In the article Why support SegWit, COO of BTCC give his answers, Samson Mow focused on SegWit without mentioning the real problem: the post-segwit roadmap from Core. I just have to clarify something Mr.Mow is unwilling to touch.
I.The True Focus: Core’s Roadmap
Mr.Mow brags about the benefits of segwit in his article, and accuses scaling side on anti-core being political. Truth is, however, scaling side is pro segwit and LN as well. Scaling side is anti core’s roadmap, which is, from soft-forked segwit implementation to permanent limit of block size on 1 MB. This will turn the main chain into a SWIFT-like settlement network. High tx fee on the main chain will chase all the daily tx away to the LN.
Why Core’s roadmap is wrong? Simple logic: more is better than less, more options are always better than fewer ones.
“I’m right so I will take your rights away”---this is a dangerous mindset. Just look at the history of Communism and the possible millions of deaths associated with it. A vicious fruit of a vicious mentality. Why in China’s Big Leap in the 60s we saw millions of deaths of peasants? Because they were restricted to their own land by the low level party bodies and the household registration system, preventing them from fleeing their land. There’s no option but to starve to death.
How can someone be so sure that he’s right? What if he’s wrong? How can he shoulder the responsibility of millions of lives? Can core do that? Who gave the right to Core from prevent us from using the main chain? Is core capable of shouldering the responsibility of the doom of Bitcoin?
Secondary networks like LN can only be a supplement to the main chain, not a replacement to it. LN’s big nodes have clearly capital, efficiency and operation advantages. Looking upon them to maintain many small nodes is so childish. There will be Matthew Effect. There will be big fish devouring small fish. LN, in the end, will be dominated by big players like what we see with Alipay/Wechat Pay today. Decentralization will be a banned word.
Rumors recently mentioned “Chinese monetary authorities are looking to limit the transfer of Bitcoin from domestic exchanges to their foreign counterparts. Crypto community lived on such a joke. But can you laugh when tx are all running on giants-dominated LN?
LN operators cannot confiscate your Bitcoin, but they can, with the excuses of regulation compliance, ask you to conduct compliance checks. You want to quit then? To where? Main chain? Core had it in mind already: 1MB block size is only for big-amount LN tx settlement, the tx fee will be as high as with the SWIFT. How about 100 dollars per tx? Quit?
III.Dangerous Soft-Fork SegWit
Core is implementing segwit through softfork, that is by lying to old nodes to realize compatibility. This brings significant technical risks and hefty tech debts.
With bottom layer data structure altered, Core wants to lie to old nodes so as to fool them into believing “nothing-has-changed”. This is just as difficult as the twisted hand in the pic above. The risks and debts behind it are so self-explanatory. We can already expect tremendous difficulty in the future development that will be based on this twisted hand.
Why Core says “SegWit almost changed every line of Bitcoin’s codes?” (They wanted to brag about the workload).
Based on the HK consensus, the segwit should have been out in Apr. and online since Jul.,why is it so late in Nov. even under the pressure from consensus and miners? Because core wanted to build a twisted hand.
Systemic complexity rising echoes with a falling stability. We all have seen the price of ETH’s Turing-Completeness: four or five HFs and lots of nodes being attacked into destruction. Bitcoin, as a formally 10B level financial system: Can it pay such a high price? Can Core take that responsibility?
IV.Enough Block Size
If our network cannot take 1MB+ block size, Core’s limit can be justified. But the reality is that even the GFC-limited Chinese pools can accept an 8MB size, see the pic below (in June last year):
Compared with “who’s-your-daddy” Core, BU is not so condescending to the very least:
1)block size? Pool decides. No 50%+ pools will choose too high of a size that the network cannot take. (or they suffer from high orphanage rate).
2)tx fee? Market decides. Should the network unable to take a big block size, the limited block supply from pools will raise the tx fee to an equilibrium point on the market.
3)LN or not? Tx fee decides. If the network cannot take big size blocks, while LN is cheap and fast, why not use it under high tx fee scenarios?
I think 2) is not going to happen. I used a 56k modem back in junior high, and I use a 200M optical fiber connection today at 17 dollars per month. That’s a 4,000 times scaling. But I’m not against 3). Core, however, considers 2) as fate, so “I’m your daddy let me decide for you.” So they castrate the main chain tx and decide for you that future tx should go through the LN.
Why such a rush? Who’s the “GOD”, Core or the market? Or the reason being that Core’s daddy BS is the standard maker of LN?
V.Who is qualified to take responsibilities when it comes to Bitcoin security?
What is the consequence of Core breaking Bitcoin the big toy? Leave. That’s it. So many Internet companies are out there and a glorified ex-Bitcoin developer will surely find a new job.
Only miners, who invested millions-worth of personal wealth, the sunk cost, cannot leave like a bitcoiner, thus can be qualified as the Bitcoin’s safe guards. Mt.Gox was bearing the Bitcoin price in hope to cover up for their loss. Only miners want the Bitcoin to thrive with more users and a bullish market.
I can conclude with great confidence: SegWit will never ever be activated. It’s not about the 95% threshold. Even in 75% or 51% scenarios it will not be alive.
Why? I am a miner, a member of the mining pools. I invested millions of real wealth into the mining business.
Got an issue? Show me your money.
Before the non-stopping wheels of history, some people are destined to be nailed up on the pillar of humiliation.