After watching this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M&feature=youtu.beI have come to the conclusion that on-chain scaling is indeed feasible. My previous objections were that it takes pools too long to verify transactions. Therefore, 1GB blocks would result in many empty blocks being mined.
I see no scenario where that would be a consequence. Can you explain? For that matter, how does one quantify 'too many empty blocks'? As long as all transactions are processed with reasonable alacrity, what does the block fullness matter?
However, I still have misgivings about 1 GB blocks since this would require a node to have the storage capacity of over 50tb per year.
Other than to repeat that we will not consume that much storage until there is actual demand for it, I would like to point out the 50 TB of storage -- today -- costs less than 0.1 BTC (~$1650 USD at standard retail).
At this time, I believe this would cause a barrier to entry for small start ups that require a full node be run. (New exchanges, information services, mining pools etc.)
If a startup can't lose 0.1 BTC in the noise of its annual CapEx budget, it is likely to be a non-entity anyhow.
My general view on Segwit. It appears to have solved the transaction malleability problem. However, to the layman, such as myself, it appears to be A Rube Goldberg machine kind of way to solve the problem.
I am glad you see the unwarranted complexity. There may be some validity to not hashing across the signature*. However, trying to introduce it as a soft fork creates a mass of technical debt.
*OTOH, there may not. "We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures" - S Nakamoto, the Bitcoin whitepaper
I am not convinced that there is indeed a vulnerability that allows miners to steal your segwit coins. A white hat demonstration of this attack on a testnet would be required to convince me otherwise. Naturally a black hat demonstration on the mainnet would convince me too, but would not be ideal.
What's to misunderstand? A miner operating by the old rules sees a segwit transaction as an anyonecanspend transaction. Accordingly, that miner can spend the output to himself, should he be successful in mining the block. Of course, he would still need to get the other miners to extend his chain. But with enough value caught up in active transactions, there is an incentive for the miners to collude thusly. It may not come to pass, but it may. With Core adamant that they always act to vilify and marginalize the mining community, is it really that farfetched that such may come to pass?
My general view on Lightning Network: It does appear as a viable solution to solve the scaling issue. However, to the layman, it appears to be a Rube Goldberg machine kind of way to solve the problem. I am not a coder, but it seems the Bitcore Core and Blockstream team are more interested in doing coding gymnastics and showing off their skills and not applying the KISS principal at all.
Again, agreed. Devs gotta dev.