Quote from: tomothy on February 18, 2016, 10:01:18 PM

Adam, I think you are 100% correct. But I am big block biased. However, statements speak for themselves.

Samson Mow ‏@Excellion 8h8 hours ago
1/ So to talk about safety @digitsu @olivierjanss, first we need to establish a common understanding. What is the end game?
4 retweets 3 likes
Reply Retweet 4
Like 3
More
Samson Mow ‏@Excellion 8h8 hours ago
2/ Are we taking about switching to Classic to reach 2MB via HF, and then back to Core after they follow with increase?
4 retweets 4 likes
Reply Retweet 4
Like 4
More
Samson Mow ‏@Excellion 8h8 hours ago
3/ Or is this a permanent switch to Classic forever whereby we abandon Core?
3 retweets 4 likes
Reply Retweet 3
Like 4
More
Samson Mow ‏@Excellion 8h8 hours ago
4/ and Core keeps writing code & fixing security issues to give to Classic team so they can merge and change 1 to 2 before re-releasing?
3 retweets 8 likes
Reply Retweet 3
Like 8
More
Samson Mow ‏@Excellion 8h8 hours ago
5/ If it's the latter, we should ask @petertoddbtc @morcosa @pwuille if they are okay with that arrangement. It's the polite thing to do.
3 retweets 7 likes
Reply Retweet 3
Like 7
More
Olivier Janssens ‏@olivierjanss 8h8 hours ago
@Excellion 1/ We're not here to replace core but to compete on merits. Our priority/goal is to scale Bitcoin on-chain first.
0 retweets 1 like
Reply Retweet
Like 1
More
Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc 8h8 hours ago
@olivierjanss @Excellion What's relevant here isn't Bitcoin Core vs Bitcoin Classic, but rather, Bitcoin protocol vs Classic protocol.
3 retweets 7 likes
Reply Retweet 3
Like 7
More
Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc 8h8 hours ago
@olivierjanss @Excellion Protocol competition is a winner take all, as there can only be one winning protocol w/o screwing up BTC economy.
3 retweets 4 likes
Reply Retweet 3
Like 4
More
Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc 8h8 hours ago
@olivierjanss @Excellion Alternative is protocol development _cooperation_, where compromises can be made between different parties.
3 retweets 6 likes
Reply Retweet 3
Like 6
More
Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc 8h8 hours ago
@olivierjanss @Excellion e.g. the Bitcoin Core scaling proposal is a significant compromise in how it uses segwit to increase blocksize.
1 retweet 3 likes
Reply Retweet 1
Like 3
More
Olivier Janssens ‏@olivierjanss 8h8 hours ago
@petertoddbtc @Excellion Compromise to who? Segwit is something Core proposed. Many people want 2MB HF first.
0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet
Like
More
Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc 8h8 hours ago
@olivierjanss @Excellion Segwit didn't need to be implemented as blocksize increase; using it to increase blocksize was a compromise.
1 retweet 3 likes
Reply Retweet 1
Like 3
More
User Actions
Following

Peter Todd
‏@petertoddbtc
@olivierjanss @Excellion There's many - including myself - who would prefer to do no increase at all for now. But we must compromise.

My understanding of Todd's position, is that Segwit IS the blocksize increase. /golfclap

The reason Todd and Blockstream want SegWit first is very simple.

LN requires SegWit in order to work, without SegWit LN is broken.

This is why they are pushing SegWit first. They know that if 2MB blocks happen, once everyone sees how easy it was it will become more difficult push SegWit onto the ecosystem. SegWit is a major overhaul and I could see many more miners and nodes dragging their feet on SegWit once they know the next 4MB change is easy too.