Roger Ver has been way too emotional about this. It's not like increasing the blocksize was going make Bitcoin a worldwide payment system. The blocks are still confirmed on average every 10 minutes. That's not quick enough to facilitate a worldwide payment system.

What do you expect from someone that have been persecuted by the arbitrary force of the US swamp government for decades and jailed twice now..?

Did you know that originally there was not block size limit? it was supposed to be a temporary addin that was implemented later to supposedly avoid spam on the network in the start. Temporary measure for what have now become a hot political problem. sounds familiar?

You are missing the core feature that was in the Bitcoin technology since the beginning and that is 0-conf where you for smaller every-day payments should not need to wait for a transaction to be confirmed into a block.

This got taken away from BTC by Block Stream with the implementation of REPLACE BY FEE that made it possible for buyers to send a transaction to a merchant, receive the good and then replace the original transaction with another one to for example themselves again using a higher fee for the same transaction and thus defraud the merchant, making the tech useless for merchants to use.

This is one of the main reasons that STEAM and Microsoft stopped accepting Bitcoin way back when.

Bitcoin needs a 2nd layer on top of the base layer to facilitate this and this is what's being worked on right now in the form of the lightning network.

Not the case. Lightning even requires others peoples funds to be able to send from one to another and is thus not a peer to peer tech without the need for trusted third party, but instead heavily relies on funding by what will become consentrated liquidity hubs. also known as banks today.

Satoshi even laid out the path for increasing the blocksize over time on a steady manner to accommodate expanding usage:

"It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don’t have it are already obsolete." - Satoshi

The argument against increasing the blocksize to facilitate more transactions per block, is that it makes the blockchain much larger and this can cause the network to be less decentralized.

This is a commie fallacy. Just look at the exponential increases of harddrives since forever and from when Bitcoin was launched.

How much does a 10TB drive cost today? basically nothing for serious actors. but it is not the disk size that is important. it is the hash. nobody can mine with computers now anyway and specialized hardware is needed..

Roger Ver has been way too emotional about this. It's not like increasing the blocksize was going make Bitcoin a worldwide payment system. The blocks are still confirmed on average every 10 minutes. That's not quick enough to facilitate a worldwide payment system.

What do you expect from someone that have been persecuted by the arbitrary force of the US swamp government for decades and jailed twice now..?

You are missing the core feature that was in the Bitcoin technology since the beginning and that is 0-conf where you for smaller every-day payments should not need to wait for a transaction to be confirmed into a block.

This got taken away from BTC by Block Stream with the implementation of REPLACE BY FEE that made it possible for buyers to send a transaction to a merchant, receive the good and then replace the original transaction with another one to for example themselves again using a higher fee for the same transaction and thus defraud the merchant, making the tech useless for merchants to use.

This is one of the main reasons that STEAM and Microsoft stopped accepting Bitcoin way back when.

Bitcoin needs a 2nd layer on top of the base layer to facilitate this and this is what's being worked on right now in the form of the lightning network.

Not the case. Lightning even requires others peoples funds to be able to send from one to another and is thus not a peer to peer tech without the need for trusted third party, but instead heavily relies on funding by what will become consentrated liquidity hubs. also known as banks today.

Satoshi even laid out the path for increasing the blocksize over time on a steady manner to accommodate expanding usage:

"It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don’t have it are already obsolete." - Satoshi

The argument against increasing the blocksize to facilitate more transactions per block, is that it makes the blockchain much larger and this can cause the network to be less decentralized.

This is a commie fallacy. Just look at the exponential increases of harddrives since forever and from when Bitcoin was launched.

How much does a 10TB drive cost today? basically nothing for serious actors. but it is not the disk size that is important. it is the hash. nobody can mine with computers now anyway and specialized hardware is needed..

Roger Ver has been way too emotional about this. It's not like increasing the blocksize was going make Bitcoin a worldwide payment system. The blocks are still confirmed on average every 10 minutes. That's not quick enough to facilitate a worldwide payment system. What do you expect from someone that have been persecuted by the arbitrary force of the US swamp government for decades and jailed twice now..?

You are missing the core feature that was in the Bitcoin technology since the beginning and that is 0-conf where you for smaller every-day payments should not need to wait for a transaction to be confirmed into a block.

This got taken away from BTC by Block Stream with the implementation of REPLACE BY FEE that made it possible for buyers to send a transaction to a merchant, receive the good and then replace the original transaction with another one to for example themselves again using a higher fee for the same transaction and thus defraud the merchant, making the tech useless for merchants to use.

This is one of the main reasons that STEAM and Microsoft stopped accepting Bitcoin way back when.

Bitcoin needs a 2nd layer on top of the base layer to facilitate this and this is what's being worked on right now in the form of the lightning network.

Not the case. Lightning even requires others peoples funds to be able to send from one to another and is thus not a peer to peer tech without the need for trusted third party, but instead heavily relies on funding by what will become consentrated liquidity hubs. also known as banks today.

Satoshi even laid out the path for increasing the blocksize over time on a steady manner to accommodate expanding usage:

"It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don’t have it are already obsolete." - Satoshi

The argument against increasing the blocksize to facilitate more transactions per block, is that it makes the blockchain much larger and this can cause the network to be less decentralized.

This is a commie fallacy. Just look at the exponential increases of harddrives since forever and from when Bitcoin was launched.

How much does a 10TB drive cost today? basically nothing for serious actors. but it is not the disk size that is important. it is the hash. nobody can mine with computers now anyway and specialized hardware is needed..