the segwit softfork religious group want to pretend the utopian world they want is all smiley faced and perfect. what they fail to tell people is that current full nodes (fully verifying every transaction) get downgraded to "compatible nodes" just passing the parcel of data they cant verify.
they then say it doesnt matters, why do you care, if you want to be a full node then upgrade..(their arrogance that they way is gods way is highly visible)
so segwit is a security risk for current full nodes as they get castrated without choice if segwit gets implemented and they dont upgrade to the new religion.
what these segwit religious flock should be doing is having an implementation that is both segwit and 2mb, knowing that fullnodes want to be FULL NODES!!.. they would be upgrading anyway so its best to make it a good reason to upgrade.
and this 2mb blocklimit setting just sits there as a buffer still receiving 1mb blocks for a while until consensus has been reached when atleast 5000 of the 5500 fullnodes have upgraded.. and only then do miners start pushing out more than 1mb blocks..
but no... the segwit religion want to spout out their doomsday stories of chinese firewalls blocking anything more than 1mb (false doomsday story as segwit secretly pushes out more data for their Archival setting while leaving old fullnodes castrated)
but no the segwit religion want to spout out doomsday stories of multiple chains, (false story as the chains get orphaned if consensus isnt met)
so knowing that FULL NODES need to upgrade.. it just makes sense to add in all the demands of the community in one go and then let consensus control when miners should adapt (much later)
Topic: Why SegWit Soft Fork vs SegWit Hard Fork? (Read 538 times)
Some time ago, I read somewhere on this forum that a SegWit (or SepSig if you prefer) hard fork would be cleaner than a SegWit soft fork. I believe the same post implied that the soft fork technically took advantage of a potential vulnerability that should be closed. IIRC, the same post indicated that closing that potential vulnerability would require a hard fork. Now the article link posted at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/2016-01-27-erik-voorhees-two-moves-could-end-the-bitcoin-civil-war-1343346 indicates that the core team is planning on hard forking to 2-4-8 in addition to soft forking to SegWit. Given that last point, why on earth wouldn't we just add SegWit, close the potential vulnerability, and include the 2-4-8 change all in the same hard fork?
Jump to: