Quote from: york780 on March 23, 2017, 03:06:11 PM

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on March 23, 2017, 03:02:56 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on March 22, 2017, 05:02:50 PM

Might be true. I've been pondering that today. If BU can successfully attack the token holders, then that should be proof that even small 1MB blocks don't stop mining cartelization/centralization.

In which case, larger blocks along with LN would provide more choice to users. As I wrote upthread, Core has masterfully fooled some people into believing they are rational with no ulterior motive.

But then I don't understand how Core could have ever expected to succeed, since the miners would naturally fork the protocol and increase the block size so they can get more revenue. Core's apparent goal of forcing users to use LN appears to be impossible to enforce (mining will always be a cartel and the cartel will not agree to be stripped of revenue).

But on the flip side, the mining cartel ostensibly doesn't want to allow off chain LN scaling (which is why they won't fix malleability) because that would compete with the miners for on chain fees.

Some have argued that enabling LN would increase overall usership and thus increase onchain transaction fee revenue.

So if BU was sincere, they could demonstrate it by including the necessary fixes to enable LN in their planned HF. Because otherwise we can look forward possibly to a monopoly on block size and thus miners squeezing the market for maximum fees inhibiting the scaling of Bitcoin.

(I'm duplicating this to two other places, because readers can't go clicking links off to so many other places to find the key points, but I am linking it here, so you can decide to reply just here if you want. Your decision obviously. I'd like to finish this discussion asap if possible.)

Core wants to raise the block size, no one in Core (except the guy that actually wants smaller blocks) wants to stay 1MB forever, but we must do things right, that means segwit must be activated before any blocksize increase since it solves quadratic hashing problem and so on.

BUcoin can do nothing, they are incompetent. They will last 2 seconds in the wild after a hard fork, tons of bugs and exploits ready to kill it in the case they hard fork, nobody will trust it with their money.

Miners going against a 80%+ of nodes are obviously out of their mind and will meet their mistake via PoW change. Smart devs will guarantee BTC does not become exploitable during this period of reorganization.

Quote from: iamnotback on March 22, 2017, 05:02:50 PM

But then I don't understand how Core could have ever expected to succeed, since the miners would naturally fork the protocol and increase the block size so they can get more revenue.

Increasing block size = less fees. I don't see why people trust the miners with BU, they could block the blocksize forever and never increase it to keep milking as-high-as-possible fees. The idiot miners supporting BU are either bribed or are stupid enough to not see beyond short term profits.

Bigger blocks=BU right? So adopting BU means less fees. Why do the miners support BU when they are collecting less fees because of it?

Because BU givers miners pretty much unilateral control over block size. So they become kings of the whole thing. They could make big pressure by changing block size at will. "Support us or else meet our massive hashrate" is their weapon. People are delusional giving away power to money obsessed chinamen.