[lawn]

> for instant & nearly free txs via the Lightning Network

It's amazing we're putting all our hopes on a technology best labeled as vaporware. You make it out like it's readily available but the fundamental problem of decentralized routing hasn't been solved and it may even be unsolvable.

The simple fact is that blockstream is pushing segwit precisely for it being a necessity for lightning network, not because it's a good thing for bitcoin.

The correct solution would have been a blocksize increase long ago but the same people supporting segwit has been actively blocking all attempts at a blocksize increase previously. Why the sudden change? As another comment said, "Follow the money, it's not baffling at all."

[codingmyway]

This political argument that it's all just a plot by Blockstream is what is causing the division where the technical benefits of segwit are clear to anybody who knows what they are talking about.

As soon as it became about people and BS conspiracies instead of technical rational solutions it was only going to end up in slagging match.

[lawn]

You're dodging my technical argument well yourself. Segwit implemented as a soft fork isn't clearly full of benefits. But it seems you're just appealing to authority.

[codingmyway]

I didn't write the and test code myself so you can label that as appealing to authority all you like but I have looked into it and understand the benefits of moving the witness to a subtree of the merkle root so that it can be dropped when it is no longer needed as well as the other changes that are included in the update that allow further soft fork changes enough to see the benefits. I don't just accept someone saying it is good or bad.

Can you explain why such an obvious refactor that is backward and forward compatible isn't a clear benefit?

No it isn't sufficient and won't instantly increase the transaction throughput but the the arguments against it that I've heard are weak and almost all political and could also be argued as appeal to a different authority.

There are two visions of what people see as scaling and are pushing for, on-chain and off-chain. Segwit helps both so being against it can only be politically motivated.

[lawn]

That's good!

I found this article describes the problem well: https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-...

I'm not against segwit but I and many other have problems with segwit as a soft-fork. The push for a soft-fork segwit seems to be politically motivated.

> Can you explain why such an obvious refactor that is backward and forward compatible isn't a clear benefit?

If seen as a blocksize increase it isn't backwards compatible as old transactions will not get the benefit. It is also not transparent as all wallets needs to be updated to support the new transaction format. No such extra effort is needed for a blocksize increase.

It is in fact necessary to push for on-chain and off-chain scaling, nobody is against that. The position for "big blockers" has been the same for years: we need actual bigger blocks. See: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/the-importance-of-clear-defin...