Quote from: marky89 on March 17, 2016, 09:39:29 PM

Quote from: franky1 on March 17, 2016, 09:33:13 PM

Quote from: marky89 on March 17, 2016, 09:24:33 PM

Quote from: franky1 on March 17, 2016, 09:15:30 PM

Quote from: marky89 on March 17, 2016, 08:26:57 PM

Side note: Wasn't Classic being passed off as nothing but a bump to 2MB, because of the controversial changes that were coded into XT? What else is Gavin planning on slipping in?

what else is luke Jr planning on slipping into core..
what else is Sipa planning on slipping into core..

its a bit of tit-for-tat

Luke and Sipa are not releasing a contentious hard fork. Gavin is.

And Classic is presenting that hard fork as "a one-feature patch to bitcoin-core that increases the blocksize limit to 2 MB." Is that really the case?

See https://bitcoinclassic.com/

Says it right on the front page. Further, Luke and Sipa can't just slip anything into Core anyway. Not at all. Core has a drawn-out code review process that prevents anything like that. Classic has only a few developers and no peer review. Big difference.

luke is proposing a hard fork.. to mess with the difficulty purely so his eligius pool can survive a few more weeks after the reward halving..
it might be worth to investigate blockstream just as much as any other bitcoin development group.

by the way there are 12 groups.. not two. so feel free to expand your mind, and to be less blindly faithful to one team

Don't confuse things: I am faithful to the protocol's consensus mechanism, NOT "a team." Core happens to be the only "team" that respects consensus in this debate.

Regarding this alleged hard fork, link to the BIP? I'm fairly sure you're mischaracterizing, as usual.

No comments on the fact that Classic is selling itself as "a one-feature patch to bitcoin-core that increases the blocksize limit to 2 MB"....when things like SPV mining are being coded into the software? Seems pretty shady.

blockstream just as shady.
did you know that a segwit+confidential payment codes while sticking to the 1mb maxblocksize limit actually has a real data value of 2.85mb thanks to the twisting of data. and allows for only a potential 3800 transactions.
whilst a simple 2mb maxblocksize allows a potential 4000tx for 2mb.

oh and here is a link to luke Jr wanting to throw in a difficulty twisting hard for with only a 3 month grace period (#GracePeriodHypocracy)
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-March/012489.html

enjoy.
it seems instead of thinking of a community effort where blockstream adds in the 2mb buffer to protect the community against possible consensus. you believe that blindly following them that delaying any release of code is good. that is not consensus, that is causing contention.

basically by not supplying the code they are the cause of the contention that they scream would be the result of no consensus.. yet if they release the code then everyone can have it and then there is no contention.

stop blindly following blockstream. put on your unbiased hat and think about the community as a whole not your favouritism towards one corporation.

there is no 2mb classic vs segwit blockstream debate.
there is only "when will 2mb+segwit be active" debate. (both features working together)