I am not convinced that Core will increase the blocksize. I think it would be wrong to expect people to "trust" Core to do this. Remember that all that Core needs to do is stall and delay, this would bring about the early "fee market" which they have been advocating for, which is in direct opposition to many peoples wishes and the original vision of Satoshi.
The roadmap is very clearly laid out.
Indeed there is no direct blocksize increase through a hardfork that is planned for the foreseeable future.Instead we get immediate 75% increase through an uncontentious, backward compatible softfork which also brings about significant improvements in other aspects of the protocol.
Spare us the rest of your FUD. If we can't trust Core with the aforementioned proposal then who should we trust or whose plan should we favor?
I don't see any team proposing anything remotely as sound and well thought out so maybe you can enlighten me?
Spare us your FUD. You lost, get over it and stop being so impressed by the charlatans over at bitco.in. If you don't want to save yourself no one can.
Segregated witnesses will take a significant amount of time to implement, it will take at least two years before we could even expect this to be implemented throughout the entire ecosystem, which is what would be required in order to bring about this increase. Furthermore hard forks should be preferred because they act as an important governance mechanism which allows people to protest by not updating their clients thereby splitting the network, this is why I believe Core is so afraid of doing hard forks, this should be embraced as a feature instead of being considered as a flaw within the protocol to be avoided.
Instead of trusting any singular organization, we should distribute this power across multiple implementations, this is how mining and nodes are decentralized after all. The same principle should apply to development. So far we have three alternative implementations that support an increased blocksize. Bitcoin Unlimited and XT are both forks of Core so they will continue to take advantage of all of the developments and advances within Core. Btcd has been written from scratch on the other hand, a completely unique implementation, which will also make the network more robust and resilient, since not having a monoculture of implementations would make the Bitcoin protocol more healthy over the long run.
If you are asking me who you should trust then I can respond by saying that you should not trust anyone. Bitcoin achieves trust without centralized authority, if Bitcoin needs to relly upon a centralized group of technocrats like Core in order to survive then the experiment has proven that Bitcoin does not work, this would defeat the very purpose of its existance so to speak. You might think that it is fine that we will be reliant upon third parties in order to effictivly and cheaply transact in Bitcoin if the blocksize is not raised. I disagree and I do not think it is justified for this group of technocrats to change the economic policy of Bitcoin which many people like myself did initialy sign up for. If Core does not increase the blocksize, which now does seem to be the case, I am certain that we will see the network fork, most likely causing a split depending upon the support either side might have.
I am starting to think that this is the best solution, there are irronconcielable ideological differences here, that seem irresolvable otherwise, at least this way we will all still have the Bitcoin we want. I also think that this bests reflects the ethos of freedom and decentralization within Bitcoin.