Actually this reply was pretty pathetic lmao, he actually posted a reply
DAFAR ROFL more like JAFFAR
go back to your den
You keep ignoring how Andreas Antonopoulos is on our side. Answer: Are you going to call Andreas Antonopoulos a bankster? A Core shill? A blockstreamer? What are you call him now that Andreas agrees with Core's roadmap? Or you will keep ignoring the fact that the best experts on the field are all supporting Core's roadmap? What's your call on this? Is Roger Ver better than all of them you say?
Let me put this really simple for you.
I am against SegWit, not necessarily pro Bitcoin Unlimited. It just happens that BU has taken philosophically the correct approach to the problem.
The core should separate their enhancements into small packages and present each one to the community separately not in a foul umbrella package known as SegWit. Also I am against ugly hacks. The scaling fix should be simple and elegant aka just increasing the maximum block size.
Okay so let me get this right. What you are saying is, we should go against the opinion of experts such as Andreas Antonopoulos, which tell us how stupid it is to raise the blocksize before activating segwit, and instead listen to your opinion, or Roger Ver's opinion, because you somehow know better? Is this a fucking joke?
Nobody with a brain and invested money in Bitcoin is going to value some no nobodies opinion above Andreas and Core dev's. Get real.
I think he is asking you to engage your brain, understand the situation, and make a decision for yourself instead of making an appeal to authority. But I suppose that might be difficult if you don't have a strong background in CS, economics and game theory.
Adding a 1mb transaction size limit would fix the only legitimate issue I have heard about and would allow blocks to scale. Segwit is too big of a change to take lightly. It should be deployed on an alt coin first to allow testing. When it does come to bitcoin, it should be done as a hard fork so as not to leave nodes on the network who think they are fully validating when they are actually not. Or, the software could be changed to allow you to delete just the witness data as an alternative to pruning entire blocks, which is already supported. There is no reason you couldn't store the transaction chain without the witness data today. The only thing you gain with segwit is the ability to check block hashes after you delete witness data.