because if people stop doing normal traditional transactions and instead embrace segwit the real data is actually worse. im not talking about the bat and switch twisting data, im talking about the actual measurements of real data.

also if you continue to embrace blockstreams roadmap and do segwit confidential payment codes(CPC) the real data grows again.
here. a simple image for you


basically keeping the hard limit to 1mb(as blockstream wants) and then everyone doing segwit CPC transactions equates to 2.85mb for only 3800 transactions.
but if we had 2mb hard limit and stuck to traditional style transactions we can have 4000transactions per 2mb block.

so although blockstream tries to say that 2mb hardlimit bloats peoples hard drives. it is infact segwit and CPC that will
so although blockstream tries to say that 2mb hardlimit causes extrea processing. its infact segwit and CPC that will (imaging not only handling extra tx's but then trying to validate balances hidden inside a payment code that it needs to process and check)

so having a 2mb limit and sticking to standard transaction types is actually more beneficial. and yes libsecp256k1 can be used on traditional transactions without the need to make Segwit/CPC transactions. so a 2mb hard limit will be faster than people thought last year before libsecp256k1.

so relax. the hard limit is just a buffer that allows REAL capacity growth and controls the real data expansion. unlike blockstream features that can expand uncontrolled
maths is based on a normal transaction being on average 500bytes
maths is based on blockstreams projections of segwit 190% capacity
maths is based on blockstreams estimates of CPC adding 250bytes to a transaction

my personal opinion is to have 2mb+segwit to allow people the freedom to do proper bitcoin transactions OR segwit CPC bloated transactions, without contention, without any corporate control. and hope that people use their brains and do the transaction that suits them personally. rather then being led down a one way street

basically you want blockstream to have 100% corporate control.. ok you made that obvious

maybe if you used statistics, logic and rational judgement you would see a blockstream 3800tx block of segwitCPC is 2.85mb.. vs a proper 2mb hardblocklimit offers 4000tx..

thus increasing the hard limit and sticking with standard transactions is less bloated

lol maybe you should use an altcoin.
its not about classic vs core.. its about bitcoin as a whole economy and how there should be no control and no single path blindly following one corporation

No - I had misconceptions about what SegWit would do and I don't like that. It too should be done as a hard fork.


Bitcoin as a whole economy needs competition it doesn't currently have.

Classic could have provided that by being an alt-coin. They chose note to because if they did, then success of classic would mean a drop in value of the bitcoins they already hold and they are too greedy for that. So instead they chose to try and hijack Bitcoin.

nah blockstream should be the competitive altcoin.. wait.. , they are already trying that with LN and sidechains and liquid..

I understand your point and it's a problem IMO too, Currently a user needs days to fully download the chain and that would limit the number of normal nodes, and with that the specialized nodes can actually impact the network in a way.

Although this is a serious  issue in BitCoin, but this does not mean that due to this bitcoin will lose its popularity.
BTC has and will always find its way through difficulties and this time also Bitcoins miners will find a solution to this very
soon.

Bitcoin is also the first implementation of the idea.

It may be time for a better implementation of the idea. Multiple implementations.

The problem is greed, too many people are holding a lot of coins hoping to retire in luxury one day and that won't happen if Bitcoin takes the back seat to better implementations.

Bitcoin can't always add features because attempts to do so result in massive division in the community.

That's why alternatives that compete with bitcoin should implement the features.

You will never get a well recognized coin when you start over from start everytime large part of comunity disagrees with some feature and preffer new altcoin over compromise and continue with just Bitcoin.

There can be competing Bitcoin implementations with diferent features or even hardfork proposals, and free market decides what defines Bitcoin. This way you know you can trust Bitcoin evolves and stay as #1 cryptocurrency choice and not fragment to many altcoins or become obsolete, so whoever can compromise and respect others as well can continue using just Bitcoin, others can just switch to tens/hundreds of altcoins.

There is high incentive to just use Bitcoin and dont confuse regular users with tens/hundreds of different altcoins. The incentive is it is much easier to use just Bitcoin for most people.

Thanks, I'll obviously have to do some reading on SegWit to catch up.