Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on February 09, 2016, 12:34:21 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 09, 2016, 12:21:33 AM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on February 09, 2016, 12:10:14 AM

Segwit is more like 1.3MB equiv, to 1.75MB equiv in a rosy scenario. It also gives a heavy discount to signature heavy transactions like the vaporous LN. Most importantly, the "soft" fork method allows no room for protest at the node level.

It has the added "benefit" of leaving all non segwit nodes in a half broken state, not able to fully validate. All done without their request or permission.

way to understate segwit.

1.75x incess is HUGE!

scaling bitcoin isnt about how big we can make the blocks, but how efficiently we can use block space

Thats a bit mad really, isn't it?

Needing to use space more efficiently, when in reality its not in short supply at all. Except that it is decided to be.
And by increasing complexity? hmmmm.

1st world problems, eh?

You seem to be very short-sighted if you are suggesting that increasing the block size is some trivial matter because it is "just a tiny increase" and "we have all kinds of space", blah blah blah

The fact of the matter may be that there is a bit of luxury with such a discussion, but the impact of rash considerations, such as increasing the block size has impacts on participation and really on lots of people, who may become foreclosed from participation because of technology and technological demands.

Your apparent poo poo-ing the problem seems to demonstrate more that you are caught up in first world concerns, rather than the direction of your criticism of others who are trying to keep bit coin from becoming too big too fast and too centralized...