Quote from: HeRetiK on April 01, 2018, 11:31:43 AM

No, I do indeed mean that you can't have both big and small blocks.

though i think you should really do some research on the matter, you can have small blocks and big blocks
for instance. segwit has (though they hid it with their new "serialised" and "weight" buzzwords) do have both small and big blocks
for legacy transactions. they are limited to 1mb of blockspace. but segwit transactions have upto 4mb of blockspace..

but the funny part was about the politics. that no 'other team' ever proposed "gigabyte blocks" which was the fear campaign of core members.
the compromise was where legacy AND segwit could sit side by side with 2-4mb blocks.. something that the network could handle (even core admitted 8mb was deemed safe and prudent)

Quote from: HeRetiK on April 01, 2018, 08:26:54 AM

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.

again the 2015-2016 proposals were in a evolutionary and feasibale and able to function amounts. not out of the realm of anything that would break the network.
.. im guessing project fear worked too well as it seems even now people still have not looked beyond the curtain vail to see the light of day

Quote from: HeRetiK on April 01, 2018, 08:26:54 AM

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.

first of all, LN wont solve spam. those spammers who are predominently mixers will continue to spam onchain. for multiple reasons. plus LN's niche utility is not going to be a solution for everyone. LN does have limitations and is not the utopia its presented as. its really worth doing some research

secondly segwit, as proposed as a softfork (the community consensus evolution without splitting the community.. failed with only 30%-35% of the vote. segwit did not get activated via a soft fork. it was BLOQ who were employed to create a hard fork(deportation of opposition) along with core that got segwit its 95% of the vote by casting out 60%

Quote from: HeRetiK on April 01, 2018, 08:26:54 AM

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.

altcoin creation is not consensus.
"agreement, harmony"

altcoin creation is a political strategy. but is not the consensus mechanism of bitcoin.
the consensus mechanism of bitcoin relates to code, and orphans.. altcoin creation is about IP/node banning and human argument

Quote from: franky1 on April 01, 2018, 09:38:42 AM

Quote from: HeRetiK on April 01, 2018, 08:26:54 AM

Quote from: franky1 on March 31, 2018, 10:32:14 PM

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.
[/quote]
its not just opening a channel.. every payment in LN is a handshake. its also requires each participant in a route to agree to giving away an amount of funds to hop payments. all requiring their signature.

it is permissioned. think of it in simple terms
instead of a simple cash payment to pay a milkman by leaving a bank note inside a empty milk bottle for when the milkman does his deliveries. you have to sign a contract and when you make a payment the milkman has to knock at your door and hope your home for you to both sign cheques for who owes what in a joint bank account you both set up.. its then up to one of you to decide when to empty the bank account by cashing out the cheques.

its not as simple as just handing a random person cash. its really worth you doing some research

Quote from: HeRetiK on April 01, 2018, 08:26:54 AM

Quote from: franky1 on March 31, 2018, 10:32:14 PM

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.

firstly. splitting the units of measure has nothing to do with fungibility.. fungibility and scarcity are 2 separate things

secondly. if there were only 21mill units to share there would be true rarity/scarcity.. but because of splitting up the units, anyone can afford a small amount. so not many are actually buying whole bitcoins.
its actually got to such a point that due to the extra cost of 'satoshi's' being most around(byte per tx to sweep the satoshi dust) that core have implemented rules to ignore certain transactions of dust..

so not only have they made owning a whole bitcoin less appealing. but they then made it hard/impossible to own dust.
.. but take gold. with only ~175,000 tonnes.. do you see 170,000 richguys saying they each own 1 tonne of gold. OR do you see BILLIONS of people who can claim that they own gold.. think about it

but anyway this conversation has meandered away from the topic of suggesting that core have/have not killed decentralisation.. answer is they have killed decentralisation. as there is a vector of attack that can halt development. .. but they will continue with the illusion by making people think distribution of final code is the same as decentralisation of control.. (its not the same thing)

but have a nice day and i hope you spend some time doing some research. it will help you in the long run