/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>9046473
>they aren't full now post-crash
Thats not because the crash , it´s because segwit reduced the size of transactions.
On this corecucks were right once again , they keep focus on efficiency before making things bigger.
Also full blocks are not bad , i mean they are in a way , but empty blocks tend to make fees close to 0 if not 0 and reduce incentives to mine coins.

>when eventually layer 2 solutions will require bigger blocks anyway, why hamstring the performance of the coin in the meantime?

This is like when leftist ask to print money to pay for gibs because a little inflation is not bad.
There is a serious problem for cryptos future if the masses of users can shill for blocks as they like to have 0 fees.
Because this will make incentive for mining minimal and even more and more as the halvings keep going on.

I am not saying the argument for bigger blocks is not good , but as you say it´s better not to put the future in one coin.
The problem is that both communities believe their coin will destroy the other.

>BTC is banker owned, and should be dead to the crypto community.
Blockstream is a private company, with control of all major communication channels

True but wrong , while blockstream has links to the bliderberg group and is shady as fuck it´s better a fabian aproach than a crypto war.
Let the best coin win , but also don´t think that the "bankers" don´t like crypto , it is the elite wet dream , literally the ultimate solution of the private sector to fight statecucks.

I was like you in january when everything went to hell , but thinking about it seriously destroying bitcoin core will be a disaster as no other coin has paralel infrastructure like localbitcoins or good exchanges worldwide.
Bitcoin must remain stable forever as it is the soul of the rest of the coins.
Destroy it and the headlines will be so fucking terrible that nations may even ban crypto.