Quote from: forevernoob on May 26, 2016, 04:22:10 PM

Quote from: jbreher on May 26, 2016, 02:49:44 PM

The only reason you could possibly think that is that your picture of us bigblockers is formed by mischaracterization of what we actually want. Instead of getting your picture of bigblockers' motivations and desires from your fellow smallblockers, you might want to read what we bigblockers are actually saying.

Well I apologize for assuming that "big blocker" meant that you support bigger blocks?

Just no. The statement you made -- which I was obviously replying to -- was thus:

Quote

Quote from: forevernoob on May 26, 2016, 11:26:08 AM

I thought the majority of "big blockers" now regard Bitcoin as a failed experiment and willing to let go of it and move on to alt coins like Ethereum?

Note your claim that bigblockers "regard Bitcoin as a failed experiment" and "willing to let go of it" and "move on to alt coins like Ethereum". I'm just informing you of the likely reason you believe these falsehoods (if you are not merely dishonestly erecting a straw man argument for rhetorical purposes, that is).

Quote

Quote from: jbreher on May 26, 2016, 02:49:44 PM

The most secure blockchain, the most ecosystem, and the most user base -- at least for the moment. My fear is that by driving transactions off the main chain, these advantages will be ceded to another crypto.

Well isn't this happening?

But it is. In the last week or so, Bitcoin's share of the crypto space has dwindled from about 84% to about 79%.

Further, blocks are routinely full. Not only that, but the UTXO is larger now than before we consistently hit the maxblocksize. The only rational reason for these being simultaneously true is that transactions are being driven off the main chain.

Quote

Your big block pals are now crying that they cannot afford to send transactions.

Some uninformed or unthinking bigblocker minority, yes. But such are not my pals. My bigblocker pals are crying that transaction volume cannot increase further, due to a stupid limitation in the expression of the code.

Quote

They are under the impression that everything should be free. Kinda reminds me of the Bernie bots.

Again, it appears to me that you are parroting a mischaracterization. You ought to get out of the echo chamber from time to time.

Quote

Quote from: jbreher on May 26, 2016, 03:00:01 PM

Quote from: forevernoob on May 26, 2016, 12:13:35 PM

How is SegWit bloating Bitcoin?

'Decentralization' without fully-validating nodes is not really decentralization. Each node in a decentralized network must be able to verify all transactions for itself.

Accordingly, the only nodes that count for decentralization are those that maintain not only the transaction ~~fork~~branch of the data, but also the witness ~~fork~~branch of the data.

The sum of the transaction ~~fork~~branch of the data, plus the witness ~~fork~~branch of the data, is somewhat larger than it would be if the witness data stayed in the same block. There is additional data needed to correlate the correct block of transaction data with the correct block of witness data.

For a fully validating node, the resource demands are accordingly higher for The SegWit Omnibus Changeset than a simple bump of maxblocksize.

That is only the first layer of how The SegWit omnibus Changeset is bloating bitcoin.

It is smaller than franky1's scenario, but it does not require his/her (fully rational, BTW) interpretation of Core and Blockstream statements of what they might want to do in the future.

edit: overloaded use of fork replaced with branch

Are you saying that SegWit will be a bigger bump than 2MB blocksize increase and therefore bloat the chain?

For the same set of transactions, the Omnibus SegWit Changeset consumes more memory and more bandwidth than without The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. 'Cause maths.

Quote

So you are basically admitting that bigger blocks will bloat the blockchain?

If your definition of 'bloat' is 'bigger', then ... ummm.... duh. Yes. What is the point of your question?

The point of my reasoning above is to show that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is antithetical to its stated goal of decentralization through small resource demands.