Quote from: Lauda on March 03, 2016, 08:45:33 PM

Quote from: SebastianJu on March 03, 2016, 04:49:00 PM

Segwit can live pretty fine without the Lightning Network. Surely it is no solution but still a somewhat clever way to raise the capacity of the blockchain.

This statement doesn't make sense. I've said that the LN needs Segwit, not the other way around.

You wrote "Segwit is neccesary for things such as LN." Which can be read like it was implemented only for LN and LN is the needed next step. Though Segwit is independently raising the capacity and has nothing to do with LN besides that LN might need it.

Well, I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of post war again.

Quote from: Lauda on March 03, 2016, 08:45:33 PM

Quote from: SebastianJu on March 03, 2016, 04:49:00 PM

If we would have a sudden increase of transactions of 10th of times and would raise the blocksize accordingly ok, then some nodes might switch off. But the areas of blocksize increases we speak now about are far far away from centralization problems.

You can't know exactly how many nodes are going to be shut down at X block size limit. That's is the problem here. You're speculating and considering best-case scenarios.

And you only see worst case scenarios. It's completely unlikely that with bigger blocks suddenly many nodes will disappear. Besides the owner does it out of anger about the rise. There would be no other reason to do it instantly because blocks would not be full 2mb blocks suddenly. Even when, the increase is so low that it does not really make sense to be troubled by that rise.

Quote from: Lauda on March 03, 2016, 08:45:33 PM

Quote from: SebastianJu on March 03, 2016, 04:49:00 PM

Then... we have a centralization of development of bitcoin protocol development which seems to be a way bigger problem for the moment. The community was never so divided like it is now. And the reason is disagreement with the centralized decision of the protocol developers.

It is not a problem (yet). It has been like this for years and barely anyone complained. The only reason for which they're doing so now is due to the rejection of their ideas.

Well for sure it is no problem for someone who completely agrees with the devteam. Though you know there is a huge part of the community that disagrees. And it clearly shows a centralization problem since without centralization this problem would not appear. Users could chose.

And surely it is no "only reason". It is a completely valid reason. Imagine a pool having suddenly 55% and they change something in the protocol. The community is against it but they were ok with the pool all the time. So would you still say that it is no problem because no one complained in the last years and now the only problem is that the community disagrees with the change? Surely not.

Quote from: Lauda on March 03, 2016, 08:45:33 PM

Quote from: SebastianJu on March 03, 2016, 04:49:00 PM

If someone would try to spam the network with 2mb blocks the same way he did the last days then the price he would have to pay would be a ALOT higher. Well, you might be right, it is still possible since those doing it showed their insanity to spend that amount of money to such stupid and useless act, but it will be way harder to do the same with even doubling the blocksize.

No, actually it is not going to be "a lot higher" if you're doubling the capacity. Besides, we're still talking about very small amounts of money that is needed to attack the network in this way.

Well, ok, the numbers I have read, someone wrote about costs of 20 to 40k per day might be too high. I have read another figure claiming it might be $5k per day. So it's not really that much. With four times the transactions it might get close to 20k per day. It would be 100k to spam for 5 days then. Dunno if it will be easily done and if someone will give that money for spam then.