iCE, have you had enough time to decide if segwit is an attack on Bitcoin Classic?
I'm very happy to finally have a decent plan (besides Dr. Back's extension blocks) on the shelf for use in the (potentially disastrous) event of Actual Widespread Adoption.
Segwit seems to kill 10 birds with one stone, so I don't have a problem with it continuing to percolate through the BIP process.
No firm opinion yet on doing it as a hard or soft fork. Soft seems better if done electively (because fight features), hard if done in crisis mode.
Have the Gavinistas decided on whether or not segwit is a good thing or a tool of Blockstream Satan?
Is there a schism between the pro-segwit XTurds and anti-segwit Unlimiturds?
Nah, my impression is that most in favor of moving past 1MB soon(er than 2017) think segwit can be quite beneficial, but probably better/cleaner as a hard fork.
The only one going to war with segwit seems to be MP and his toadies.
I'm not the only one who instinctively fights features, and brg (one of MP's best toadies) seems generally fine with segwit. To reiterate/clarify, I don't support elective segwit implementation nearly as strongly as a ready-to-go 'break glass in case of fire' backup plan.
Segwit isn't something that can happen over night. It will take a massive upgrade of all wallets, services, etc, to use it effectively. So... emergency deployment isn't exactly ideal or even realistic.
Bitcoin may not need segwit to get the list of goodies (malleability prevention, etc.) associated with it, just as it may not need (transaction) blocks >1MB to scale. There may be better ways to prevent malleability, etc. so we don't want to risk ossification with the wrong (but good enough) solution. I trust the BIP process and the socioeconomic majority's marketplace of ideas will figure it out.
You're right, for a certain level of activity, it could stay exactly the same as it is today... this is the "security" through obscurity route.
Are XTurd and Unlimiturd both going to add segwit?
I assume so, if they actually want to continue verifying blocks. All previous versions of core will become glorified SPV+ nodes after the soft fork.
I can't wait to start generating 16MB blocks construed so as to take 128 minutes to verify. Once your derp forks' chain(s?) cannot be verified in real time (and it becomes impossible to bootstrap new full nodes) it's game over. Unless Mikey "Final Call" Hearn wants to sit around forever checkpointing out troll blocks....
This assumes miners are idiots and will sit there for 128 min trying to verify a block rather than build on a longer chain of smaller, shorter blocks. Also, you're being absolutist here, many would be satisfied with 2MB to study the effects on nodes, gain time to carefully and methodically roll out segwit, and time to plan a more permanent solution.
