My vote still hasn't changed. Static is stupid.
Why pretend we're able to accurately forecast in advance how much space will be needed? It's anyone's best guess. So take the guesswork out of it and have the network adapt and react algorithmically, in real-time, to what's actually happening. All whilst still including sensible deterrents to disincentivise spamming or flooding the network. It's the only rational view. But still people argue about which arbitrary shot-in-the-dark integer is the better guesstimate. The answer is they're both equally witless and ill-conceived. We can and should do better.
Topic: referendum from all bitcoin hodlers (Read 371 times)
The problem now is that we have no choice but have to face one of the results in November. I just feel like it's so political. We , many bitcoin holders, don't have a voice about what what bitcoin holders want. It's pity that bitcoin don't have such functions like dash or byteball have. They can vote based on the amount of coins they holder.
I believe if bitcoin needs to increase it's blocksize to increaase transactions per minute and lower fees, than it would be welcome. Other than that I think bitcoin is doing well as it is, and don't need any kind of change.
Bitcoin's future is decided via trading on open market, people who are confident in Bitcoin buy and hodl, people who doubt and prefer alternative implementations like SegWit2x or Bcash should sell their BTC and buy their altcoin. Alternatively, some people just hodl or sell both coins. This trading process decides what coin is the most profitable to mine at the moment, and the chain with most PoW is the most secure.
Making poll on a forum is useless, since it doesn't take into account amount of coins users hold. So, you could slightly improve it by requiring people to sign a message to vote. But still it won't mean much, because you'd need a few millions worth of coin-votes to make some prediction, which you won't realistically find here. Also, people can just lie about their intentions.
There was no agreement between "sides", all NYA signatories are just miners and companies from Barry Silbert group. No Bitcoin devs, no Bitcoin users.
Making poll on a forum is useless, since it doesn't take into account amount of coins users hold. So, you could slightly improve it by requiring people to sign a message to vote. But still it won't mean much, because you'd need a few millions worth of coin-votes to make some prediction, which you won't realistically find here. Also, people can just lie about their intentions.
Agreements should be honored. One side got SegWit then other gets 2MB.
There was no agreement between "sides", all NYA signatories are just miners and companies from Barry Silbert group. No Bitcoin devs, no Bitcoin users.
Agreements should be honored. One side got SegWit then other gets 2MB.
Would you vote for
1. bitcoin should follow NYA and go to 2MB
or
2. follow bitcoin core and keep it at 1MB
If hard fork happens in November, which one should be called bitcoin?
1. bitcoin should follow NYA and go to 2MB
or
2. follow bitcoin core and keep it at 1MB
If hard fork happens in November, which one should be called bitcoin?
For me i still prefer in old bitcoins all i just want is a fastest way of transact also a cheapest way of payment just like before
neither of these.
i am not going to say no to 2 MB hard fork but i won't accept it either because it is too soon.
SegWit is a capacity increase already and we need to activate it first, then let it be around for a while and work to see how it is and then if the hard fork was really needed we can have a good plan, test things properly, add a replay protection and then go for it.
right now it seems like a half assed rushed thing which many are against it.
i am not going to say no to 2 MB hard fork but i won't accept it either because it is too soon.
SegWit is a capacity increase already and we need to activate it first, then let it be around for a while and work to see how it is and then if the hard fork was really needed we can have a good plan, test things properly, add a replay protection and then go for it.
right now it seems like a half assed rushed thing which many are against it.
Amen. This has become a pissing contest at this point, especially given the antics that went on yesterday. I no longer feel anyone has a best interest for the community; everyone honestly seems to be furthering their agenda/ stash of coins. We need to scale, yes, but agree all this is too fast too soon. Don't know why everything has to happen right now; we aren't even addressing how the fiat markets and Wall Street factor into bitcoin price (this really, really isn't a good time). A perfect storm is looming; and I have no idea what is going to happen here.
Would you vote for
1. bitcoin should follow NYA and go to 2MB
or
2. follow bitcoin core and keep it at 1MB
If hard fork happens in November, which one should be called bitcoin?
1. bitcoin should follow NYA and go to 2MB
or
2. follow bitcoin core and keep it at 1MB
If hard fork happens in November, which one should be called bitcoin?
For me i still prefer in old bitcoins all i just want is a fastest way of transact also a cheapest way of payment just like before
neither of these.
i am not going to say no to 2 MB hard fork but i won't accept it either because it is too soon.
SegWit is a capacity increase already and we need to activate it first, then let it be around for a while and work to see how it is and then if the hard fork was really needed we can have a good plan, test things properly, add a replay protection and then go for it.
right now it seems like a half assed rushed thing which many are against it.
i am not going to say no to 2 MB hard fork but i won't accept it either because it is too soon.
SegWit is a capacity increase already and we need to activate it first, then let it be around for a while and work to see how it is and then if the hard fork was really needed we can have a good plan, test things properly, add a replay protection and then go for it.
right now it seems like a half assed rushed thing which many are against it.
I vote for both and want to see a hard fork. Only then we will finally learn, witch chain of the bitcoin family works best for what use case (digital gold, vs digital currency, vs digital micro or nano payment)-
Like in world religions there does not need to be a clear winner, as all share a similar vision and common root. With peaceful coexistence of the various bitcoins, we all win.
Like in world religions there does not need to be a clear winner, as all share a similar vision and common root. With peaceful coexistence of the various bitcoins, we all win.
Would you vote for
1. bitcoin should follow NYA and go to 2MB
or
2. follow bitcoin core and keep it at 1MB
If hard fork happens in November, which one should be called bitcoin?
1. bitcoin should follow NYA and go to 2MB
or
2. follow bitcoin core and keep it at 1MB
If hard fork happens in November, which one should be called bitcoin?
Jump to: