Quote from: nutildah on January 02, 2019, 05:10:04 AM

The latter tend to forget there was specific rationale in keeping the block size limited.

a. no one rationally is saying bitcoin needs to grow by "gigabytes by midnight" (thats the distraction of empty fear argument)
b. 256gb is the size of a fingernail. not a server. and 256gb is 9 years of block data, not one day
c. a 4tb hard drive costs 1 week groceries but copes with 16mb blocks for 5 years (usual average time people upgrade hardware)
d. telling people to get off the bitcoin network, bitcoin network needs expensive transactions is not "helping bitcoin adoption"
e. using a non-blockchain network requiring to wait for co-signer to be available just to transact is NOT "new technology"
f. the 1mb base block was a temporary restriction which was even mentioned by bitcoins creator to remove it by 2011
g. right now removing the witness scale factor to allow true utility of 4mb can be done without controversial forks
h. scaling bitcoin blocks can be done progressively without years of dev decisions, but automatically adjusts like difficulty adjusts
i. by saying non-blockchain payments are as secure as blockchain payments. is basically saying blockchains are not needed

the echo chamber of LN promoters. do not understand the issue of LN. many dont even look at stats, dont run scenarios. and dont speak to average joe, many have not ven used LN under critical mindsets
all they see is the selfish hope of greed, and emphasis HOPE that the promoters will get rich being hubs/factories

but in the end if LN becomes popular. LN causes bitcoin network to NEED scaling to reduce on/off ramp bottlenecks of LN
but in the end if LN doesnt become popular. bitcoin network to NEED scaling just to stop bottlenecks

what people promoting non-blockchain networks are forgetting is the whole point of blockchains.