>>Its use is low because it is still in the testing phase and there are purposefully few mainnet clients.
There is no proof that it will ever be widely useful/adopted.
>>I'm not claiming they won't, only that they by necessity sacrifice some level of decentralization, because they require more resources.
There is no scientific evidence that it sacrifices too much decentralization to maintain Bitcoin's censorship resistance.
You're making a false appeal to science to give Core's scaling plan intellectual integrity that it doesn't have.
>>I think lots of people support bigger blocks because it seems obvious and makes sense at first glance, but so do a lot of things that aren't good.
Your speculation about why people support on-chain scaling, and your unproven opinion that on-chain scaling is not a good plan, is not evidence that Core's roadmap is more scientific than the original one.
>>I mean I consider myself to be a relatively early adopter and that's not what I signed up for.
Up until 2013, all published plans for Bitcoin scaling, including those written by Bitcoin's lead/original developer, Satoshi, stated it would scale on-chain through large blocks, and implied that the decentralization sacrifice needed to do that was a reasonable trade-off.
The earliest adopters therefore signed up for that roadmap. Any change to that roadmap required consensus, which it never got.
There is no proof that it will ever be widely useful/adopted.
>>I'm not claiming they won't, only that they by necessity sacrifice some level of decentralization, because they require more resources.
There is no scientific evidence that it sacrifices too much decentralization to maintain Bitcoin's censorship resistance.
You're making a false appeal to science to give Core's scaling plan intellectual integrity that it doesn't have.
>>I think lots of people support bigger blocks because it seems obvious and makes sense at first glance, but so do a lot of things that aren't good.
Your speculation about why people support on-chain scaling, and your unproven opinion that on-chain scaling is not a good plan, is not evidence that Core's roadmap is more scientific than the original one.
>>I mean I consider myself to be a relatively early adopter and that's not what I signed up for.
Up until 2013, all published plans for Bitcoin scaling, including those written by Bitcoin's lead/original developer, Satoshi, stated it would scale on-chain through large blocks, and implied that the decentralization sacrifice needed to do that was a reasonable trade-off.
The earliest adopters therefore signed up for that roadmap. Any change to that roadmap required consensus, which it never got.