Quote from: Westin Landon Cox on January 16, 2016, 08:59:40 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 16, 2016, 08:54:28 PM

Quote from: uvwvj on January 16, 2016, 08:52:24 PM

Brg444 #REKT
Theymos #REKT

Actually I think Theymos is backing Classic now.

It would be surprising if Theymos were really backing Classic. Your assertion prompted me to look through some of his recent reddit comments. Here's one from "1 day ago":

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/40zs8h/instead_of_whining_about_the_block_size_we_better/cyywmvg

Quote from: theymos_on_reddit

If you change Classic's rollout mechanism to just a flag day 6 months from when it's introduced, it looks reasonably safe to me. There may still be problems with worst-case blocks taking many minutes to verify, though.

SegWit basically does the same thing, though, and better. With the Core roadmap, we'll have blocks effectively 2 MB in size in only around 4 months, and it'll be backward-compatible. Also very important is that it enables future deployment of fraud proofs, which will make Bitcoin way stronger against attacks by miners (a serious concern with the existing amount of miner centralization). It also fixes the slow verification issue. Late this year a "real" max block size increase following something like Classic's design can be scheduled. So the Classic change seems entirely worse to me, especially when so many experts have signed onto the Core roadmap.

(To be clear: I'm talking about the changes in Bitcoin Classic. Since Bitcoin Classic implements a contentious hardfork, I wouldn't support it unless it actually overtakes the economy.)

What he seems to be missing is that the "Classic" dev team is capable of implementing these additional features as well. The forking debate isn't about deciding on particular features or technologies. It's about choosing a management team. The current core team has proven that they're either incompetent or corrupt. Either way, it's time to fire them.