If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.
Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)
https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39she is talking about how big block sizes would make bitcoin centralized (because he knows how Computing technologie would develop in the next 10 years ofc.)
Even if so: LN is by design centralized.
So whats that argument even about?
Are you engaged in selective listening, or you just want to purposefully describe something that is not even really addressed in the video? The vast majority of the video discusses the problematic nature of attempting on-chain scaling. And, what the fuck you talking about LN centralized? You just making shit up because you and your bcash pumpers want to assert such fallacies while the factual evidence does not seem to support your contentions, especially since LN, even though it remains in early test phases, seems to have a multitude of contributors and nodes.. .so your "centralization" assertion seems to be the opposite of what is actually happening in regards to ongoing LN developments.
If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.
Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)
https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39sSegwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.
Get the fuck out of here, Ibian.
In this thread, people have been explaining the fucking weakness of the BIG BLOCKER nutjob theories for nearly three years.
The essence of the argument remains that BigBlockers have failed to provide evidence or logic that bitcoin would benefit from BIG blocks as much as it would likely cost... In other words, there is no burden for anyone here to explain why BIG blocks are not a good idea, but instead the burden is on you and your other BIG blocker nutjob supporters to provide evidence and facts to convince others to go along with supporting BIG blocks.
As you likely realize any change to bitcoin has to be agreed to, tested and implemented through appropriate and accepted consensus mechanisms.
BIG blocker theorizors like your self have not even gotten past the proposal stage without getting rejected by the vast majority of bitcoin peeps..
In other words, there has been a failure of BIG blockers to come anywhere close to reaching consensus in bitcoin, but you got such in bcash, so go over there and see how that is working out for you.. the main consensus that BIG blockers have achieved in bitcoin is to provide ..a minority of BIG mouthed whiners (that lack substance) about the topic and ongoing suggestions that their solution is simple (without really providing evidence that advantages outweigh disadvantages).