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.
No, I do indeed mean that you can't have both big and small blocks. Either you try to keep the blocks as small as possible (ie. 1MB, or effectively 4MB as is the case with SegWit) or you increase the blocksize to another arbitrary number that may or may not be feasible in the long term. Either you try to move the majority of transactions off-chain with 2nd layer solutions, or you try to scale it linearly by increasing the block-size ever so often. Sure there was some political perspective to the whole debate as well, but from a technological perspective a slight increase from 1MB to 4MB -- as was the case with the SegWit softfork -- is a more prudent approach than even larger blocks.
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%
I think we're both looking at Bitcoin's governance from two very different perspectives. I actually do see alt coin creation as part of the consensus mechanism, but I also missed a lot of the political details of what happened between 2014 - 2016. So I disagree with your statement of alt coin creation not being part of Bitcoin's evolution, but have yet to form my opinion on the political happenings that you brought into play.
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.
Hence LN not being more permissioned
in a meaningful way.
LN channels requiring an opening handshake doesn't make them any less censorship-resistant or trustless than on-chain transactions.
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)
Serious question, what lead you to the conclusion that increased fungibility would effectively increase Bitcoin's supply? That's some Zenon level shit right here.
The existence of gold dust doesn't make gold bars any less scarce or valuable. In some places gold dust is used for overly fancy dishes and cocktails.
You can literally shit gold, yet its value persists.