Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on December 12, 2015, 11:53:14 PM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on December 12, 2015, 11:33:25 PM

Garzik already submitted BIP102, which I think would be an acceptable "can kick" to further study the issue and possible solutions... The conference is over, and there is no plan in sight. I don't really think a controversial overhaul of the system in the form of SegWit is going to offer any relief, any time soon.

heh, so that's the disingenuous spin you guys are going to use for redditard herp's consumption is it? Any of the latest breakthrough improvements that are not approved by the benevolent, wise, central committee guardians and protectors of the free shit derp army are now going to be a "controversial overhaul of the system" ??

Unless of course we raised blocksize (bigger fat wheels are ok for the beer-can hat brigade).

I'm still weighing SegWit's costs and benefits... but I know it will be controversial. In fact it seems to be your camp that is suffering defections.

You made the bed with Mircea, now lie in it.

Quote from: hdbuck on December 11, 2015, 12:01:58 AM

salt..

Quote

This denigration of signatures represents nothing less than an attack on the primacy of cryptography in cryptocurrency. The blockchain represents a complete and verifiable historical record of every transaction and balance in Bitcoin. Attacking verifiability by lopping off signatures in a misguided effort to cram more transactions into a megabyte. This leaves a eunuch which is no longer the virile Bitcoin we love. As signatures fade into history, cryptographic certainty is replaced by faith and hope.

Quote

Ultimately, it is about increasing the number of places where Bitcoin can break and reducing the prominence of cryptography in cryptocurrency.

http://qntra.net/2015/12/after-xt-failure-gavin-andresen-supports-jim-crow-for-signatures-on-the-blockchain/

and pepper... http://trilema.com/2015/theres-a-one-bitcoin-reward-for-the-death-of-pieter-wuille-details-below/