Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 17, 2016, 03:11:12 PM

Quote from: BitUsher on January 17, 2016, 03:09:00 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 17, 2016, 03:06:53 PM

This bolded bit is an odd thing to say. Some really bright folks think we can have both.

Bitcoin Classic Is just BIP102 without Segwit , and would be a more interesting choice if it really did include both. As of right now Core + Segwit appears to be the better option. Perhaps another implementation is needed to differentiate itself enough.

One day this war has to end. Undecided

To me it doesn't have to be a civil war... If we look at the specific proposals from a technical perspective and remove the politicas and characters we can make a decision with better clarity and without much contention.

I would likely choose to support Bitcoin Classic if it was BIP 102 + Segwit and attracted some more devs. As it stands right now , it simply is a less impressive proposal. When the technical merits are discussed and compared all I hear is vague allusions to the complexity and danger to segwit , when anyone who has really studied the changes in code and what has been tested knows that it really isn't that dangerous and in some aspects less dangerous being a soft-fork.

What would impress me is if Core and Classic made a commitment to work together and defined certain specific proposals.
If I understand Garzik's largest contention is that a sudden change in the economic model with a fee market event is dangerous and we need to study the economic effects first. I am sympathetic to Garzik's position but honestly don't assume that a fee market event is necessarily a bad thing to approach at the moment.

I am certainly open to any ideas or proposals as to ways we can simulate this beforehand and am willing to contribute towards this effort. Part of me is doubtful that this can be done and thinks that perhaps it needs to be tested live eventually but I am open to suggestions.