Can somebody redpill me on why increasing the blocksize is a

More transactions per block = less blocks to mine (read less sheckels) and less transaction delays mean less fees (read less sheckels)

>>2462140
it isn't, it decongests the blockchain and fees will be lowered accordingly, because tx fees give your order priority

segwit also increases blocksize, except it has a hardcap of 4mb. it's not future proof like bitcoin unlimited

however the discussion is now centered on whether or not the side benefits of segwit (lightning mainly) outweigh the 4mb hardcap

>>2462173
>More transactions per block = less blocks to mine (read less sheckels)
Isn't the total number of bitcoins capped though? So they would simply get less coins per block than they are right now?

And what exactly is "segwit"

>>2462140
also segwit moves the transaction fees off the blockchain onto the 3rd party, so the fees are now given to the big companies on the left of your image, so there is naturally a greed factor there too

right now the fees are given to the mining companies + their whole asic boost thing, which is essentially +20% profit for them while they mine

both sides have a greed factor here, hard to say whose right honestly

>>2462199
>segwit also increases blocksize, except it has a hardcap of 4mb. it's not future proof like bitcoin unlimited

So let's say that segwit loses, what would the blocksize get increased to? Would it be a logarithmic scale?

>>2462234
>So let's say that segwit loses,
Then Bitcoin is dead

File: 1497531740729.png (66KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1000x1000px

Also can somebody explain to me how these companies are somehow changing the development of bitcoin? I thought the whole idea of bitcoin was that central agencies can't fuck with it?

How is it that people are able to change the coding for it? I'm so confused

>>2462234
bitcoin unlimited, there is no cap on how high it can go. miners will decide. they can increase it whenever the block is in danger of being full basically, so we don't have to undergo this congestion situation again

however it would be dumb to ignore the hype behind segwit. where there's smoke, there's fire. They kind of fuck the original vision of bitcoin though, they're treating it like a store of value not a currency which leaves a bad taste in my mouth, even though I mainly just trade shitcoins

>>2462140
just like when the chinks came here in the 1800's to build railroads and work in the mines, then lost their minds when the mines closed. what do all those chinks do now? exactly. they see the writing on the walls. mining is gook job security.

>>2462261
Ignore the mastercard and shit in your image, I don't know what that's about

there are nodes that can have their code upgrade and changed over time. nodes make up the network. Each owner of the node can change the coding of their node. Even if one node fails, it's kinda modular. That's why we can even hardfork.

However, for a scaling solution to work, the majority of the network need to signal for a solution. That's what BIP148 is, a forceful 51% of nodes or greater will signal segwit and essentially force the remaining to switch to segwit or die.

Jihan picked the 3rd option, hardfork and leave entirely, basically taking their nodes with them.

Might be a bluff though

>>2462318
So basically the only thing keeping bitcoin from splintering off into 50 different alts is the power miners all having a majority consensus

>>2462318
how many nodes does he have?

It's a bad thing because it makes the blockchain grow larger faster. This means that less entities can afford enough storage space to hold the entire blockchain and verify it. Less individuals in particular because companies can afford lots of storage space and normal people can't. Less entities being able to hold and verify the blockchain means more centralization.

Second of all, it's not exactly segwit vs blockchain size increase. These are not contradicting things.

>>2462344
basically, and the fact that bitcoin splintering would means a loss in value, and nobody wants off the gravy train

>>2462377
Interesting. So is BIP148 tied into segwit? I thought BIP148 and Segwit were two different solutions

Also, once they implement one of these solutions, how come that doesn't splinter off bitcoin but some changes do?

File: Czh2YqoUsAAlZhF.jpg (90KB, 750x723px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 750x723px

>>2462199
>why increasing the blocksize is a bad thing?
>it isn't
You're not saying that increased block size or BU carry no risks now are you?

>>2462318
>nodes make up the network
Mining nodes are the real network. Non-mining nodes help propagate but if they all switched off Bitcoin would still work fine

>>2462400
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki

>>2462356
Nobody knows. Some other guy from Bitfury (other a miners) mentioned on Twitter that Bitfury run over 200 nodes.
>>2462318
Jihan did the only sensible thing. Sure he would be on moral high ground by just staying on legacy chain, but things would be getting fucked due to reorgs and no replay protection.
Anyone knew that's likely what he would do