| > 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. |
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.