Topic: If we didnt had idiots blocking segwit we would be sittting on 4 figures by now - page 2. (Read 7300 times)

The majority of the whole ecosystem doesn't give a shit about that...the most prominent names wants Segwitt because Segwitt is technical better and gives more security.

We should not have SegWit, never. Instead we should have the following features as proper and clean protocol upgrade:
* TX malleability fix
* payment channels
* fix to signature verification DOS attack vector
* block size dictated by the free market

SegWit as soft fork should be rejected at all cost, it's pure evil. However, all the features in this ugly hack SegWit should be implemented independently of each other and elegantly code-wise.

The only reason Core devs mixed all these fixes together in the abomination they call SegWit is to obfuscate the codebase of Bitcoin so that they would expand their control over Bitcoin even more. And the worst part about obscure code is that it could contain vulnerabilities (possibly deliberately injected). Heartbleed of OpenSSL anyone? Do you really want it to happen to Bitcoin too? It's much easier to review new features that are implemented independently of each other. So why didn't Core add them as such? Because soft fork is so much better? Yeah right, backwards compatibility is false advertising because SegWit isn't really backwards compatible since it requires super consensus to activate. So does a proper protocol upgrade.

If we have both the big block size increase and segwit, that will be excellent.

Everything SegWit claims to accomplish can be accomplished without SegWit. What is more, it can be done in a clean and elegant manner. For some reason Core devs have taken a route to implement all those nice features in a really ugly and disgusting manner, all messed up in some freakish pseudo-soft-fork. This is not how Bitcoin should be developed. A proper protocol upgrade is needed which would not be backwards compatible with the old protocol. SegWit isn't backwards compatible anyway, they just deceivingly call it as such.

Anti SegWit position does not equate to anti Lightning Network.
Lightning Network can be enabled in way that it would not depend on an ugly hack called SegWit. Bitcoin protocol should be correctly upgraded to support payment channels. This should be done separately from other features. All the fixes and enhancements SegWit has bundled should be delivered to the community one-by-one. That way the Core devs would have no excuse to write ugly and unmaintainable hacks in the code. They would be forced to actually improve the architecture of Bitcoin properly. If you care about the future of Bitcoin, reject SegWit. SegWit is not the only solution to Transaction Malleability. It is just one of the many ways how to do it and it is one of the worst ways for sure.

Just because we don't have better alternatives right now on the table does not mean we should accept such an abomination. It is critical not to accept SegWit because that step cannot be taken back. In these kinds of situations where steps cannot be taken back later on it is absolutely vital to take the best possible step. SegWit is not the best possible step. It's too big of a bite and it's ugly as hell. I'd suggest taking smaller steps and being more sure that what we do does not need to be reverted in the future. For that reason I suggest raising the block size limit with the help of Bitcoin Unlimited while proper and elegant fixes are developed for TX malleability.

In a perfect situation SW and LN will be what will drive Bitcoin faster than ever to mass adoption since it then is able to compete with the centralized big boys. But we all know how diffitcult it is to reach concensus among pools to even accept SW, how will that be with LN which certain "high level entities" and pools also don't seem to be a huge fan of as they believe it isn't Bitcoin anymore. For now it's waiting to see pools reach consensus to see how Litecoin adapts to SW once implemented. But again, reaching concensus forms a familiar obstacle...

The only way bitcoin can compete with visa is through the second layer solutions, there is no other way to do it, so we can only hope that we get LN as soon as possible, and segwit too since segwit improves the LN experience.

We will see what happens, but either BTC gets second layer solved appropriately or it will remain a better gold.

You are very wrong on that. The opposing side thinks that BTC should fight vs. Visa. However, Bitcoin can not compete vs. the likes of Visa in this regard. LN solves your fee and throughput concerns. You lock-in funds once by paying a higher fee, and afterwards you can do a infinite number of TXs (in theory) within LN. Fees are smaller and TXs are faster.

You do realize that the fees were higher sometime in the past? You can't artifically force down the market-driven fee-rate every time Bitcoin's value goes up.

The Core team is by far bigger and more experienced. In comparison, Classic has 1 developer, BU has 4-5.

I've no clue on who is correct on this block size debate..I will say again that from what I can tell the bitcoin core devs have no care about transaction fee rises nor confirmation times or other stuff that makes BTC anything remotely like being used as currency..they see BTC as a store of value (gold) only it seems to me...thus as long as price rises and no protocol to go over the current block size...they will call it a win and move on imho

not a happy camper about the lack of talk between the 2 camps on a solution ..but again feel as long as price of btc rises and works as a store of value...bitcoin core folk will just putter along with their vision..thus stalemate on this issue far into the future

maybe bitcoin core is correct and it don't matter ..but the FUD just sucks on the lack of even discussion on somehting in between..but again don't code nor know zip on which camp is right nor even if it matters....just what I THINK I am following from the bleachers...from the actions of all involved...it kinda looks lame for the above reasons to me anyway..this lack of any real movement or attempt to work it out

The author of that article is an outright and delusional troll. It was refuted easily by Maxwell: http://www.deadalnix.me/2017/02/27/segwit-and-technologies-built-on-it-are-grossly-oversold/#comment-357655

SegWit and technologies built on it are grossly oversold (Posted on February 27, 2017)

Final nail to the coffin of SegWit. It is now proven to be not delivering on its promises. Check out the above article.

I hope SegWit gets rejected fast because it's holding back bitcoin from boosting into 5 figures. SegWit is like a sore loser who is unwilling to get out of the way when obviously the majority does not like it and wants it gone. It will never get activated it will just sit on there and hold everything back like a douchebag.

But two high fee will deter new users. We need to expand the market first.

look at Dogecoin and you see why we don't have billion coins. and also remember that currently the max number of coins are not 21 million bitcoins, but there are 21million*10^8 coins available, more than enough for everyone.
people seem to forget that there is no such thing as "bitcoin" and there is only satoshi as far as code is concerned.


yeah everything is ok if you are a miner with old computers not willing to upgrade. and want to earn higher fees because of the fee wars.
and yeah i am sick of the fear too, i am also sick and tired of all this drama for block size.
and yeah bitcoin has been fine for the past 7 years but it is starting to not be fine anymore.

wait a while and let more people adopt bitcoin, start making more transactions and when mempool started being at 60K transactions and when you had to pay 0.01BTC for your transaction fee let's meet again and see if you still feel the same way.

poeple will fork bitcoin...

Their hardware is worthless for every altcoin except namecoin.

$75 million cheque from AXA and a weekly wage is the only thing that is making them try to funnel the tx's into something they can control and  charge for.....

They would mine ltc or something else....

This guy gets it! Let the free market sort it out, or should I say "fee market" ? 
Now that we have child-pays-for-parent and dynamic TX fee estimation BTC is just fine the way it is. You can do your beggar's microtransactions with doge, eth and other shitcoins. Leave BTC for the lambos. However, I'd really like to see the block size also be determined by the free market the way Bitcoin Unlimited sees it. If your block is too big for the network to swallow it will be orphaned which gives incentive for the miners to use effective block sizes. I don't know what's wrong with the brains of the SegWit boys, they just refuse to see the light.

forking without segwit is not a mistake if most people want higher block size.

Agreed - this is why altcoins can be useful, and shouldn't all be generalized as shit[coins].

While I want bitcoin to succeed, I'd love to see how big miners react if btc was suddenly destroyed  What would they even do? Imagine the rage...mass suicides...what would come of the mining farms? 

+1

I would be okay with a market determined blocksize (i.e. BicoinUnlimited), but I don't think it is necessary for bitcoin to succeed.  However I feel it would be safe because miners won't make (or build on) blocks that don't pay enough to cover the long term storage costs.  They aren't running a charity.  A hard limit was only necessary initially because the cost of orphan risk was essentially nil.  Now it is quite expensive to have your block rejected by your mining peers.

More complex changes are too risky.  If we blow up bitcoin, we may well lose our shot at gaining an honest monetary system.