Based on my experience in programming and systems design I started 37 years ago to program I see these two options for scalability of Bitcoin in the short term:
OPTION ONE: change the upper limit of the block size two megabytes. A line of code to the constant, about ten lines of code to trigger activation. It requires software update most servers.
OPTION TWO: Enter SegWit (Segregated Witness). About 500 lines of new code, of which at least 100 would enter the code of the most sensitive in terms of consensus. Requires software update most servers and software and hardware of all customers / portfolios, especially those who need to send money to an arbitrary direction (since SegWit introduces a new type of leadership that both the sender and the receiver must control).
When advocates Core tell me that their proposal (option two) is better because it is safer, I try to understand and conclude that either I am completely crazy or statement is the equivalent of "black is white and up is down ". It is not only completely contrary to all experience in risk management in software engineering; It is so far away that no longer reflects sunlight .
When I try to understand more and questioned the assertion that the second option is safer -for which I must say that their solids fundamentals tell me I should leave the design to the experts and do not understand enough about the complex machine is Bitcoin. I know I'm capable of learning complex things, but I am told firmly that not even try.
That's not the way to make people want to use your code.
Of course, people are free to use any code you like. But the checks and balances in an open source community work as follows: if the leaders of a project build something different from what people want to use, people will use something else . Therefore, it is in the interests of the leaders listen to the community to understand what software you use most.
I understand the complexity of the transfer times of the blocks through the firewall of China and that preliminary tests indicate that a typical entire node is saturated with a block of 32 megabytes. However, none of these limits will be affected by the proposed Bitcoin Classic . In addition, when you open a path like this, it is reasonable to work on a problem while -Resolve a bottleneck at once. People have been insisting on the need to increase the block size for more than a year. Later it will be possible to expand the capacity of the nodes in different ways, but that is not imminently bottle neck.
When an enormous amount of crucial data is ignored (in relation to the need to raise the limit to the size of the block), the project is put at risk.
In the Bitcoin community abound geeks able to absorb and analyze monstrous amounts of information. If you can not explain why your solution is better than another proposed solution, no one will be satisfied with the answer "because we are the experts." You must assume that other people are at least as intelligent and able to learn like you. It is even possible that if you can not explain your solution to an open and intelligent mind, yours is not really a good solution .
OPTION ONE: change the upper limit of the block size two megabytes. A line of code to the constant, about ten lines of code to trigger activation. It requires software update most servers.
OPTION TWO: Enter SegWit (Segregated Witness). About 500 lines of new code, of which at least 100 would enter the code of the most sensitive in terms of consensus. Requires software update most servers and software and hardware of all customers / portfolios, especially those who need to send money to an arbitrary direction (since SegWit introduces a new type of leadership that both the sender and the receiver must control).
When advocates Core tell me that their proposal (option two) is better because it is safer, I try to understand and conclude that either I am completely crazy or statement is the equivalent of "black is white and up is down ". It is not only completely contrary to all experience in risk management in software engineering; It is so far away that no longer reflects sunlight .
When I try to understand more and questioned the assertion that the second option is safer -for which I must say that their solids fundamentals tell me I should leave the design to the experts and do not understand enough about the complex machine is Bitcoin. I know I'm capable of learning complex things, but I am told firmly that not even try.
That's not the way to make people want to use your code.
Of course, people are free to use any code you like. But the checks and balances in an open source community work as follows: if the leaders of a project build something different from what people want to use, people will use something else . Therefore, it is in the interests of the leaders listen to the community to understand what software you use most.
I understand the complexity of the transfer times of the blocks through the firewall of China and that preliminary tests indicate that a typical entire node is saturated with a block of 32 megabytes. However, none of these limits will be affected by the proposed Bitcoin Classic . In addition, when you open a path like this, it is reasonable to work on a problem while -Resolve a bottleneck at once. People have been insisting on the need to increase the block size for more than a year. Later it will be possible to expand the capacity of the nodes in different ways, but that is not imminently bottle neck.
When an enormous amount of crucial data is ignored (in relation to the need to raise the limit to the size of the block), the project is put at risk.
In the Bitcoin community abound geeks able to absorb and analyze monstrous amounts of information. If you can not explain why your solution is better than another proposed solution, no one will be satisfied with the answer "because we are the experts." You must assume that other people are at least as intelligent and able to learn like you. It is even possible that if you can not explain your solution to an open and intelligent mind, yours is not really a good solution .