Quote from: BitUsher on January 16, 2016, 03:49:41 AM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on January 16, 2016, 03:32:24 AM

I must admit that you sound like a pretty reasonable person, so I'll go easy...

50% of the hashrate basically just said NACK to Core's Roadmap.

Either the Blockstream devs and their wizards quickly alter course and are able to maintain and grow the shreds of support they still possess... or we are very likely to have a "contentious" and quickly decided fork this spring. Out of those 45... how many do you think will #ragequit and never work on Bitcoin again because they couldn't keep 1MB and pave the way for LN and Blockstream products?

49% of the hashing power said "Ack" to to the idea of 2MB(which segwit essentially does). They are still all running core. We cannot assume their intentions towards acking Bitcoin classic 2MB until they actually change their code. My guess is there will be some consensus made between Core and Classic or some of that hashing power will just except Core + segwit if it gets rolled out ontime and merely acked classic because they wanted to reach consensus and move forward and would be happy with either classic or core + segwit.

If you have evidence that those miners oppose segwit and simply want BIP102 without segwit than please let me know.

I personally would be happy with either proposal , but am slightly inclined to core for obvious technical reasons. Can you explain to me why BIP102 is technically better than core + segwit?

You honestly think these miners would do this [endorse Classic]... if they were happy about the roadmap? Look what it did to the price today... they are in it for the long term, even willing to take a huge hit in the price today to secure a more certain and prosperous tomorrow.

Some elements of segwit are likely to be introduced if their benefits outweigh the costs of complexity, and with the clarity/cleaness of a hard fork, the market will control the introduction and timing of such a solution.