Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 19, 2016, 05:55:08 AM

But isn't it true to a point that the blockchain would be too large and that it will make it harder for people to run a node? The storage problem could be stored. But what about the bandwidth problem?

this is where doomsday theories rather than rational thought comes in.
some want 4mb (core) some want more. some want onchain some want 100% use offchain. thats where compromises come in and finding the acceptable level.
this "terrabyte block" doomsday has been shot out the park last year. the current compromise is 2mb bas 4mb weight.
the everthing has to be offchain has been shot out the park. the current compromise is expand onchain and allow offchain for freedom of choice.
i dont know why anyone is talking about terrabytes, apart from the doomsdayers who want to twist the future to distract the present
i dont know why anyone is talking about only offchain will work, apart from the doomsdayers who want to twist the future to distract the present

Quote from: Wind_FURY on October 19, 2016, 05:55:08 AM

Quote from: Franky1

there is a balance. a compromise. and although some are presenting 8,6,32 proposals now..
i personally feel 2mb base 4mb weight is a good compromise everyone could agree with, and everyone gets what they want.. IF they put their political party ambitions aside.

forcing false doomsdays to coerce people offchain,(even done subtly) causes less people to want to become nodes(for security). less reason to want to become miners(for security). and turns bitcoin into a less secure system.
thus moving people to sidechains permanently the agenda. (much like "realbitcoins" rhetoric last year involving the altcoin NXT being bitcoin 2.0)

bitcoin needs to continue having an open and fair choice to continue doing onchain transactions for the immutable security. or offchain for the faster convenience.
there should not be an all or nothing debate.(though blockstreamers want all or nothing)

bitcoin is an open network that should have no barriers of entry and no dictatorship in central authority. this should not change.
by barrier of entry i mean. today sticking with 1mb blocks is a barrier to entry. jumping to obscene block sizes of "terrabytes" is a barrier of entry
thus a safe and workable compromise and agreement by the community is the best option to continue bitcoins ethos.

I also want to know your opinion what a Bitcoin hard fork would look like. I am afraid that it might happen just like what happened to Ethereum. The blockchain splits and now we have 2 chains competing against each other. Will it not slow down Bitcoin's adoption if this happens? I believe Roger Ver said something like if it happens then it happens, and he acted as if it was not a big deal.

If Bitcoin Unlimited "wins", what will happen to the core developers?

there is misunderstandings and our misrepresenting of what a hard fork is.
ethereum was not a consensus hard fork it was a controversial fork.
ethereum bypassed consensus orphaning mechanism and literally banned communicating with nodes of different rules to avoid orphaning the minority. "--oppose-dao-fork"
it is actually Gmaxwell of blockstream that proposed that BU should split, rather than use the consensus mechanism which BU(ver) wants.

a consensus mechanism is what the community want to happen. rather than a dictatorial split.
consensus, everyone wins and everyone continues.
controversial, dictator wins and everyone else f**ks off