[UncleMeat]

Block size was a huge multi-year argument that split the BTC community. The current largest cryptocurrency is completely incapable of addressing small problems without enormous drama, let alone actually large problems. I have absolutely zero faith that the people in charge (unelected maintainers and miners) will be able to make appropriate policy changes over time.

[w4llstr33t]

Block size is a nuanced discussion and it was maybe a larger problem then you realize.

Argument for big blocks: Faster and cheaper transactions (lower fee), as well as more transactions per second. Can use more like cash, i.e. Bitcoin Cash. Everything should be done on-chain. They also argue that small blocks are a money grab from Blockstream so that the network is forced to adopt layer 2 solutions that Blockstream develops.

Argument for keeping block size the same ("small blocks"): Larger blocks means more hard drive space and bandwidth are required, and mining becomes more centralized based on those increased requirements. Big blocks are a money grab from the miners, since they make more money on bigger blocks. An additional concern is if the availability of hard drive space will increase in line with the growth of the network. They suggest to use the Bitcoin Core network more as a settlement layer and a store of value, and not everything needs to be on-chain. They suggest layer 2 solutions like the Lightning Network to use Bitcoin more like cash and enable fast transactions, as well as increase the number of transactions per second. I understand the Lightning Network has some caveats, but from what I've heard from institutions like NYDIG and Strike, that are already using it, it is already working as is.

All I'm saying is maybe it's not just a small problem. The decisions affect a global network and some of the decisions were said to potentially cause major problems.

[UncleMeat]

It was a nuanced discussion. It isn't a trivial problem. I'm keenly aware of the details. There are clear pros and cons, as you described.

The point is that there are much bigger problems in a worldwide currency than block size. In comparison, block size is small potatoes. And the block size problem split the community into two that hate each other. They don't just disagree, but consider the other side to be actively sabotaging the system.

[w4llstr33t]

Yeah, I don't like the tribalism either. I see this with Democrats and Republicans in the US, too. One side thinks they are right. That seems to be a human thing. I do hope that progress can still be made.

You are right though, it is a bit ridiculous. What would you have them working on instead, just wondering? Fixing the environmental issues? Adoption? What else?

[s7atic]

Protection mechanisms do not need to be "layer 1" (on-chain) solutions, though. There are many possible forms these could take. For example, a multisig wallet gives you very secure cold storage of your BTC/whatever.

[sumeno]

Just add yet another element to the ridiculous Rube Goldberg machine that is cryptocurrency.

[w4llstr33t]

How about all the elements/layers added to the traditional financial system that probably a lot of folks here don't understand to a deep degree? We're not comparing apples to apples. Cryptocurrency is a new technology. We are a decade in. Maybe we should let it mature a bit and see what it turns into?

[spookthesunset]

By design, it seems, Bitcoin was completely stillborn and unable to change. The entire thing incentives status quo.

[w4llstr33t]

Or Bitcoin was fine to start with and hasn't had a good enough reason to change yet. People can disagree, some did, forked the code, and went on their way.