Quote from: Quantus on January 12, 2016, 08:44:42 AM

Quote from: Lauda on January 12, 2016, 07:09:33 AM

Quote from: franky1 on January 12, 2016, 01:23:03 AM

block hard limit increased to 2mb (allowing for more than 2mb potential for SW lite wallet)

the relay data is by default set to send signatures. even with SW miners. but anyone can if they are SW upgraded, can handshake with their peer to not request signatures as a non-default option. allowing old clients to still have some purpose, (no immediate castrations) while fanboys betatest new implementations live. and review if the masses should upgrade afterwards

I have already suggested a combination of 2 MB and Segwit. According to other sources this combination would be the same as a direct increase of the block size to 4 MB which is generally not believe to be safe (again, not my words) until some better technologies are implemented like IBLT. IMO the lack of conversation between users and developers is kind of bad. I've only tried to contact some of them a few times on IRC but have had only luck once (for only a few questions). Maybe Segwit would be properly explained and people like you wouldn't fight it.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on January 12, 2016, 01:29:08 AM

This is where having multiple alternative implementations becomes very important for the governance mechanism of Bitcoin to work effectively.

I still disagree with this. Just because you are in disagreement with their way of scaling (for '16) that does not mean that multiple alternative implementations are necessary/important. Technically if SegWit works properly we should have enough time to increase the block size in late 2016/early 2017.

Quote from: jbreher on January 12, 2016, 03:53:59 AM

Imma replace my Core node with BU.

Welcome to the dark side Luke.

what is this Bitcoin BU every one is excited about?

bitcoin unlimited, as in unlimited blocksize..

whatver rocks the derps bloat.