3 ms·

Those people are not paying attention, or are paying attention to the wrong people. Bitcoin cash is not closet o the "original vision"... that's a Roger Ver cl

Those people are not paying attention, or are paying attention to the wrong people. Bitcoin cash is not closet o the "original vision"... that's a Roger Ver claim which is asinine beyond belief. SegWit literally fixes an issue that Satoshi identified in the white paper... and Lightening Network is literally a nice rebranding and enhancement of the payment channels that Satoshi came up with. Segwit quadruples capacity and lowers fees-- in fact Jihan said in a blog that the segwit fees were "unfair" because they are too low. Who is it you think who wants high fees again? You've been listening to the people who want to take over bitcoin, not the engineers.

ericb 9y ago
I've been listening to both, and I question the motives of both. Members of core have contradicted themselves so often when asked why the block size can't be raised that there must be another agenda. When they claimed a one-line arbitrary constant was impossible to change and then gave conflicting reasons why, they lost credibility. I've only seen this waxy-flexibility of logic when someone can't reveal the real reason behind what they want, or they are purely irrational. Core have not been good stewards. Even in the unlikely event they were "correct," the mismanagement of the community, censorship, inability to communicate or build consensus has been atrocious. In terms of original vision, Satoshi pretty clearly described layer 1 scaling. source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287.msg8810#msg8810 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287.msg8810#msg8810 -------- It would be nice to keep the blk.dat files small as long as we can. The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets. But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore. There's more work to do on transaction fees. In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee. However, I haven't had time yet to add that option to the UI. Scale or not, the test network will react in the same ways, but with much less wasted bandwidth and annoyance.

ericb 9y ago

I've been listening to both, and I question the motives of both. Members of core have contradicted themselves so often when asked why the block size can't be raised that there must be another agenda. When they claimed a one-line arbitrary constant was impossible to change and then gave conflicting reasons why, they lost credibility. I've only seen this waxy-flexibility of logic when someone can't reveal the real reason behind what they want, or they are purely irrational. Core have not been good stewards. Even in the unlikely event they were "correct," the mismanagement of the community, censorship, inability to communicate or build consensus has been atrocious. In terms of original vision, Satoshi pretty clearly described layer 1 scaling. source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287.msg8810#msg8810 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287.msg8810#msg8810 -------- It would be nice to keep the blk.dat files small as long as we can. The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets. But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore. There's more work to do on transaction fees. In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee. However, I haven't had time yet to add that option to the UI. Scale or not, the test network will react in the same ways, but with much less wasted bandwidth and annoyance.