/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>1805437
1MB blocks were not a part of original Bitcoin.

This this was an artificial limit put in place to protect against certain DoS attacks. Then, 1MB far exceeded the average size of blocks. Today almost every block is completely full. Why should this vital network constant be controlled by some haphazard security patch years ago instead of by the markets?

I support Segwit/LN as I believe it to be the only real solution to long-term scaling. But LN is not some magic bullet and there exists many disadvantages to LN as opposed to on-chain transactions.

I find it troubling that core is financially motivated to keep 1MB blocks as doing so further pushes the demand for LN and the fees core will eventually collect from LN. I don't believe core to be malicious actors as some BU supporters do. After all, LN's success is contingent on the overall success of bitcoin.

Both sides acknowledge the network, today, could support larger blocks. And that number is only going to increase as technology evolves. Core likes to fear monger about "hard forks" but I find their position here ridiculous. Bitcoin is not going to rush a 30-day "emergency" bailout HF on an extremely controversial issue like Ethereum. This would be signaled for months in advance on a fairly cut and dry issue. If this limit is eventually going to be lifted (and doing so requires a HF) it should be done sooner than later.

Such a HF would also allow Segwit to be implemented as a HF, making this change much simpler and safer.

BUers get their blocksize change and core gets Segwit, which is vital for the development of LN. If LN succeeds, great, but it will have succeeded because it is filling a legitimate market demand instead of being prematurely forced on the community due to an artificial limit.