Quote from: brg444 on August 12, 2015, 01:42:44 PM

Quote from: sgbett on August 12, 2015, 01:37:40 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 12, 2015, 12:57:32 PM

Quote from: sgbett on August 12, 2015, 12:44:04 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 11, 2015, 02:28:03 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on August 11, 2015, 02:24:38 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 11, 2015, 02:05:12 PM

Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.

But before they need to scale, they just might need some help convincing potential users they are even necessary at all.

Are you suggesting they are not?

I'm suggesting that it is putting the cart before the horse.

Let bitcoin scale. Let LN/Sidechains succeed on merit.

Have we not yet come to an agreement that raising the block size is not exactly a scaling solution?

Have we not yet come to an agreement that LN/Sidechains are not a scaling solution *without bigger blocks*

I'm not against bigger blocks. I simply disagree with the urgency suggested by some of their proponents as well as the current proposed implementations (especially the very dangerous XT fork)

Your use of the word "urgent" is misguided Gavin started the discussion with a proposal that would take over 9 month to deploy 9 month is plenty time to change 1 line of code from 1MB to 8MB, the debate is about why it should not happen befor blockstream deploy LN or SPVp sidechains.