[CryptoPunk]

>>TBH, it doesn't matter what the original intention was if it doesn't work. 2nd layer works.

It's by no means established that Bitcoin's 2nd layer technologies can work as a full substitute for on-chain transactions.

It certainly has major shortcomings, and consequently being used very little, right now..

>>Bigger blocks are a populist movement which disregard science

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that big blocks don't work.

What's unscientific is claiming that the LN can act as a substitute for on-chain transactions when it's an unproven experimental technology.

>>Nobody care's about "what satoshi intended" in terms of on-chain vs. off-chain. "

It's not about "what satoshi intended". It's about the original scaling that plan Satoshi published. Bitcoin's original adopters were told that Bitcoin would be able to match Visa's throughput by scaling on-chain.

That was the experiment they signed up for.

Changing that plan without getting consensus from the community, and through restricting debate on /r/bitcoin, is extremely disingenuous and elitist.

[beaner]

> It certainly has major shortcomings, and consequently being used very little, right now

Its use is low because it is still in the testing phase and there are purposefully few mainnet clients.

> There is absolutely no scientific evidence that big blocks don't work.

I'm not claiming they won't, only that they by necessity sacrifice some level of decentralization, because they require more resources.

> What's unscientific is claiming that the LN can act as a substitute for on-chain transactions when it's an unproven experimental technology.

What I mean to say is that I think the approach that Core is taking to scaling is a more scientific route. I think lots of people support bigger blocks because it seems obvious and makes sense at first glance, but so do a lot of things that aren't good. The core approach is a classical computer science acknowledgement of scarce resources and the creative implementation of technology to get around them.

> It's about the original scaling that plan Satoshi published. Bitcoin's original adopters were told that Bitcoin would be able to match Visa's throughput by scaling on-chain.

I don't know why this is particularly significant. If you think it can do that, go do it. But if the same feature set is essentially maintained (or even improved, in the case of Lightning), then I don't know why we'd stick to what Satoshi originally published. What's the actual reason we should?

> That was the experiment they signed up for.

I mean I consider myself to be a relatively early adopter and that's not what I signed up for. I signed up for a decentralized system of financial sovereignty. Payments is a part of that, but if the system isn't decentralized, it doesn't matter. So I appreciate the core emphasis on that part, and from my perspective layer 2 has many enhancements and is a great upgrade. I don't know why I'd cling to on-chain scaling specifically. It's like adamantly supporting combustion engines in the new age of renewables and electric motors.

[CryptoPunk]

>>Its use is low because it is still in the testing phase and there are purposefully few mainnet clients.

There is no proof that it will ever be widely useful/adopted.

>>I'm not claiming they won't, only that they by necessity sacrifice some level of decentralization, because they require more resources.

There is no scientific evidence that it sacrifices too much decentralization to maintain Bitcoin's censorship resistance.

You're making a false appeal to science to give Core's scaling plan intellectual integrity that it doesn't have.

>>I think lots of people support bigger blocks because it seems obvious and makes sense at first glance, but so do a lot of things that aren't good.

Your speculation about why people support on-chain scaling, and your unproven opinion that on-chain scaling is not a good plan, is not evidence that Core's roadmap is more scientific than the original one.

>>I mean I consider myself to be a relatively early adopter and that's not what I signed up for.

Up until 2013, all published plans for Bitcoin scaling, including those written by Bitcoin's lead/original developer, Satoshi, stated it would scale on-chain through large blocks, and implied that the decentralization sacrifice needed to do that was a reasonable trade-off.

The earliest adopters therefore signed up for that roadmap. Any change to that roadmap required consensus, which it never got.

[uncletammy]

I appreciate some of the points you've brought up. I also appreciate that you took the time to articulate your thoughts in a civil manner.

My biggest issue with all of this comes down to one word. You keep using the word "decentralized" to describe what BTC is and what BCH has lost. I've seen this word used for a long time now by the BTC camp but none of them can better define it (or are willing to attempt it).

Here are some of the things that I think make a coin decentralized.

1. Distribution of mining. Neither BTC nor BCH have decentralized distribution of mining. The big pools are massive and they can (and do) switch between the two coins.

2. Communication channels. With the small exception of things like Memo.cash for BCH, both BTC and BCH have both built their community on censor-able platforms like Twitter and Reddit.

3. Full node mining clients. BTC has one and it's called Bitcoin Core. Attempts to create more (Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin unlimited, Segwit 2x) were labeled as scams by the r/bitcoin mods and all talk about them was silenced. Meanwhile BCH welcomed them. We now have 6+ full node clients that miners/users can choose from (ABC, Unlimited, Flowee, Bcash, BCHD, Satoshis Vision, and more). Our community encourages them because it makes for a healthy ecosystem.

TLDR: Both coins are pretty damn centralized but if you do compare them you'll find that for the things that matter, BCH is way more decentralized. It's more decentralized while have 32x the transaction capacity and sub-penny fees for the foreseeable future.