Quote from: gmaxwell on May 28, 2016, 09:28:31 PM

Quote from: franky1 on May 28, 2016, 09:23:32 PM

all i can see is them trying to downplay how they are reducing the FULL VALIDATING NODE count

All you can see is random distortions that confirm your world view. Clue up: You know that your Bitcoin Classic now doesn't check any signatures at all on blocks where the miner-provided timestamp in the header is a day old? If you're concerned about these details you should be rallying against "classic".

I gave you a long list of ways that segwit improves actual scalablity and all you can do is focus on skipping validation WHICH EVERY SINGLE EXISTING FULL NODE ALREADY SKIPS and on the _option_ of a possible new mode which someone could use when their alternative is to NOT RUN A NODE AT ALL. And you suggest that it's reducing something-- but you ignore classic's gutting of validation. Tisk tisk.

part of your delusion is that you think i was or am a classic fanboy..
sorry.. but im not

im independent and just want proper and logical scaling via the blocksize limit..
your attempts to try pushing anyone that wants scaling via a blocksize limit, into the classic camp is a narrow minded onesided and biased view..

please open the small box in your mind.. step out of it. and then look outside of the box..

Quote

WHICH EVERY SINGLE EXISTING FULL NODE ALREADY SKIPS and
...
classic's gutting of validation. Tisk tisk.

lol so he admits core is just as bad as classic because core must be in the "every single existing node" category

by the way i have never defended classic.. i think blockstream is just the same as R3 and both 'camps' are as bad as each other