Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on February 19, 2016, 12:43:00 AM

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.

This doesn't refute my statements. I agree that economic nodes have the final vote.... they don't have to follow 95% of miners in a SF or HF.

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on February 19, 2016, 12:43:00 AM

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.

I believe you are being unreasonable by allowing segwit to be forced upon you if you believe it is wrong or sets a dangerous precedence. I support your right to reject segwit and find it completely unreasonable that you would ever acquiesce to anything you found dangerous or against your principles.

This being said.... most of the individuals , including myself , have been very nuanced about our objections of the HF and a 2MB maxblocksize increase. There are many circumstances where we would be happy to make further considerations towards and I have stated one in the past . Here is another to add to the list -

Past compromise proposal -
Deploy segwit in April as SF but lower signature size from 4x to 2x and adjust incentives as well
Plan for a 1.5MB max blocksize HF for 6 months from now with a 95% threshold and 28 day grace period

New compromise proposal -
Deploy segwit in April as SF but make signature merkle tree 1MB and remove incentives (unfortunately we lose some benefits here like Reducing UTXO growth but its a compromise)
Plan for a 2MB max blocksize HF for 6 months from now with a 95% threshold and 28 day grace period

I can be reasonable and cut down the HF window from normal 1year and offer a combined proposal.