So, I read it all and some of it's links, and while a lot of it is just personal attacks on Mike, it make some points that is unclear at this point (At least for me):
1) The current state of Lighting Network (LN), it's ETA and it's cost of operations. Some people make it looks like LN is a private network that we will have to pay to use, and that "Vanilla" Bitcoin is being held back so to make LN more attractive. I've read a bit on LN, it's sidechains, but it was unclear if I could send some money from my PC to my mobile (Both who run a client outside any wallet providers [Why replace banks with wallets?]), then go to a cafe and buy my Latte, or when I order some late night pizza, will sidechains help me get my latte or my pizza without waiting for it? And if yes, without any associated fee to be paid to anyone else but the miners? If I need to send money to my mom, on another country, for an urgent matter, and then I go offline for some reason, will it mess with the sidechain?
2) I kind of see the point with RBF, and I think it is good to be able to bid for a spot on the next block, or to be able to call back my coins if I send them to the wrong guy, or to be able to fix any last-minute mistake in general... But I think people rely on the current risk and trade-offs to do business, simply take it from them and tell they did it wrong is to blunt. Like this NYT article, will they be able to do that kind of transaction with RBF? Will they have to wait one hour to get six confirmations and only then complete their transaction? If no, all Argentinians will have to opt-out of RBF? If yes, it doesn't means a lot of people will end up not opting in to it, so deepening the divide on community?
3) I understand SegWit benefits, and at first I agreed with it, but then I read the other side, as it implements a lot of changes on an important part of the code (the consensus part), and people arguing that it is deployed too fast, before a big test can be made to grant that it is safe and harmless, other argument is that it may give the benefit of an 1.75MB block without messing with the limit, but it will take time, and even so, will be only in best case scenarios. These arguments aren't covered on any post or QA that I've found so far, so it is hard to judge if it is the right move to do now. I'm even more on the against team due to the fact that doubling the block size seems to be easy to implement (So easy that Bitcoin Classic devs did it and are ready to push it to everyone), and I think it will do far less harm than a 4MB or a 8MB block would on the current state of decentralization.
I think the problem is how this all is being pushed out. I would be more with Core, if they took the 2MB block, then create a big informative QA about SegWit, covering any easily imaginable way of abusing it with old nodes and old wallets, with explanations, both simple and complex, on how to avoid them. Then they could improve (and I'm willing to help with it) the LN site, with more explanations on current status, ETA, changes from current bitcoin, another big QA about questions like the ones I placed on my first point, and so on. Other thing is avoid the arms race, and be more open about discussions and explanations. I know it may be hard to talk the same lines a thousand time, but it is good for people to be able to get a good reply to their worries with the people some other people are calling as evil. Mike may deserve all the adjectives core people put on him on the last days, but do you really need to call him like that in every single post? It makes reading your counter posts even harder, and boring, and level the game too low. Why not answer his points with a plain conciliatory text, with a lot of links with both simple and complex explanations to why are his points wrong? I know it maybe even harder to be polite with him may be hard, but being polite help us to pick your side instead of his.
1) The current state of Lighting Network (LN), it’s ETA and it’s cost of operations. Some people make it looks like LN is a private network that we will have to pay to use, and that "Vanilla" Bitcoin is being held back so to make LN more attractive. I’ve read a bit on LN, it’s sidechains, but it was unclear if I could send some money from my PC to my mobile (Both who run a client outside any wallet providers [Why replace banks with wallets?]), then go to a cafe and buy my Latte, or when I order some late night pizza, will sidechains help me get my latte or my pizza without waiting for it? And if yes, without any associated fee to be paid to anyone else but the miners? If I need to send money to my mom, on another country, for an urgent matter, and then I go offline for some reason, will it mess with the sidechain?
2) I kind of see the point with RBF, and I think it is good to be able to bid for a spot on the next block, or to be able to call back my coins if I send them to the wrong guy, or to be able to fix any last-minute mistake in general… But I think people rely on the current risk and trade-offs to do business, simply take it from them and tell they did it wrong is to blunt. Like this NYT article , will they be able to do that kind of transaction with RBF? Will they […]
