blocksize increase would not have stopped the stupid ass forks.. unless it were to break bitcoin, which was part of their goal to change bitcoin's governance and make bitcoin easier to change.....
Again with the delusion. One of the major 'features' in The SegWit Omnibus Changeset was for the sole stated purpose of making Bitcoin easier to change in the future.
jbreher..
What is your actual point? Seriously...can you dumb it down for all us plebs and just state
what the problems are and how
you would fix them. In simple non technical terms so we can all follow along at home.
Sure. Though you've branched from a twig of this thread that is kind of peripheral, I will swerve back to the big hitter.
Problem: As blocks become persistently full, tx fees required skyrocket, average settlement time skyrockets, many use cases become uneconomic, and Lightning fundamentally breaks - due to inability to make economic channel opens and closes, inability to get stale-channel-state-theft repudiation txs included in a timely manner to prevent the theft, LN txs that require out-of-channel execution becomes a larger percentage of the total, etc.
Solution: Avoid persistently full blocks.
How?: The Coreian solution seems to be to drive demand out of the system by reducing usability. I do not buy into that as any sort of a solution at all. One does not grow a system by limiting the things for which it is useful. The solution I advocate is so simple it almost does not require stating. It is the solution 'everyone in Bitcoin circa 2012' knew was the obvious direction to go in.
Simply increase the block size to accommodate the demand upon the system. This would return Bitcoin to the economic model it held from inception until insanity.
If I had a magic wand, I would roll back The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. But that ship has sailed. For worse.
I've got a lot of other points, but that's probably the top line item.
Thank you.
You're welcome.