Quote from: chopstick on May 20, 2016, 06:43:12 PM

It's just a re-arrangement of information in the blocks, an accounting trick that is overly-complicated just to get a slight boost in transaction capacity. 2mb would be far more effective, simple and efficient. And that's what bitcoin needs right now - simple efficiency, not overly complicated solutions that require every single wallet's code to be completely rewritten just for one change to work.

Anyone who calls something as beneficial as Segwit a 'overly-complicated accounting trick' or 'accounting trick' in general can't be taken serious. Almost every single developer in the ecosystem appreciates/approves the development. The main idea behind Segwit is not capacity either.

Quote from: chopstick on May 20, 2016, 07:00:04 PM

2mb would be practically harmless.

Until someone sends a block that takes too long to validate.

Quote from: chopstick on May 20, 2016, 07:00:04 PM

There is no real immediate downside from such a small increase..

There is, and it is called a hard fork.

Quote from: chopstick on May 20, 2016, 07:00:04 PM

dissuading new bitcoin companies from opening up their doors because BTC can't scale, and pricing hundreds of users off the network, or causing their transactions to take 2-3 days in some cases, not to mention contributing to the rise of altcoins.

Just hyperbolic nonsense. All those altcoins suffer from the same problems (unless they're centralized or weakened by other means).

Quote from: paulh691 on May 20, 2016, 07:09:26 PM

lack of scaling to 2MB now mean bitcoin price is plunging

Hovering between $440 and $450 == plunging? Sound logic indeed. Roll Eyes