A client can do things. Miners decide if they use it. The ceo and customers can only petition the client maintainers.
You must have misunderstood my point, but nevermind.
Can kicking is preferable to nothing. Unless you have a strong motive to do nothing?
In what world does SegWit equal to 'doing nothing'? The time needed for SegWit will probably be very similar to the time at which the fork would active (if Classic had enough support). So it is not really a question about time.
I want segwit. I think its great, because its a big help to getting LN. I really want LN, because I think that its an essential part of the road to allowing crypto replace fiat. I think blockstream are probably not bad guys. I'm open to the idea that not everything will be done on chain, and that's ok (provided Layer-N solutions share the same key attributes of being open source, peer to peer, do not require the use of their party, allows you to be your own bank etc)
What I don't want is all the bullshit. 2MB is nothing. Its just a contingency.
The scaling roadmap accepts it as viable.
Adam Back accepts it is viable.
A whole bunch of miners have agreed it is viable. There is overwhelming support for it, and yet core won't merge it. This is absolutely the antithesis to the idea that bitcoin is decentralised. A few people are controlling bitcoin development and that is a fact. It is centralised right now.
The massive amounts of fud that has been posted ever since there has been any sniff of alternative implementations. Lets indulge the conspiracy theory that Hearn was an insider and that the extra stuff he put in XT was 'bad'. XT is off the table. Lets indulge the idea that 8MB with 2^n scaling was over zealous. BIP101 is off the table. Lets now take a look at the massive reduction in scope and resource usage in the latest proposal for a short term fix to the potential risks of persistently full blocks that classic is offering. 2MB with no further predefined scaling (possibly no opt in RBF).
Running classic is not the threat to the network that certain people would have you beleive. If enough people run it then maybe blocks bigger than 1MB will be mined, up to a maximum of 2MB. If there is no need then block sizes won't even go up that much, if block suddenly jump to 2MB then its clear there was definitely a need! Increasing the block size to 2MB doesn't mean I wont every transaction on chain, it doesn't mean that I think that increasing blocksize increases the scalability of bitcoin, it doesn't mean that I think increasing the blocksize limit is the *only* solution to increasing throughput.
It just means that I think blocks are filling up so it would be prudent to give some headroom. There is nothing nefarious about it, there is nothing uneducated about it there is no massive threat to decentralisation. Nothing more than capacity planning. Remember I am *for* LN, I am for segwit, I don't think that short term headroom is any threat to those things. moving from 3-7 TPS to 6-14 does not mean that suddenly we don't need real scaling solutions!!!
Core could gracefully acknowledge that perhaps on this one thing they might have been wrong, or they could instead make threats about switching POW algorithms to try and maintain their grip on the one true bitcoin. Are they really going to do that over this one issue,
is gmaxwell *that* obstinate, are the the other devs really going to back him?
Doing the latter though is just more of that bullshit that *nobody* wants.
Alternative implementations are not a threat they are a means to the end of consensus. Luke-jr has it right:
[–]
luke-jr Bitcoin Expert 2 points 1 year ago
If the majority of nodes ran btcd, the protocol would de facto be defined by btcd - you are correct.
..snip...
