I can't believe you actually consider segwit (on it's own) to be a solution to anything.
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.
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.
Segwit on it's own solves the transaction malleability problem, thus enabling payment channels and true scaling at Layer 2.
Is that clear enough? I doubt it's possible to explain this idea using smaller words or a shorter sentence.
2mb, like segwit's ~1.75mb, is also a "slight boost in transaction capacity." I'm not sure how you've convinced yourself there's a huge "far more effective" difference between their tps increases.
A contentious hard fork is anything but "simple and efficient." Didn't you notice that at some point during the last year of XT and Klassik debacles? I guess the phrase "catastrophic consensus failure" is absent from your conceptual database.
How can you be so sure of yourself and so wrong about the facts? Are you Mike Hearnia or something?
Most modern wallets will support segwit, just as they are starting to support RBF. That's progress, and it didn't require the wallets to be "completely rewritten."
Take your ignorance and malicious falsehoods back to rbtc. They have no power here.
