Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

> I think we disagree on the timeline. For me increasing the block size will solve the throughput quickly but compromise the security of the chain forever. Conversely, keeping it small is painful now but it’ll keep the chain small and decentralized for millennia. Lol small blockchain doesn’t guarantee decentralization... Who are those people that cannot afford disk space but can afford using BTC with high fees? Plus high fees result in strong mining centralisation.. I would argue BTC is strongly centralized already. You have been bait into a Ponzi scheme.

>No, but maybe yes, you say? I'm 99.9% sure a blocksize increase isn't going to happen anytime soon or ever. >This is conjecture. I disagree with your conclusion that this is done to purposefully stunt BTC. You can think what you want but the facts speak for themselves. The small blocksize limit has cause big merchants like steam to stop taking Bitcoin as a payment option. >I think we disagree on the timeline. For me increasing the block size will solve the throughput quickly but compromise the security of the chain forever. No, it won't compromise the security of the chain. The opposite is true. With a larger blocksize limit, more people can transact on the network, allowing miners to rely on fees as a bigger part of the block reward as the network grows. >Conversely, keeping it small is painful now but it’ll keep the chain small and decentralized for millennia. No, it wont. You're wrong on this too. If Bitcoin's blockchain is going to be a settlement layer, that means it is relying on low frequency, but high value transactions (that are willing to pay an arm and a leg to transact on a useless blockchain) to pay for fees. Less people transacting on the network means that miners have to rely on a smaller set of rich people and hope that they secure the network. This not only leads to an easier failure of the system, but it also leads to volatility in block rewards which means security is compromised and could easily cause a permanent chain death, especially given BTC's extremely slow DAA. This means people with a lot of money who miners are depending on to secure the chain can easily attack it without spending any resources, which goes against the fundamental nature of how Bitcoin was and is designed to work. >Or differently put, I feel that big blocks are short sighted. It’s nice and warm now but long term it isn’t a great idea. Small blocks are short-sighted because they lead to centralization pressures that are far worse than those of bigger blocks as discussed above. It won't be sustainable, and Bitcoin is relying on its price to increase (which it might because of tether) rather than transaction fees. It's not doing a great job at subsidizing block rewards with transaction fees as well. If you look at the volatility of fees as a percentage of block reward, it's too high to be sustainable long term. For Bitcoin's security to work as designed, hashrate should be steady rather than volatile. Random bursts and fee markets leads to unreliability in how secure a given confirmation on its blockchain is. >But I will agree with you on one thing, I would have preferred a double the block size rather than the BCH fork. I think the fork has been really detrimental to the community. Much more so than the block size limitation actually. 2X would've been too small and inadequate. It would've been much better to just remove the limit entirely, but miners don't want to do that right now. >I don’t agree with SegWit2X though in particular as I believe it would have supported covert asic boost by sneakily adding that feature back in. How would doubling the blocksize suddenly allow ASICboost to work? SegWit 2X would've only be changing 1 parameter.