Back then everyone agreed with satoshis vision so of course everyone would fork alognside satoshi.
It goes to show that UASF isn't so dangerous and we don't necessarily need "miner approval" to make changes, as long as there is economic approval. It worked many times before.
Also, miners didn't block gavins proposal, the other core devs did.
Thats not what happened. I'm talking about p2sh.
Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that satoshi handed the keys to gavin, and gavin choose to share his authority with 4 others instead of taking control on his own. And yet the same persons who got shared access accuse Gavin of trying to gain more control of bitcoin.
If Gavin was trying to get control, then why would he share the keys? He didn't have to do that.
I never said that.
Gross exaggeration and you know it.
No it's not, it's an understatement. It was 300GB a year ago for a non-listening node when I stopped running mine. A listening node requires 1-2TB a month. Here is a log from a node from a year ago that I found doing a quick Google search, showing it using 300-400GB/mo:
https://hastebin.com/dukuheneva.1cIf you don't believe me, run a node for a month and come back. I await your threads complaining about the issues you have.
Bitcoin Core crashes when there is less than 2GB RAM. It's the most common reason for crashes. Hundreds of threads out there. First question people ask when some posts about their node crashing is "do you have 2GB ram free?" You need 3-4GB RAM for it to run smoothly.
The problem is so bad that there are many Bitcoin businesses not running their own node. And there are miners doing 'spv validation' at times because it takes so long to validate blocks and txes. Very dangerous. Those miners caused a fork before by doing this.
Even if this is true, then it's still not worse then LN.
However, I'm pretty sure SPV can be designed in a better way than what you are describing above.
Fraud proofs prevent miners from doing most malicious things to SPV wallets. They don't exist yet and there are questions about the kind of resources requirements they would put on an SPV wallet and nodes. But we do need it.
There is no easy solution to the other problems.
Mike Hearn tried to use bloom filters to prevent the node from knowing your addresses, didn't work so well.
Anyone will tell you you're giving up a lot of privacy, security and anti-censorship protection by using an SPV wallet.
When you use an SPV wallet, there is a tradeoff. Convenience for less privacy,security and anti-censorship.
LN is optional and Roger Ver has stated it's coming to BU too. It is necessary for instant microtransactions. It only works with txes less than 0.042BTC in practice. Few people actually think that onchain scaling shouldn't happen. It should be done safely.
IBLT/weak blocks will lower the resources required to run a node, though they will take a long time to be developedl, but when they are, increasing the block size limit can be done very safely and there should be no reason for anyone to oppose it.
Sharding is another one, monero devs are developing this right now to deal with their scaling problems. Monero does not have a blocksize limit (something like 1700tx/sec) but a non-listening node requires 1.5TB/mo currently as monero txes are 10x bigger than Bitcoin. We can learn from monero and implement sharding if it works well for them.
Segwit allows for extension blocks, so the blocksize limit can be increase in future without a hard fork. Even if devs refuse to implement any onchain scaling, it would be pretty easy for users to do it. Sidechains such as a MimbleWimble sidechain will allow Bitcoin to scale to visa level, and don't require anything from the devs once segwit is activated.
Satoshi never intended the blocksize limit to stay for very long, in fact he hinted at removed it over 6 years ago.
He also hinted at payment channels (LN). We need both, but it has to be done safely. We can't give up decentralization for more capacity. Centralization = less privacy, security and anti-censorship.
Roger Ver doesn't deserve all this blame, he isn't even a BU dev. He's just an early adopter and he's very open about what he thinks.
He's also one of the most honest persons in bitcoin, but even if you don't trust him, you don't need to trust him because he doesn't have any control over anyone in bitcoinland.
Unlike Adam back and his gang.
He's been involved in all kinds of shady shit. All the things I mentioned happened and he spent 10 months in prison as a result and had to rat out his counterfeit cisco hardware supplier for a deal.
He pays for BU development. Allegedly over $1 million.
He also pays miners to signal for EC. His bitcoin.com pool (which runs Core cos BU keeps crashing) pays them a 10% bonus for mining there. He wants to increase this to 200%.