Ultimately, you have to understand Bitcoin, and what it could be, to understand the debate, and I really don't think that's an exaggeration. This debate is so complicated and so vitriolic because it gets at the core of what the technology will become, and how that future will come about.
Some of the key issues at play:
* Is BTC more like digital gold, a settlement layer, a payment processor, or some combination of all of those things? For a given goal, what would an effective implementation look like?
* Small blocks allow for fewer transactions, but have very modest network and hardware requirements. Bigger blocks permit more transactions, but could encourage centralization as technical requirements increase by incentivizing co-localization of mining (e.g. behind Chinese firewall), discouraging node operation, etc. What is the right trade-off?
* Transactions aren't free. Limiting the network can create a fee market, but high throughput with low fees could also fund mining after block rewards.
* Who decides? Do we seek user consensus (miners? node operators? protocol devs?)? Is a competitive market for protocol implementations part of Satoshi's vision?
There's so much ideology tied up in Bitcoin that it becomes very difficult; different people want fundamentally different things. A conservative approach might be to leave Bitcoin much as it is, and tie in new protocols on top of it (sidechains, lightning network, etc.). Others feel that 'what they signed on for' is different, citing Satoshi's remarks about how the network would scale and how hard forks would create economic consensus.
What I find heartening is that even the threat of alternative implementations (XT, Classic, etc.) seem to be having an effect on the Core team. We're seeing a market for ideas, and the technical reality that a simple majority can take control, or else split the coin. Some people find this worrying (and certainly this is warranted), but I want to see it tested; dash it against the rocks and see how strong Bitcoin is.
At any rate, the transaction rate continues to increase, so the issue is approaching a resolution one way or another.
Excellent summary. Conflicting business interests are probably playing a non-trivial role in the acrimony as well, e.g. limiting the block size makes solutions from businesses like Blockstream a bit more compelling whereas businesses like Coinbase and Bitpay would probably like to see many many more cheap transactions on-chain sooner vs. later.
Satoshi hasn't been known to have uttered a single word since 2010 and thus it can't have referred to Satoshi. Further the idea that one can simply ask Satoshi for his opinion, when he's disappeared for more than half a decade is also quite silly, unless you're completely uninvolved in bitcoin any know next to nothing about it. I assume that's why you were downvoted, because your suggestion adds nothing meaningful to the discussion and shows you lack some basic topic-specific knowledge and so it makes sense for your post to be less visible.
Satoshi is believed to have said something in 2014 regarding Dorian [1]. It would be reasonable for someone in the community to reach out to him and ask what he thinks. While they are at it, they should ask him about hard fork avoidance too.
Back to the point at hand, I still have no idea who Brian is talking about in his post. And, if one were to think about that in an uninvolved and meaningless way, perhaps it might add to the discussion.
If only that were the biggest problem. A far bigger one is big blockers wanting to expose Bitcoin to increased risk of catastrophic ruin at the protocol level to service the more expedient commercial concerns of a few big businesses that have bet their future on no/low tx fees.
Bitcoin is not a payment network, it is digital gold, and any attempt to make it competitive with Visa, Paypal, or Western Union puts the whole project at greater risk of failure. A $10 or similarly large fee to move gold around the world instantaneously is miniscule for the value conferred, especially when that digital gold can reliably serve as an alternative global reserve currently roughly as viable as the USD but with no central issuing authority. That kind of value is not cheap, easy, or free, and cannot be achieved while also compromising its design parameters in favor of expedient commercial concerns.
Yeah, interesting attempt at revising history there but the title of the email which debuted Bitcoin to the world was titled: "Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper." It was designed to eventually compete with Visa, Paypal, etc. See also: http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/
The bitcoin blockchain simply won't do that. Lightning network might. Satoshi was a brilliant guy, but got a number of things wrong as well. (Namecoin for example)
Brian is sounding so desperate lately. His opinion here just doesn't matter very much as the blocks belong to miners, not him. Frankly I'm encouraging everyone to pull their money out of coinbase right now, as the risk of a Brian -induced fork is non trivial, and his custody of your coins is probably not a risk you should bear
This is FUD. You contradict yourself with your own statement. If any fork happens it would require a super-majority of hash power to support it -- the fork would be considered canonical Bitcoin and there would be no problem and no loss of funds. It's even questionable calling it a "fork" as there really wouldn't be a material side-branch.
