Quote from: xyzzy099 on March 16, 2016, 05:41:54 PM

Quote from: ChronosCrypto on March 16, 2016, 05:40:24 PM

Quote from: xyzzy099 on March 16, 2016, 05:27:55 PM

Quote from: ChronosCrypto on March 16, 2016, 05:25:45 PM

No need to attack with sarcasm.

If you are addressing that to me, I assure you my reply was not meant to be sarcastic at all. Not sure how anyone could take it that way.

Oh, my bad, I should have been more clear. It's directed at statements like this:

Quote from: jl777 on March 16, 2016, 05:09:39 PM

it is better for bitcoin to require trust

Isnt it nice to have all the hard choices made for you. We can trust in the math done by the central planners. Dont worry, be happy.

Yeah, I agree with that. I was really interested in reading this thread 'til that comment made it political.

I did not make this a political thing.
segwit is marketed as a way to enable scaling, when it is no such thing.

my analysis so far is that it creates a much more complicated error prone system with potential attack vectors that is not peer reviewed that reduces the ability to scale. Maybe my problem is that I am just not smart enough to understand it well enough to appreciate it?

but in some weeks it will be softforked, so its ok, there is no need to worry about it.

so if the bitcoin supply is increased to 1 billion with a softfork, that's ok?

All I see is that segwit tx requires more work, more space, more confusion, but we do end up where there are tx in the blockchain that need to be trusted. bitcoin becomes partly a trusted ledger, but ripple is doing fine, so why not