[CyberDildonics]

> But i know that we cannot keep increasing the block size every time we need.

The only reason it is contentious is because of the 'core' group who want to profit off of crippling the main chain. If you mean that there should be a more dynamic way of choosing max block size, I agree. If you mean that there is any technical limitation to blocks being orders of magnitude larger, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary and anyone syncing with the chain can tell that it doesn't take much CPU power or bandwidth.

> Both r/bitcoin and r/btc are terrible.

/r/btc is terrible in the same way lots of subreddits become tribalistic, but /r/bitcoin is a truly toxic, censored dictatorship meant to lie to people new to bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. I don't think they are on the same level.

> is not anyway related to bitcoin now. They even celebrate every time bitcoin price dumps.

I don't think that is true at all. /r/btc wants core to no longer be in control, because they have done nothing but lie and censor to try to profit off of crippling something they didn't create or even help build up. The bitcoin cash circle jerk gets obnoxious but it is also a direct reaction to everything people like greg maxwell (nullc on reddit and hacker news) have done.

[funyug]

> If you mean that there should be a more dynamic way of choosing max block size, I agree Actually no. Ethereum currently have dynamic block size and they are heading for doom with their increasing node costs everyday. Also regarding the btc reddit,you can go to r/btc right now and see that it has only core bashing and bitcoin cash supporting posts. Nothing about scaling or anything else. I do support increasing block size to 2MB but thats it. Because I do believe that everyone should run their own nodes to verify each transaction themselve.

I actually don't care about nullc or anyone else spreading lies or anything. I just believe that core scaling plan is far more superior to what others have been demanding.

[CyberDildonics]

What is their scaling plan? The block size could have easily been increased at any point if it weren't for them and the 'lightning network' doesn't work, there is no time frame for it working, and it the whole purpose is to make money for blockstream, not to be decentralized money.

The fact is, there are already two methods of transactions off of the bitcoin chain that have evolved in the face of bitcoin being artificially crippled - other cryptocurrencies and (unfortunately) exchanges.

[funyug]

Schnorr signatures, Mast and even block size increase is a part of their future plans. Lightning network has been tested on the testnet and alpha version has already been released.

They even had to delay their release of 0.15.1 for this hard fork.

[CyberDildonics]

These are the talking points they keep saying, but where is it? How many years does it take to double a constant in the source code? Bitcoin Cash already did it AND has real blocks well over 1MB. Ethereum has hard forked multiple times and has more throughput. This whole story of 'working on it' is pretty hollow when at the same time 'core' talks about how many developers they have. Nothing about it ever made sense. Gavin Andreesen was very clear that the block size needed to be changed 4 years ago. Everyone agreed until core took over and ousted Gavin, Mike Hearn and Jeff Garzik. Now suddenly turning a 1 into a 2 is a huge problem (even though so many other currencies have done it). At what point do you just admit that these guys are straight up lying to everyone and what they are saying has no grounding in reality?