Why did they do it?

BTC is bigger than ever and LN solves microtransactions. Blockstream is one of the few based companies in the crypto space, cope

>BTC is bigger than ever and LN solves microtransactions. Blockstream is one of the few based companies in the crypto space, cope
And therein lies the crux of the issue, instead of improving L1 solutions they patch over it with further abstractions.
When it could have been as simple as expanding block sizes, they chose to develop a convoluted L2 solution.
Segwit at the time of the hardfork was certainly the right option, squeezing as much potential out of the existing limitations made it so if they did choose to expand block sizes later, it would have a drastically larger effect.
Now instead of following what Satoshi had intended to do, we have a gimped system that at it's core is reliant on higher level abstractions to even function anywhere near how it was intended to.
This is all before we even touch things like ASIC dominance handing early investors what is essentially an hashrate monopoly.
The point is, BTC COULD be better, and that's what I'm pissed off about.

Bitcoin was never ment to work.
Bitcoin was broken from the start, built to fail.

The purpose of Bitcoin is to keep silver out of the money system, and continue the criminality.
BY LAW sliver must be coinage.
Its not.
How, criminality.
Anything that keeps silver out of coinage will be supported and pumped.
When silver returns to coinage, all these people will hang, and the world will be reset.

Yeah 2 more weeks dude

>When it could have been as simple as expanding block sizes
So that only datacenters can run Bitcoin nodes? fuck off shill

>So that only datacenters can run Bitcoin nodes? fuck off shill
Monero has a dynamic blocksize and I host my full node just fine on consumer grade hardware.
"Only datacenters could host large block BTC nodes!" would only be true if we were talking about computers from the late 2000s.

reminder that tech illiterate people have no say in this topic
bch is dead, it failed adoption, because they're ran by tech illiterate people that aren't thinking longterm

Uhh.. literally how Bitcoin was designed to work from day 1.

Attached: E40iXvWX0AUErDP.jpg (1924x1362, 278.99K)

people keep saying this and yet no one can come up with a protocol superior to BTC that is as decentralized...

>my dead chain has dinamic blocks that can go up to infinity in size(but its only working because nobody uses it and the blocks remain small)
kek

Monero block size barely goes above 100 kilobytes at the peaks. You are arguing disingenuously because you're a faggot.

this is about mining, not running a full node. if you are running a light node you are not using bitcoin, you are connecting to a full node and fully trusting it

Go back to twitter silico

This. Plus they were co-opted.

Yes, and that's why I still like BTC despite it's flaws.
It just feels like it could be improved, and should be improved.

I end up using monero more often than BTC just due to the fact that monero has near non-existent transaction fees in comparison.
You could still easily include some form of upper limit to BTC blocks if they prove to be far too bloated but the very idea of not increasing block sizes nor dealing with transaction fees at a lower level is my major point of contention.
The solution should be both Segwit AND larger block sizes.
The reason I draw comparisons to monero is not to offer it as a replacement to BTC, but to point out that I would rather use XMR for actual transactions than BTC.
If the difference in TX/block is that drastic then yes, perhaps dynamic blocks wouldn't function as well on BTC, but to wholly refuse to address the issue at it's core does nothing but create further problems.
My primary gripe is that BTC has readily available options but instead actively addresses them in roundabout ways as opposed to dealing with them at their core.
Increasing blocksize would be a direct benefit, even if it's not a drastic increase it would do wonders for the network as a whole.