Quote from: BitUsher on January 22, 2016, 08:44:24 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 22, 2016, 08:29:34 PM

well i agree completely but i also think 95% is unrealistic because if it was that clear, there wouldn't be an issue. 75% feels like the right number.
I think two coins would be bad. one united bitcoin is ideal.

You think 2 competing coins is bad but are ready to risk it with a low 75%? We have already have had multiple soft forks with 95% so I don't understand why you believe that is unachievable especially when the polls indicate that over 95% of the miners are ok with 2MB HF. The core devs are also ok with a 2MB hardfork in feb/march 2017 bringing it to an effective 4MB. So the only real contention is the the timeline ... but that can't possibly be the case because even with an extremely rushed HF, segwit is going live before or near the same time as classic bringing a similar capacity increase... which leads me to think that the true number classic wants is 4MB or higher capacity by mid 16' where they do a BIP 102 bump and than copy cores work on segwit.

So if its really 4MB on the chain what is wanted this year ... do you think a compromise can be made where the 4MB+ capacity(likely higher because LN may roll out this year too) can be accelerated to later this year(Pieter already said that with high consensus a 6 month HF may be possible) instead of March 17' if we work together on the node drop off rate, talking about an IETF governance model for devs and mining centralization problems? Is this something even worth pursuing you think or are there other needs not being met?

What I fear is that it really isn't about 2MB or even 4MB ... but this is BIP 101 which is the highest voted for proposal. https://bitcoin.consider.it/
Are my fears unfounded... or are those numbers right and Bitcoin classic is merely a re-branded XT? If it isn't than surely a compromise for and effective 4MB can be found ... right?

I would risk it with 75% because:

1) I don't trust core to put the interests of
the community before Blockstream's interests

and

2) I don't necessarily agree with their
vision of how to scale Bitcoin. I think
main chain scaling should be the priority
as envisioned by Satoshi.

and

3) I don't think they should be in
charge any longer.

I'm not looking to persuade anyone of
my opinion, just stating it for the record.