So basically bcash.

This is an interesting thread. What I find amusing is how it shines a light on how people perceive their truth. Of course we all believe we are "right", the amusement comes from how people express it.

If it took us 10 years to reach that point, how can we not lose all hope? Coming to the conclusion that an almost dead project is what Bitcoin should become must be the next stage of stupid after the ETF craze. Why not just use Monero? Or bcash or let Bitcoin as is? It works perfectly fine as a speculative replacement for Gold.

This isn’t my opinion. 1MB block size limit was Satoshi’s definition. Satoshi gave us an economical blockspace where 1 bit = 1 bit, 21M Bitcoin per 1MB per 1 block. Today, Bitcoin objectively does not uphold the constants defined in Genesis. Go ahead and defend these changes. They aren’t Bitcoin. Changing the blocksize due to high fees is no different than printing money to solve economic problems. Reality was imposing information and constrain upon us through the Bitcoin network and economics. The hubris to be believe we know better than the economics of energy.

Yes it takes humility to realise not everything is perfect in Bitcoin and when mistakes are made or we can see destructive patterns emerging in Bitcoin its better to work together to take stock and put them right rather than blindly marching on as we did in fiat world.

Mate, I don't disagree with you, I was just pointing out how some people (110) attack immediately. Not just the Dashr camp, but mainly in this thread. What you wrote has merit, I hadn't looked at it from that point of view. For that I thank you. Keep being reasonable people. Nothing is black or white

Yes! and in times of disagreement of Bitcoin the best path forward is actually back towards Satoshi’s Protocol and constants.

LFG! SegWSit was just a result of deliberate mempool spam anyway.

I’ve been saying we should have done this right after it happened… No one cares what I say tho lmfao…

I feel you 😉

Better late than never! This change should not be contentious. The economics are objective. This is not the protocol Satoshi gave us objectively. A sly and roundabout way of distorting blockspace economics thru implicit blocksize increase and inconsistent and arbitrary bit weighting in sats.

Without SegWit, the Lightning Network as we know it would not be functional. We don’t need to get rid of Segwitt… we need to get rid of CORE. They are the cancer

SegWit is fine, SegWit discount is the problem! 4MB blocks are not original 1MB design

You didn’t even read what I wrote 😂 try again. Removing Segwit discount and reinstating the blocksize at 1Mb restores Bitcoin back to Satoshis protocol and economics thru the symmetry of constants defined in Genesis without removing Lightning. If you want to keep arguing that 1 bit = 1 bit in Segwit go for it. BIP 110 does not fix the conservation problem, it addresses a symptom. Spam is not priced out precisely because the blockspace economics have been destroyed and you are running software that allows spammers to access bits on your node without paying full cost to do so. You are apart of the problem. We all are in accepting SegWit discounting and increased blocksize. Anyways I thought you had me muted, are you reading my posts or just projecting what you want to hear and say?

Good point. I wonder if we can change strategy. Do you think we can schedule debate on: op return inflation vs bip-110 vs restoring 1MB blocks

Finally some of the discussion I would like to see... It will be the start to healing Bitcoin. Keep it going !

Ah I definitely misunderstood your argument in that last note then, I’ll admit that. What you propose would require a softfork to remove the segwitt discount and that wouldn’t remove lightning, but LN still would face significant economic and operational headwinds. There’s two primary pillars of SegWit: Transaction Malleability (a structural security fix) and the Witness Discount (an economic efficiency optimization). The Lightning Network is fundamentally built on the ability to have a series of "pending" channel states that can be safely broadcast to the blockchain if a channel partner attempts to cheat. Without the malleability fix, an attacker could alter the signature of a transaction, changing its TXID before it is confirmed. Since Lightning channel states depend on the specific IDs of previous transactions, this would effectively "break" the chain of custody for channel funds. The Lightning Network strictly requires the malleability fix to operate securely. A soft fork that only removed the "discount" but left the structural "segregation" of witness data intact would keep the malleability fix in place, meaning Lightning would remain technically functional. The "witness discount" (where signatures are weighted at 1/4th the cost of non-witness data) is an economic incentive. Removing this discount would effectively treat signature data as "full price" in terms of block weight. the funding transaction (to open a channel) and the commitment transaction (to close or enforce a penalty) rely heavily on witness data. If that data were no longer discounted, the on-chain fees to manage these channels would spike significantly. As the cost to open channels rises, it becomes more expensive for users to rebalance or expand their channel capacity. This creates a "barrier to entry" that favors high-capacity, institutional-style nodes over individual, peer-to-peer users. The discount currently allows more transactions to fit into each block. Removing it would effectively shrink the network's total capacity for all transactions, including Lightning-related ones, leading to higher base-layer congestion and even higher fees during peak times. This is my larger issue, the one you are constantly ignoring… Spam is not even the root of the problem, it’s a symptom. BIP110 even states this on the website. The goal is to stop the bleeding, momentarily and quickly to solve spam issues at the policy level and come up with solutions. The root of the problem is Core. It’s fully compromised and caused these issues intentionally (i listed this in my previous note). It is a corrupt client, making changes to Bitcoin (op return), allowing a flood of arbitrary data and ignoring other spam attack vectors purposely. This debate has nothing to do with Segwitt. The main issue is centralization of nodes - people trusting devs who are paid by companies to scam on Bitcoin, flood the chain with arb data, and profit from non-monetary use cases. Making another softfork that doesn’t address client centralization or the identity cross doesn’t solve anything. Removing the segwitt discount doesn’t solve the op return problem or limit the taproot script tree exploit either… it creates more problems and weakens Lighting significantly. BIP 110 solves the issue now without compromising the chain for monetary use cases.

That’s a broad generalization… Bitcoin launched in 2009 without an explicit block size limit. In 2010, Satoshi Nakamoto introduced a hard limit of 1 megabyte (1MB) to the protocol. The limit was implemented as a security measure to prevent "spam" attacks (where an attacker could flood the network with massive, invalid blocks) and to ensure that running a node remained affordable, keeping the network decentralized. In 2017, it is true the Segwitt change effectively created a "virtual" block size increase. But the technical limit is 4 million weight units (which theoretically allows for a 4MB block if it contained only witness data), real-world blocks typically land between 1MB and 2MB, depending on the transaction types…

You have the answer in your own words. Let me highlight it: * Satoshi set hard 1MB limit * Spam attacks were addresed * “Virtual” bytes is Fiat definition, in reality we only have bytes Returning to Satoshi’s design is the way

Protocol doesn’t need incentives and biases. Hard money should strict and hard capped at supply and speed of change. It will do something quite the opposite to Lightning making channels more permanent and therefore for stable.

Thanks FreeYoda! Appreciate you having a look! Feel free to suggest any feedback or share with wider community.

… I didn’t say virtual bytes. It’s a virtual block size limit or vByte it’s a unit of measurement, not fiat lol. One vByte is equal to 4 weight units. It’s part of the functionality that made lightning useful and allows bitcoin to be used as a medium of exchange on L2. Satoshi’s limit of 1MB wasn’t a hard capped rule like the supply… it was a temporary solution to the spam problem to help keep the barrier to node entry low. It was obviously not a permanent monetary constant. Plus most blocks are around 1-2 mb anyway… Thats not inflation, it’s innovation confirmed through consensus. Like I said before; Removing segwitt discount doesn’t address the spam problem cause it’s not the root cause of these current attacks. Removing the seg discount creates a worse problem… it ruins functionality of Lightning and use of bitocin as money.

I'm in no way a smart mind. It took me some time to realize decentralized was THE main property in the Blocksize war. Looking back a "no brainer", at the time when I needed to reason about it on my own it wasn't easy..... "Changing" the protocol has, and always will be, the biggest risk to Bitcoin from the inside. I have no clue how to fix it else than thinking how to "freeze" the base layer ASAP... My basic thinking: As we can see now the forces to chance Bitcoin into something else than "freedom money" are so big we will lose that fight unless we make that fight impossible (freeze the base layer).

Like your thinking! It must have been hard back in a day with so much information. Luckily truth always reveals itself. Powers at play work on derailing us. I’ve been thinking how the freeze should look like. Hardfork and softforks turn to payops like in the case of SegWit. Let us know if you have ideas on freeze mechanics. Appreciate your help!

Sorry I misspoke about virtual block size. I doesn’t change what I meant. Can you tell what is 1 vbyte and 4 units in physics terms? I see them as human defined agreements. Bytes are defined by reality. Bitcoin is proof, virtual concepts is money printing. I understand how lightning works. Bitcoin is not a protocol for innovation. As Satoshi once said v0.1 of Bitcoin defined protocol. 1MB was the last missing piece fully bounding system. If we want to build civilisation that lasts 1 million years we shouldn't settle on something that gives 200 millenia. SegWit discount is attack on Bitcoin-first civilisation.

Assume the fee market clears at 1 sat/byte. Under Satoshi’s original protocol, purchasing an entire block required paying for every byte equally. 1,000,000 bytes x 1 sat/byte = 1,000,000 sats. Every permanently stored byte imposed the same economic cost because every permanently stored byte imposed the same physical burden on the network. The economics matched the physics. Now consider a witness-heavy SegWit block. I can now purchase 4MB of permanent blockchain memory on your node for the same 1,000,000 sats. The effective price becomes 1,000,000 / 4,000,000 bytes = 0.25 sats/byte 1 sat per legacy byte 0.25 sat per witness byte Nothing changed about the physical reality of those bytes. Every one of those four million bytes must still be: - transmitted - validated - stored - indexed - backed up - and preserved forever by every full node. The blockchain does not remember which bytes were discounted. It simply remembers bytes. The physical cost of one permanently stored byte remains constant. The economic cost no longer remains constant. 1 bit purchased ≠ 1 bit stored This is not because the bits themselves differ, but because the protocol values identical physical memory differently. Bitcoin’s fee market exists to allocate a finite physical resource: permanent blockspace. If two identical physical resources are assigned different prices, the market no longer discovers the true price of scarcity. Instead, it discovers the cheapest protocol-defined representation of that resource. That is exactly what witness discounting incentivizes. If you think the spam problem should be solved by policy then why did you agree to a protocol that makes your nodes permanent memory up to four times cheaper in the first place? This is total irony. If your concern is chain growth, node requirements, archival burden, or “spam,” then the first thing you should care about is whether the protocol is pricing the physical burden of permanent memory correctly. The blockchain has no concept of “spam.” It has no concept of “financial transaction.” It has no concept of “witness.” It only preserves irreversible bits. If every stored bit imposes the same perpetual burden on every future node, then every stored bit should compete under identical economic rules. Otherwise the fee market is no longer pricing blockspace. It is pricing protocol categories. That is the fundamental distortion introduced by witness discounting. It did not simply change Bitcoin’s throughput. It changed the exchange rate between satoshis and permanent memory. Once that exchange rate ceased to be uniform, the protocol stopped conserving the original economic symmetry established by Satoshi and original consensus. Bitcoin only works if 1 sat = 1 sat and 1 bit = 1 bit If either identity breaks then you have broken the fundamental pricing mechanism of the blockspace fee market where sats<>bits are exchanged between valid nonce party and transactors. You don’t get to have your cake and eat it too, the real cost of lightning transactions are paid for by the burden of node runners. Yes we can mandate the price of cars and pretend they are cheap, but someone still has to pay the real physical cost in energy regardless. There is no free lunch. You can’t have both. Bitcoiners can’t complain about market manipulation in fiat land when everyone running Segwit is implicit in manipulating the fee market through arbitrary discounts. We must stop double spending our principles where it’s convenient.

I wish I had answers... In the end only some are smart enough to understand what is the best on technological / implementation level. And that is on the basis they have "freedom money" on their mind (and understand most implications) and not the many other "motivators 😇", and minds change over time or power or blackmail etc..... If that was easy we would have no corrupt/distorted persons in any function with power wouldn't we 😶‍🌫️ I can only look at other places with power concentrations, goverments, organizations, multinationals, and literally get shivers at where we are and next where we are going 🤢 In my mind Bitcoin is one of our last hopes at some human freedom, and seeing what has, is, happening to core is not a surprise but still gut wrenching...

You said <<< The blockchain has no concept of “spam.” It has no concept of “financial transaction.” It has no concept of “witness.” It only preserves irreversible bits.>> It’s irrelevant because the nodes decide what is spam or arbitrary data. They decide what the protocol is. And under Satoshi’s original protocol there was no block limit. It was specifically added to prevent spam lol The 4mb of data from Segwitt isn’t spam. It’s a monetary use case. Plus most blocks are much lower than 4mb. It still is virtually the same smaller limit Satoshi imposed in 2010 - around 1.5 to - 2mb. On the other hand… The op return limit increase from core was not opened for monetary data. It was opened to appease companies like Citrea so they could literally run a “stablecoin scam” and it’s being used for other forms of spam. Same thing with the taproot exploit. That’s where most of the arb data is coming from…

Bitcoin: a peer-to-pper digital photo album... wouldn't have caught on.