Re: Estranged Core Developer Gavin Andresen Finally Makes Sensible 2MB BIP Proposal!
I suppose we can agree to disagree on this point, I think the ability to transact freely, cheaply and directly with the Bitcoin blockchain is more important then the ability to run a full node, or the cost of independent validation.
Sure, we can do that, especially when your opinion is wrong.How much higher the fees will actually be depends on the level of adoption, I personally think that Bitcoin will be obsoleted and outcompeted if we do not increase the blocksize.
You guys seem to have many things wrong with assumptions. e.g.: A lot of people are transacting on the main chain -> fees rise -> fees are too high for some -> some leave the system -> fees lower -> repeat. The system will never self destruct like this, no matter how many times you repeat that. There are various scenarios of how this might play out; we can't know for sure until it does.I suppose you rather side with caution when faced with an uncertainty? I suppose I feel differently especially with such a revolutionary experiment like Bitcoin. We should not cripple the project out of caution.
Of course, albeit: 1. You can easily kill this system with naivety; 2. Nobody is crippling anything. Efficiency is not everything, it might be to an engineers but there is more to life then that. You have not awnsered my question of why sacrificing efficiency for political and ideological goals can be justified, in the same way that Bitcoin and something like the concept of democracy already does inherently in its design.
Efficiency is what matters in the world today. It can't be justified, especially not when you can do so much more if you combine the first layer with the second.I presumed you where referring to the Internet Protocol as layer one.
This is what I dislike about people, they talk even when they have no idea what they're talking about. IP is not layer 1, it is part of layer 3.I doubt it would change the behavior of the miners significantly compared to today, even at a higher blocksize limit, miners still determine what transactions to include and not to include. It also does not change the fundamental fact that moving transactions off chain does deprive the miners from potential fees, this is inherently true.
They have no reason not to include transactions with lower fees because there is empty space.The contradiction in your position has already been pointed out. How can you possibly say that an increase to two megabyte is unsafe while simultaneously arguing that segwit is safe? When both increase the effective blocksize while being radically different in terms of complexity.
Nope. I never said that segwit is safe.If orphan rates did ever become an issue the pools could simply move their node to another datacentre, it is that simple.
So you think that orphan rates are caused by slow datacenters? 