The levels of how low Ver and his shills can go got to rock bottom:
https://blog.bitcoin.com/the-story-of-how-bitcoin-was-compromised/They will rather see the whole concurrency idea damaged then to admit they blew it with their altcoin. They are not even hiding it any more, this is Bitcoin.com site, which many people can wrongly believe represents Bitcoin.
There is alot of truth mixed in there, people did not support Segwit because we were promised Seg2X.
That's bullshit. N0 one was promised Segwit2x. There was a backdoor agreement, aka NY agreement that some insiders attempted to play off as a possible path towards segwit2x, and it was a kind of hostage play that did not work out and kind of exploded when both the useractivated softfork and the BIP91 proposal allowed for a path of achieving consensus on segwit, prior to 2x. 2x was not test, and more importantly it was not as accepted by the bitcoin community as it was propagandized as being.... So, yeah, segwit2x was an attempted trick that backfired, rather than a "promise," as you assert.
There was a big setup there and people got played.
Sure some people got played, but that playing of people probably came more from the misleading aspects of the ny agreement, and folks within that agreement attempting to suggest more to come out of that (including the 2x aspect) than they were capable of delivering because for the most part, the bitcoin community did not want that 2x crap in part because 1) it had not been shown to be necessary, 2) had been tested and 3) was not even close to likely to receive consensus without at least establishing 1 & 2, first.
Bitcoin needs a dynamic block size but Asics can't handle it so basically it's being torn apart by greed. Bip 141.142 IIRc. Shit I can't remeber 6 months ago.
If bitcoin were to need a dynamic block size, then it seems that something like that would be implemented into it and achieved. Seem that currently, things are going pretty fucking well for bitcoin, in terms of the greater use of segwit, decent transaction times, relatively low fees, fending off and disincentivising spam attacks, progression of second layer solutions, such as lightning network, and actual real world evidence from the bcash shill nutjobs that BIG blocks are really stupid, unjustified and counter-productive, so those old talking points about the supposed emergency to "so something" with bitcoin, "anything", including "increasing the blocksize" are not convincing, and even some of the newbies are recognizing the value of bitcoin and the vacuousness of various "bitcoin is broken" talking points.
Either way everyone except the moneymen got played and BTC doesn't have a dynamic blocksize, thats pretty much the facts in my mind.
Funny that you are making your "bitcoin is broken" arguments in the bcash WO thread... Why not just join the Bcashers and build upon that BIG blocker confirmed platform? Anyhow, your facts about the "need" for a bitcoin dynamic block size seems to be weak at best, yet I still don't really understand why you complain about bitcoin when you gots ur selfie some bcash to work with that solves and focuses on that particular BIG blocker solution... What it wrong with that? Be gone to bcash, right?