Quote from: BitUsher on February 19, 2016, 12:26:14 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 18, 2016, 11:21:06 PM

Todd implied a one line change in his interview

ANOTHER LIE?

You sure have a funny way of reading between the lines. I didn't hear those insinuations at all.

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on February 18, 2016, 11:07:33 PM

That's the great thing about soft forks, they can be very contentious... but rammed through all the same.

Funny how you insinuate soft forks at a 95% threshold that don't boot anyone from the network is an imposition but a hardfork with a 75% threshold that does reject users upon activation is ok ...

I thought that miners can't make a change that a meaningful % of nodes don't want... with SFSW, they can. So we're back to defining contentious.

Quote from: BitUsher on February 19, 2016, 12:26:14 AM

Soft Forks cannot be contentious as core requires a 95 % threshold to activate. Soft Forks don't reject users from the network that don't want to update either. They can continue using bitcoin as normal with their old distro.

Let me clarify a few things :

1) User can still get the latest patches and releases and do not need to accept segwit ever .... Core is open source and another dev can pick and choose what they like out of future releases. In fact that is what classic has done and plans to do. So users can still be secure and never adopt segwit ever if they don't want its benefits.

2) Users who choose not to upgrade to segwit still validate not segwit transactions like normal... therefore nothing changes and them and their friends can continue to send txs to each other and fully validate all non segwit signatures. Older implementations that choose not to upgrade have absolutely no right to force those of us who do upgrade to give us our signatures of validation. If you don't like it than I suggest you reject our txs. By upgrading we acknowledge that we will only be relaying signatures for validation to upgraded nodes. There is no secret here , thats the way its designed.

Well, thanks for clearing that up. So long as no one sends me a segwit tx (which is now incentivized by being cheaper), nothing changes.

Look, here's the difference:

If miners decide to implement segwit, I go along with them by upgrading to a segwit capable full node.

If miners decide to implement 2MB max_block_size with a HF, your crew throws their toys out of the pram and creates an altcoin.

I leave it up to the reader to decide who is being more reasonable.