Quote from: ene1980 on November 19, 2019, 11:48:08 PM

May i ask what is your scaling solution, i agree side chains are not the solutions but in your opinion what you will do to scale bitcoin, i have seen some of your debates in this forum and you are a good critic but i am yet to find your solution on how to scale. LN is an option for users who are willing to accept payments through it and it will aide merchants for micro payments and i hope there will be other viable solutions in the future for mass adoption.

those fangirls who hate btc network scaling but love promoting alt networks like LN and sidechains, always try to make scaling the btc network sound like LEAPING not scaling. they use their scripted mantra's of 'gigabytes by midnight'

scaling is just that.. a scale, meaning gradual increase.
and no. segwit is not 'scaling' its shuffling of numbers that cause more hard drive bloat but no actual large impact on transactions per day increases (still under 600k a day tx performed 8 years after satoshi himself suggested moving away from 1mb block, but didnt get to se that idea prosper, and it instead got ignored)

so here is some suggestions i have made over years
1. decrease the max txsigops from thousands to just hundreds(or less) no one deserves to have a whole block to themselves of only a fw TX's that can bloat a block or could cause propogation delays.

2. knowing that a maxtx sigop linear validation attack using legacy tx's cant occur due to point 1, next would be to remove the 1mb baseblock and the silly 4x math(weight) and instead just have a fully utilisable 4mb block. thus actually get more transactions. plus again due to a low sigops would ensure more transactions per block. and not a few bloated tx's filling 4mb of space
currently someone can fill a block with just 5 bloated tx's. which is a stupidly allowed thing to have and would be stupid to allow 5 tx to fill 4mb of space. thus maxtxsigops neds addressing

3. alot of people think limiting tx per block makes people pay more thus helps mining pools cover costs. however the economics dosnt play out that way. if tx's start costing $1 each. less people transact and get pee'd off with using the btc network. however by having a fully utilisable 4mb of space = 4x transactions = 4x the amount of sats per byte possibility. thus pools still get more income

4. the btc network can handle more than 4mb a block but as the word and above described SCALING is incremental

5. also we can implement a new and actually beneficial 'transaction fee formulae' we actually had one years ago but it had its flaws. so devs just removed it, which just made transactions a wildwest of bidding wars of confusion and guesswork which resulted in higher fee's even when blocks only had a couple hundred tx's in them

6. as for the historic data storage. thats simple. imagine a UTXO set data screenshot is taken as of how it would be at block 210,000(year 2012). and is hashed as a datablock.
then at block 630,000(year 2020) that 210,000 datablock becomes the new 'regenesis' block
then a screnshot of utxo states are taken of how it would be at block 420,000 which becomes the 'regenesis block' of block 840,000(year 2024)... thus the blockchain changes from holding every years data, to holding 8 years of chain data and the 'utxo state' of prior to that. thus can prune off the previous chained blockdata

it can be done by having the blockchain have 2 block hashes. one for the current chainwork of blocks and another for the 'regenesis block' plus blocks after it chainwork. and eventually a flip would occur where we then just use the regensis blocks chainwork once enough time has passed that the network is happy that they trust the (8 year old) data is immutable

i can understand people wrongly think that a starbucks giftcard is real fiat as its 'measured' in £$ but take a starbucks giftcard and try buying a soda in a 7-11 and it will be refused. as its not an actual bank not or debit card.
same mistake is for things like LN. it is not real btc. it is a non blockchain, non peer validated network it is more like a joint bank account negotiation which has its limits and its flaws and its holes.(even LN devs have lost funds using it) thus should not be given the same 'branding' as a secure network such as the btc network
we should not be trying to promote that bitcoin is limited and people should try other networks. as that is just saying bitcoin failed.. the only failure is devs avoiding actually allowing the bitcoin network to scale