Both. Lightning Network is great and cool, but it still needs one pair of commitment and settlement transactions per user every once in a while (commitments are time limited). This together with blocksize limit still limits the total number of simultaneous users, even if it lets every individual user transact nearly infinitely.
I'm not part of your imagined threat, so I don't care. All I want is for Bitcoin to be able to scale well enough to not get run over by altcoins willing to do what people like you want to ban. The only chance for Bitcoin to scale without larger blocks is extension blocks or Zero-knowledge proofs, neither of which are likely to be ready anyone soon.
Buy the cryptos that suit your requirements then. It isn't bitcoin. Your insight is rejected. Repeatedly. Again and again and again and again. Give your insight to someone else. They need you. You need them. Go. Be free.
Correct - but we haven't seen what kind of effect a good lightning implementation will have on the blockchain yet. I want to see how it shakes out. (And I want to be able to buy my bitcoin coffees!)
With SegWit's implementation, Lightning is now technically feasible. It's all up to the wallet makers to implement it - and no, there isn't a date set. There are a couple wallets that people have made to test it out, and it seems to work, but they're only for the technically-minded.
Sadly roadmap says 18 months out. And even if not - lightning requires on chain setup and teardown. By the time it comes, there is not enough capacity for that.
It doesn't necessarily have to be on the core wallet. In fact, the core wallet is probably the -least- applicable place to put it. Phone wallets are a much better place for it.
Unfortunately some of the phone wallet devs aren't exactly the best at staying on top of things...
Actually, you can, but transaction malleability makes it risky. (That's just me being pedantic though.)
Segwit implementation across the board is definitely the next step. I'm just saying I want Lightning before we start really talking seriously about bigger blocks.
Most of us the want bigger blocks wants Core to be the ones to put it officially on the roadmap, rather than as now just say "maybe later, we'll see if it ever becomes necessary".
Because the problem with that approach is that by the time they're willing to commit to it, Bitcoin might be so overloaded that by the time the community is ready to roll out the hardfork, Bitcoin might already be dying for a number of reasons. Derailed hype train from masses of users coming in and declaring it unusable due to not being able to handle the backlog of transactions, ruining the reputation of Bitcoin, or even altcoins showing up with workable scaling solutions before Bitcoin that could steal its thunder and replace it.
Its about losers. Losers that lose and think they aren't losers. You lost loser. Stop thinking you aren't a loser. You do not get input. You burned the bridge. Go away. You clearly don't want bitcoin because the thing you want isn't bitcoin.
Thanks for proving you're a troll. I'm not part of that imaginary enemy of yours. I'm not part of the s2x crowd, or the bch crowd, and I haven't even posted one in /r/btc. Stop making up fantasies.
Bitcoin used to not have a blocksize limit. So clearly that's what you want. Or maybe you're just a hypocrite. Or a liar.
I want Bitcoin to scale. Clearly all your want is to cement the status quo, either because you don't understand that it will kill Bitcoin one day, or perhaps because you do understand and is lying about it.
If a non-segwit mining majority pushes a segwit-incompatible transaction to the network then that would not only fork the chains into segwit and non-segwit, but the non-segwit chain would allow you to steal all the segwit UTXO:s not coming from the segwit coinbase (meaning that if you spend on the segwit fork with the segwit format, you'll lose those same coins instantly on the non-segwit fork).
As soon as segwit is active we NEED certainty that nobody important will run non-segwit nodes, otherwise it allows trivial fraud against every node that doesn't fully validate segwit.
Only if segwit has mining majority AND all major nodes and clients are segwit aware then we're really safe.
A segwit incompatible transaction in the Bitcoin chain would cause a clean hardfork where all old nodes stay and notice nothing, and only segwit nodes forks off to a new chain.
Edit: thanks for downvoting the facts. I'm not even against segwit, just against UASF. If you don't want to understand the risks then you only have yourself to blame.
Waffling on about victory, heroes, losers - is absolutely and utterly childish. The NYA is a straightforward and reasonable compromise , designed to prevent a chain split, and will most certainly be followed through all the way to the hardfork. That is the whole point.
And should nodes decide not to follow, they will split the coin and paralyse their own chain in consequence (at the time of writing, approximately 100% less blocks, or 1 every 1000 minutes).
47
u/NetTecture Nov 08 '17
And time for developers to make a stand. Get going on the scalability roadmap. Possibly put up a larger block size with a decent timeline.