Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 21, 2016, 03:15:32 PM

Quote from: The00Dustin on July 21, 2016, 02:25:39 PM

3) The segwit soft fork that core is pushing so hard will allow existing full nodes to function, but they won't truly be functioning as full nodes were meant to anymore since they don't have all of the data to validate. Moreover, the newer version will support a "lighter" "full node" function that has these same flaws by design, while I'm not implying as much, this could be a false-flag-style attempt to reduce network security, so IMHO, your argument regarding power grabs seems to fall a bit short when you turn around and support core.

The SEGWIT represents progress and it no way or shape is a powergrab, it actually helps everyone, not to mention the lightning network which can really help bitcoin scale, and improve it in many ways. There are always pros and cons, but overall it's an improvement.

I agree that it represents progress, but I believe it should have been implemented as a hardfork to fix the very "softfork" security issues it takes advantage of and without the "lighter" "full nodes". However, my point above was that another of your anti-hardfork arguments isn't holding water.

Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 21, 2016, 03:15:32 PM

The ETH hardfork was a powergrab, a minority of people decided over a majority issue. Only the small nodes and miners could vote, so individual ETH investors were just spoonfed.

Thats not even a democracy to begin with, its just a tiny elite controlling the narrative.

I don't care enough about ETH to have an opinion here, but I already pointed out that not all hard forks are good in an earlier post, I'm only still commenting because not all hardforks are bad.