Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 01, 2017, 02:55:46 AM

I have been a big fan of Andreas he's been a great spokesman for Bitcoin.
And he seemed to be most passionate about helping the world's
unbanked...empowering them...getting them sound money, etc.

So, now we have the core developers promoting a new
economic policy for Bitcoin which is essentially based
on Bitcoin being a settlement layer. The most vocal
proponents of Core's roadmap embrace their economics
and say "well, Bitcoin can't be all things to all people.
Bitcoin was never supposed to be coffee money.
You should do things like off-chain, on the LN."

(Which btw was never an economic policy of
Gavin or Satoshi, but that's another story).

So what does this mean for the world's unbanked?

Best case scenario, in the future there will
be zero friction and fees will still be relatively cheap.
But so far, the reality today is that core's
economic policy has caused a substantial
increase in fees and slower confirmations.

In the future, if transactions are forced
off the main chain, it will quite likely
become more expensive to use Bitcoin
due to LN solutions charging fees as well
as increased fees for settlement.

The unbanked have limited cash flow,
and less ability to wait for 'settlement',
and if there are AML/KYC hurdles to
register with a LN provider/hub, then
that is additional friction.

Meanwhile, LN isn't here yet and may not be for
at least a year or more.

The big question is why hasn't
Mr. Antonopoulos said anything
about this?

there's only a few possibilities:

A) the core roadmap will still support cheap micropayments (explain why)
B) the roadmap won't do so, but its ok (explain why)
C) the roadmap won't do so, and its not ok
D) say nothing and remain neutral.

So, Andreas seems to be choosing D and while
that might be acceptable for some people
in Bitcoin, it seems too timid for
someone who previously championed the unbanked.

I say, speak your mind!

Andreas, we've always admired you for having courage and speaking
your mind. I know you are trying to remain neutral and diplomatic,
but you can't remain silent about this point... and to do so
makes you just look like a politician towing the line.

Even the unbanked can use it as a settlement layer, nothing is stopping them from doing so. The morte people on lightning networks the less load in the actual protocol but segwit doubles or triples capacity, so I dont see a problem. The only reason you dont want to pass segwit is because it gives up your leverage on getting a hard fork done. Well you might as well fork because core is never going to do it.