| > Segwit is all about sidechains, that's the main application, and the real purpose. You're just wrong. Segwit is about a major malleability bug. It happens to open the way for sidechains, but do you honestly think we shouldn't fix the bug purely because it happens to make sidechains more feasible? > Side chains mean transactions off chain. Transactions off chain mean less fees for Bitcoin miners. It's not rocket science. Correct, but you don't seem to be following the problem the same way I am. Your major concern is how much miners get paid. My major concern is network adoption and decentralization. Pretending that your values are the only values is what makes your position distasteful. > The reason nodes are expensive is because they are doing full historical validation which is almost completely useless and unnecessary. Minor changes to the Bitcoin block header would make that completely irrelevant. The nodes need all data ever argument is total junk. You just literally dismissed how an open block chain works. If nodes don't have the entire history attacks become arbitrary. > How much does it cost to open and close a channel on the main bitcoin blockchain at a 1 megabyte limit with millions of users? It's not a free thing, it's very expensive. And guess whose in the best position to implement channels (and collect the fees associated with it)? miners. > To say that won't result in centralization is ridiculous. Less than would exist by big blocks. |