Ok, so I am sorry to inform you that you have fallen for the BTC maximalist propaganda.
You can check out this article for a decent summary of how it was taken over at the highest levels: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/the-truth-about-who-is-behind-blockstream-and-segwit-as-the-saying-goes-follow-the-money
There is also this account of the block size debate which shows how early on there was collusion to keep the blocks small and ostracize anyone who spoke out about it. https://medium.com/hackernoon/the-great-bitcoin-scaling-debate-a-timeline-6108081dbada
Censorship on the crypto subreddits was off the charts. Still is, although I don't know how many people are still trying to post truth there.
Basically, Satoshi always intended to increase the block size. The 1MB limit was a safeguard in order to protect the network from spam/DDoS attacks in the early days. Satoshi knew that hardware technology improves according to Moore's Law and we could expect hardware to keep up with demands for the foreseeable future. He knew eventually mining nodes would become specialized and fewer people overall will be running nodes if the cost is high.
But here's the thing: NOT EVERYONE NEEDS TO RUN A NODE
The way Bitcoin is designed, anyone with just a small piece of software called a lite wallet, can easily verify the blockchain data using the Merkle roots without having to download a full copy of the blockchain. As a normal user, there is no need to verify EVERY transaction on the blockchain when you are only interested in your own.
The BTC propagandists were able to convince people that the point of Bitcoin was to run a node so you don't have to trust anyone to verify YOUR transactions, and to be a "true bitcoiner" you MUST run your own node, therefore blocks must remain small forever so that everyone can run a full node on a raspberry pi.
This is just stupid, since running a full node is a highly technical skill that most people just aren't going to do. Now you also have an even steeper learning curve to teach someone about bitcoin. Then they want to push everything onto layer 2 where Nakamoto consensus is no longer observed. This, IMO, defeats the foundational purpose of Bitcoin since it allows third parties to set themselves up as liquidity providers (aka banks) and provide custodial services to the ignorant masses.
Since 2015 or so, all development on the base protocol has been geared toward making it more compatible and welcoming for the legacy financial institutions while pushing user activity onto layer 2 where third parties have more control.
So that is why I say BTC is compromised and crippled.
Edit to add another point. You said:
The Bitcoin Miners were on board with this proposed upgrade.
The Nodes said “Eat sand” …
So here you are differentiating between "Miners" and "Nodes". The only difference between these groups is that one (miners) has write access to the blockchain, while the other (nodes, or non-miners) can only verify and relay information to each other. You seem to think that non-mining nodes have some sort of veto power on the bitcoin network. They do not. The miners are the only true stakeholders, and so all decisions are theirs.
The New York Agreement was a proposal to increase the block size to 2MB along with a host of other changes, and it turned out to be a bait and switch to placate the big block crowd until after SegWit was released, since that change fundamentally altered the signature architecture and big blockers didn't want it. Thankfully Bitcoin Cash forked before that happened so it preserved the original chain.
Ok, so I am sorry to inform you that you have fallen for the BTC maximalist propaganda.
You can check out this article for a decent summary of how it was taken over at the highest levels: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/the-truth-about-who-is-behind-blockstream-and-segwit-as-the-saying-goes-follow-the-money
There is also this account of the block size debate which shows how early on there was collusion to keep the blocks small and ostracize anyone who spoke out about it. https://medium.com/hackernoon/the-great-bitcoin-scaling-debate-a-timeline-6108081dbada
Censorship on the crypto subreddits was off the charts. Still is, although I don't know how many people are still trying to post truth there.
Basically, Satoshi always intended to increase the block size. The 1MB limit was a safeguard in order to protect the network from spam/DDoS attacks in the early days. Satoshi knew that hardware technology improves according to Moore's Law and we could expect hardware to keep up with demands for the foreseeable future. He knew eventually mining nodes would become specialized and fewer people overall will be running nodes if the cost is high.
But here's the thing: NOT EVERYONE NEEDS TO RUN A NODE
The way Bitcoin is designed, anyone with just a small piece of software called a lite wallet, can easily verify the blockchain data using the Merkle roots without having to download a full copy of the blockchain. As a normal user, there is no need to verify EVERY transaction on the blockchain when you are only interested in your own.
The BTC propagandists were able to convince people that the point of Bitcoin was to run a node so you don't have to trust anyone to verify YOUR transactions, and to be a "true bitcoiner" you MUST run your own node, therefore blocks must remain small forever so that everyone can run a full node on a raspberry pi.
This is just stupid, since running a full node is a highly technical skill that most people just aren't going to do. Now you also have an even steeper learning curve to teach someone about bitcoin. Then they want to push everything onto layer 2 where Nakamoto consensus is no longer observed. This, IMO, defeats the foundational purpose of Bitcoin since it allows third parties to set themselves up as liquidity providers (aka banks) and provide custodial services to the ignorant masses.
Since 2015 or so, all development on the base protocol has been geared toward making it more compatible and welcoming for the legacy financial institutions while pushing user activity onto layer 2 where third parties have more control.
So that is why I say BTC is compromised and crippled.
Edit to add another point. You said:
The Bitcoin Miners were on board with this proposed upgrade. The Nodes said “Eat sand” …
So here you are differentiating between "Miners" and "Nodes". The only difference between these groups is that one (miners) has write access to the blockchain, while the other (nodes, or non-miners) can only verify and relay information to each other. You seem to think that non-mining nodes have some sort of veto power on the bitcoin network. They do not. The miners are the only true stakeholders, and so all decisions are theirs.
The New York Agreement was a proposal to increase the block size to 2MB along with a host of other changes, and it turned out to be a bait and switch to placate the big block crowd until after SegWit was released, since that change fundamentally altered the signature architecture and big blockers didn't want it. Thankfully Bitcoin Cash forked before that happened so it preserved the original chain.
Ok, so I am sorry to inform you that you have fallen for the BTC maximalist propaganda.
You can check out this article for a decent summary of how it was taken over at the highest levels: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/the-truth-about-who-is-behind-blockstream-and-segwit-as-the-saying-goes-follow-the-money
There is also this account of the block size debate which shows how early on there was collusion to keep the blocks small and ostracize anyone who spoke out about it. https://medium.com/hackernoon/the-great-bitcoin-scaling-debate-a-timeline-6108081dbada
Censorship on the crypto subreddits was off the charts. Still is, although I don't know how many people are still trying to post truth there.
Basically, Satoshi always intended to increase the block size. The 1MB limit was a safeguard in order to protect the network from spam/DDoS attacks in the early days. Satoshi knew that hardware technology improves according to Moore's Law and we could expect hardware to keep up with demands for the foreseeable future. He knew eventually mining nodes would become specialized and fewer people overall will be running nodes if the cost is high.
But here's the thing: NOT EVERYONE NEEDS TO RUN A NODE
The way Bitcoin is designed, anyone with just a small piece of software called a lite wallet, can easily verify the blockchain data using the Merkle roots without having to download a full copy of the blockchain. As a normal user, there is no need to verify EVERY transaction on the blockchain when you are only interested in your own.
The BTC propagandists were able to convince people that the point of Bitcoin was to run a node so you don't have to trust anyone to verify YOUR transactions, and to be a "true bitcoiner" you MUST run your own node, therefore blocks must remain small forever so that everyone can run a full node on a raspberry pi.
This is just stupid, since running a full node is a highly technical skill that most people just aren't going to do. Now you also have an even steeper learning curve to teach someone about bitcoin. Then they want to push everything onto layer 2 where Nakamoto consensus is no longer observed. This, IMO, defeats the foundational purpose of Bitcoin since it allows third parties to set themselves up as liquidity providers (aka banks) and provide custodial services to the ignorant masses.
Since 2015 or so, all development on the base protocol has been geared toward making it more compatible and welcoming for the legacy financial institutions while pushing user activity onto layer 2 where third parties have more control.
So that is why I say BTC is compromised and crippled.