Quote from: BillyBobZorton on April 19, 2017, 03:56:16 PM

Quote from: gentlemand on April 19, 2017, 03:44:06 PM

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on April 19, 2017, 03:38:52 PM

Some people value the immutability of bitcoin as a very attractive feature, specially if you intend to use bitcoin as a long term store of value where you expect the price going up.

Sure, I want to see bitcoin with segwit and lightning network to enable instant payments and see bitcoin getting used in over the counter real life situations, but other people don't care about scaling bitcoin, they just want it to be as immutable as possible. Lack of consensus may lead us into a split tho, and hodlers shouldn't have that on their plans.

There's immutable and then there's ossified. Many people would be more comfortable with something immutable that had capacity baked in. Then it's welcome to be as immutable as fuck.

Well, the possibility for it to mutate is there: 95% hashrate agreement. Thought luck with that as we all know.

What are the alternatives? UASF, as we also know, can lead to a chain split, which can be a disaster for the price, but maybe it's our only way out from Jihan's monopoly.
We are assuming that the rest of the miners don't rebel against the PoW change and start mining BUcoin tho... so don't count victory.

It's a extremely tricky situation. I wish that we could at least get segwit, then LN. But even after we get LN, we would need eventual blocksize increases, otherwise optionally doing onchain transactions would be impossible, and LN functionality itself I assume would suffer eventually, without said blocksize increase.

Unfortunately, none of the "flexible blocksize" proposals work, so we will see situations like this every X years.

Why?

The more i look into segwit, the i am not liking it. LN is a no no for me.

The current impasse can be solve with a straight forwards 1mb to 2mb. Then up to 3mb when the time comes. In the meanwhile the developers can go back to the drawing board.