You obviously can't have both big and small blocks,
you mean obviously couldnt have "gigabyte blocks" and "segwit".. but then there was never actually a proposal for "gigabyte blocks" that was project fear designed by core..
however the network could handle segwitx2, which was a compromise that the community could agree on and did agree on in 2015, before alot of core members backtracked out of due to the roadmap.
thus the AVOIDANCE of using consensus and instead the employment of BLOQ to make an altcoin to throw all the x2 offtrack.
In practice, the market is the decision maker. Be it in market cap or in adoption and usage levels. That's the only consensus that counts when it comes to self-governance in cryptocurrencies.
i think you need to look up what the consensus mechanism for bitcoins evolution actually is.. because it certainly is not altcoin creation.
consensus is if you can imagine a country.. about finding an agreement to change rules the community can agree on.(democracy) . yet what actual events happaned was more like deportation of those opposing a monarchy, and if you do your research it was not the opposition that decided to split. it was the monachys cousin(bloq) that arranged the deportation.
even the king of the monarchy realised that his opposition would refuse voluntary deportation
What you are describing is what
I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
hense needing to use BLOQ to implement the deportation and avoid a democratic agreement, thus a monarchy wins by default by suddenly going from 30% at the poles to 95%
take LN.. its not permissionless.. its multisig. you need a counterparty to sign and agree to a payment arrangement.
Obviously you do, that's how trade works. I'm not sure how this makes LN any more permissioned -- in a meaningful way -- than on-chain transactions.
i dont need your signature to send you funds onchain. onchain is a PUSH method.. or more like a throw money at you method
LN is not a PUSH. its a handshake method.
time it seems that many need to do their research and realise just how much bitcoin has changed and will change that has gone against the ethos of bitcoin.
but hey i bet many wont because all they care about is FIAT profits.
so lets word it this way. if bitcoin loses tomuch of its original purpose(take scarcity: the idea of adding millisats which then expands sharable units to then make sharing units of bitcoin less scarce)
no one will want it, because it becomes no better than fiat, no more scarce than fiat
anyway. it seems many people still think core should remain king. and thus decentralisation is dead, but long live distribution