You're suggesting that the Bitcoin user base bets the farm on an untested codebase, never operated in the wild, running an entire economy? Can you see why a rational Bitcoin user wouldn't be interested in experimenting like that? 
It might just be a more rigorous approach to never bet on contentious forks, and just bet on promising altcoins instead. Because if the market makes a poor choice of fork, that altcoin is going to be all you've got left.
It might just be a more rigorous approach to never bet on contentious forks, and just bet on promising altcoins instead. Because if the market makes a poor choice of fork, that altcoin is going to be all you've got left.
im laughing at the hypocrisy.
other implementations have code available since last year..
even today core doesnt have live segwit code today.
real segwit code has not been running on bitcoin mainnet.
yet many implementations have been running 2mb block rule on bitcoin mainnet since last year
2mb implementations dont force blocks over 1mb. they instead accept blocks under 2mb. meaning all blocks 0byte-999kb are acceptable too
also carlton you are confusing a contentious fork with a consensus fork.
no one has proposed a contentious fork. every implementation has proposed a consensus fork. so why are you even trying to suggest contentious forks are what the debate is about.
contentious fork and consensus fork are two different things.. please research. please learn or please go back to fiat.
we already know you want to increase the number of minable units, extending mining completion from the year 2141 to atleast the years 2181. so how about you go play around with monero and mess with moneros rules.. with your friends you are loyal too.
afterall if you feel you have the right to tell others to go away, then we have the right to tell you the same too.
but anyway your post are scraping the bottom of the barrel and really running dry of valid points. so its time to just move on. i cant see you adding anything valid to this topic.
have a good day