Basically: (i) marginal (~2-5x) scalability improvements and (ii) more privacy.
"Samson said that money was used first in barter and as a store of value - BULLSHIT!"
Then proceeds to brag about how many university degrees he has..... eh, at least he read Graeber.
"Bitcoin works because of these squiggly lines called math", pointing to more non-sequiturs.
My bulls*** meter appears to be showing a negative value.... oh wait that was an integer overflow.
Samson: "there's a reason for that"
FYI, I'm on Samson's side on this particular issue; signature bytes and non-signature bytes do NOT affect nodes the same way.
Samson: a new form of money.
Roger: with $50 fees?
Samson: well, what are fees now?
Roger: $0.20, but only because the users were driven away.
FYI, I'm on Roger's side here; $50 fees should IMO count as a de-facto liveness failure
This I think is definitely a bad argument; I actually go to restaurants often and usually when I come to one and it's full, I go to a different restaurant.
IMO not true since ~2015 for the top ~10-50 coins. Just use the altcoins as a payment channel; when your balance gets to ~$100 convert to bitcoin through shapeshift and sell to fiat from there
Roger: I think transactions/usage is what *makes* something sound money
I'm also with Roger here.
Samson brings up that RBF was not a protocol change.
Roger brings up my post on why soft forks are coercive.
That said, I am more on the core side on the replace-by-fee issue. Relying on miner altruism is dangerous. That said, I think BCH should just hard fork to cut block times down to ~15 seconds and adopt GHOST.
Roger: "It does not"
To be clear, I think what Roger means is that Lightning requires *any* tx malleability fix, not Segwit specifically. BCH has Flexible Transactions, which also fixes malleability.
WHY CAN'T BCH JUST MAKE CONFIRMATIONS THEMSELVES FAST BY ADOPTING 15 SECOND BLOCK TIMES AND GHOST ALREADY GODDAMMITT!!!1!
Samson: "it's a dead end"
I'm ok with the super-big-blocker position but only if sharding techniques (or at least fraud proofs and data availability proofs) are used to make light client verification easier.
I disagree as a matter of economics; this ignores externalities. I suppose a chain where the only restriction on block size is stale rate risk could be viable, but I have centralization worries about that...
Roger: "I'm happy to answer first"
I personally do agree that the vision was diverted.
One line I think I saw on /r/buttcoin is "Bitcoin has turned into a bizarro ICO for the lightning network"
Agree fully; though it does seem we are still far away from that.
But Craig Wright *is* crazy.