you're ignoring the quadratic hashing problem. segwit specifically fixed this and expanded block space for transactions that don't worsen the problem. you also know this was done as a compromise so bitcoin could have bigger blocks but still allow for large-transaction use cases. the best of both worlds in other words, vs a crude sigops limit:
Quote
Removing the quadratic scaling of hashed data for verifying signatures makes increasing the block size safer. Doing that without also limiting transaction sizes allows Bitcoin to continue to support payments that go to or come from large groups, such as payments of mining rewards or crowdfunding services.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/
not fixed. people can still use legacy transactions which still have the problem of bloating up a block
which is why legacy transactions are still subject to the same limit as before segwit. this is not a problem at 1MB base block size. it's also not a problem for linearly scaling sigops---thus the compromise to increase block size for linearly scaling sigops.
those wanting to bloat a block wont use segwit.
so what? as long as we don't increase the base block size, this isn't a problem. and they'll pay a hefty price for the trying too: legacy transactions cost >40% more than bech32 segwit transactions. the fee market punishes would-be spammers.
'groups/crowds' dont deserve a whole block to themselves of only 5 tx's if people want to be paid it should be done as multiple batches.
i disagree. this should be a free market mechanism to whatever extent possible. if they are willing to outbid other users, they should be able to get their transactions confirmed first.
1. if you knew the tech you would know keeping 1mb base and just saying the weight can grow wont actually increase transactions, as even segwit transactions need to sit in the base, thus are so they are also restricted.
EG base 1mb weight 32mb.. transactions still around average 2500 a block even if all segwit. what your not realising is the weight is for bloated signature/scripts.. not new transactions
2. by expanding base to 2mb but without reducing the sigops limits. people can do quadratic signing exploits. sigops need reducing. and its not even complex to do, nor does it need a hardfork to reduce sigops. it can be as a standard release
3. i presume by your preference to not see sigops limit reduced, you are for the mindset of never ever expanding the base block which means never expanding the transaction count per block..
4. so imagine fiat, with a country doing a bankrun. imagine thousands of people turn up to a bank branch wanting their funds withdrawn but the bank says. sorry folks not today as walmart cam along and used up all of our transfer allotments.
do you really think people will think thats fair and just walk home happy. do you think a decentralised payment network should be designed in preference to centralised custodians,,
seems to me you dont care about bitcoins ethos and purpose you just sound like someone that just wants to let core do as they please and screw the community that may actually want to use btc as a medium of exchange
and that word "free market" you core fanboys seen to really love reading them out dated core speaches and reciting their buzzwords.. please atleast find some new material. that "free market" chestnut has been around for years and its convincing no one