Quote from: -ck on February 14, 2017, 08:33:28 AM

Quote from: HostFat on February 14, 2017, 02:36:37 AM

Bitcoins stagnation
https://medium.com/@p.g.tomlinson/bitcoins-stagnation-2098753b2e17#.6ou04fus8

Great article

I certainly don't think so. The fact he's been out of bitcoin for many years shows and he is no longer passing informed judgement. While he tries very hard to make it sound like "it's simple, just increase the blocksize and all will be better" he doesn't remotely seem to understand what a pure blocksize increase brings to the table in terms of quadratic scaling slowdowns and attack vectors. Additionally touting the slim block submission as some technical advantage when all it leads to is every single miner starting to mine empty unverified blocks on every block change is a significant step backwards. Segwit brings linear scaling transactions and core already has compact block propagation where possible without the backward step of encouraging unverified block propagation and mining on them. Scaling the block size alone brings problems with it beyond just the data transfer / storage issues while segwit actually brings added solutions to tackle the extra issues that come with block size increases, increasing both transactions allowed per block now but allowing safer block size increases in the future.

How much is the staff & CB being paid to spread this BS that segwit is a good thing?

Cause really, you guys can't be that stupid?
or
Can you? Cheesy

FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Andresen
https://news.bitcoin.com/andresen-blocksize-limit-remove/

Quote

Blocksize Increase: Nothing Bad Will Happen
The comments were made in response to concerns about an increase to 2MB by longstanding r/btc subreddit user u/Pool30.
I believe the network will eventually have so many problems, that an increase in blocksize will happen. But 2MB is not enough, lets push for 8MB or 20MB instead, u/Pool30 wrote.

Andresen replied:

Yes, lets eliminate the limit.

Nothing bad will happen if we do.

And if Im wrong, the bad things would be mild annoyances, not existential risks, much less risky than operating a network near 100% capacity, he added.