one of the best guest mix of last time pure happiness <| sep |> Here is the post for archival purposes Author BitKan Content Yesterday , The article Why against SegWit and Core ? Jiang Zhuoer , who invested millions in mining , gives his answers . caused a lot debates here . For the further communication between China and west , Ill conclude some informations about the article , then translate some of the Chinese comments opinions on this article . BitKan is available in multilingual versions and you can try it out and also join the heated discussion hereCore knows nothing about the spirit of contract . They ignore their public ann . a few months ago . A direct scaling is the simplest and most effective way of solving our urgent problem . Why roll out this thing that requires longtime testing ? To have a worldwide success for Bitcoin , you need to provide ppl with access at low costs . Its just like Internet . Core either has a vicious intention or has no faith in Bitcoin . If one day Bitcoin is being used by 9 digits of ppl , the main chain block size cannot be enough even at 100 MB . Micro payment still needs to go through something like LN . Whats the meaning of keeping the block size at 1 MB ? 7 years ago the block size was set at 1 MB , whats the hardware like 7 years ago ? What the growth of bandwidth and storage in 7 years ? 10 years or 20 years from now ? The main battlefield of Bitcoin is in China . We Chinese ppl should not be satisfied with mining a few coins or gamble on a few exchanges . Take the responsibility and obligation of contribution . But , words are so much cheaper than codes . We need advanced devs for the main battlefield . Just becoz you need to enlarge the userbase , you need to scale up ? Its hilarious . The transfer of tx requires cost . No matter how wide is the highway , you dont charge ppl , you will have a heave traffic . Via the markets hand , only big amount tx are allowed on the chainthis does not affect the liquidity of onchain assets . Scaling is what all users want . We just have different opinions on the solution we choose . Its hard to judge Cores manipulation , but they do oppose a simple direct scaling . They broke the deal with pools and manipulated the public opinion . You do see these as facts . You know about IT and finance , and probably with your butt on finance . You earn monopoly profits that others cannot touch . Bitcoin is the genius , the genesis of this sick market . Cores segwit and LN are in fact copying financial sectors monopoly nature to Bitcoin , and with an overly engineered tech threshold to solidify the position of interest groups like Blockstream . The scaling of the main chain , a market that naturally embraces users , will bring the disillusionment of LN , a market naturally forcing users . The conflict of opinions is in fact the fight of power of at a certain level . For Bitcoin , its Satoshis brilliant design and judgment that has it we let the miners decide . This is also most reasonable in reality . Like you said , should we realize it , we are all happy . idgui . comstrong 1 . 1 Im pro segwit and LN , segwit solves a lot of historical problems and improves efficiency LN provides greater room for timely confirmations and high frequency tx . good , welcome for your choice on segwitLN . Its good improvement for the development of the ecosystem . Segwit has a good structure for app developments . LN can realized secondlevel confirmation and low tx fee that everyone wants . 1 . 2 Miners being trustworthy dont mean all miners can tell the future . Miners are trustworthy because they see profits . They analyze the interests of all parties . Their behavioral pattern is predictable . There are shortterm interests and longterm interests . Not all miners are limited to those before their eyes or those in their dreams . Only when interests shortterm and longterm are consistent can they be predicted . But you cannot do that now . Also , different miners have different standards of judgement . 1 . 3 ETH HFed many times , not produced a forked chain only once , why ? Because this very HF violates the basic principle of cryptocurrency immutability of blockchain . Thats why ppl reject ETH and would welcome ETC . Then you have trades and markets and price and miners . Previously loyal miners can turn . Thats why I say Chandlers statement was irrational . Just dont talk about loyalty and friendship when it comes to cryptos , just talk about interests . Therere active and forced HFs . We had one in our history . Along with the later HFs of ETH , they are all bugfixes that serves only good . But the in the ETHETC case , the HF was to find the stolen coins , not for a bug fix an active HF . Active HF has great potential for splitting the ecosystem , and forced ones are safe . HF scaling is apparently an active HF . Blocksize limit is not an imperative bug fix target and HF scaling is not necessarily good for everyone , at least it raise the bar to run a full node . 4 Landscape of interests Im saying the interests and decisionmaking patterns of all parties in the system miners , corps , users , investors , devs stay the same , not that all interests should remain the same . HF scaling produces no change to the original running mechanism , so the landscape does not change . Even if ETH forked into 2 , their interests are in the same old landscape and an Alt relationship between each other . You are not aware of the dangers and harms of a split ecosystem . You should read some other articles first . A split is not just about simply see another Alt , its overwhelming . ENDThanks for our translator David .