation.\n\u003e\n\u003e On the other hand, we may want to have our first uncontroversial hardfork\n\u003e asap, independently of block size. For example, we could do something as\n\u003e simple as fixing the timewarp attack as bip99 proposes. I cannot think of a\n\u003e hf that is easier to implement or has less potential for controversy than\n\u003e that.\n\u003e\n\u003e On 29 Mar 2017 8:32 am, \"Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev\" \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.\n\u003e linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should\n\u003e\u003e be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Much as it may be appealing to repeal the block size limit now with a\n\u003e grace period until a replacement is needed in a repeal and replace\n\u003e strategy, it's dubious to assume that an idea can be agreed upon later when\n\u003e it can't be agreed upon now. Trying to put a time limit on it runs into the\n\u003e possibility that you'll find that whatever reasons there were for not\n\u003e having general agreement on a new setup before still apply, and running\n\u003e into the embarrassing situation of winding up sticking with the status quo\n\u003e after much sturm and drang.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170329/5ef03fb4/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}