Quote from: Lauda on November 23, 2016, 02:56:41 PM

Who wrote this? You? The best that I can say about this is that it is sad. The post is full of misinformation and/or *half-truths*. FYI: Post-segwit roadmap is irrelevant to Segwit.

FYI using the word "market" in your claims is wrong. The market is currently presented with 4 options:
1) Core.
2) XT (dead)
3) Classic (dead)
4) BU
Please remind me again how many nodes and how much hashrate is in support of BU. Also, you can see a big list of Segwit supporters (different entities, not Core developers) on the Bitcoin Core website.

by the way, if you done some research XT was just a bait and switch for the same guys behind blockstream. R3 and blockstream have been working together for months. go checkout the names of those involved in hyperledger.

oh and before crying FUD about everything that goes against blockstream. research first.
as for segwit. you claim there is large support by mining pools..
um...
https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit 7.1%
7.1% at time of posting.

BU. also in the 7% range.
so using your "competitor" mindset.. they are neck and neck

as for you saying there are only 4 options and 2 are dead meaning you are suggesting there are only two options.
im kind of glad you didnt mention knots and bitcoinj. im hoping its because you already know they are already under the umbrella of core.

but there are other implementations too.

but anyway you are acting like its a competition to be reigned in as king. rather than thinking of the bitcoin network remaining diverse. and not having a king

BU has not been making claims that core should fork off to an altcoin. yet core have been making claims that BU should fork off to an altcoin. funny that!.
please take off your core fanboy hat and put on a unbiased bitcoin network hat and try to research what you preach

for months now the solution has been clear.
dynamic base blocksize along with dynamic weight to allow the features some love with the capacity growth we ALL want.
which would require both a node consensus followd by a pool consensus. and dont worry. nothing happens unless consensus is reached.
and if not reached nothing happens.
again if reached there is no intentional split/altcoin rhetoric. there is just a period of orphaning by the minority that have not updated where they cannot sync. again not chain splitting. just a loss of sync-ability by a low minority. and they upgrade if they want to remain full nodes.

after that drama has surpassed.
where the default at a high consensus starts at 2mb base 4mb weight, and can grow naturally without as much orphan risk and without the sync ability drama, by using the consensus of independent nodes settling their differences to an acceptable rate, . rather than dev teams setting the rules(no longer need developers to release versions just for limit changes, meaning no upgrading of nodes just for limit changes).

EG
imagine a future where
50% of nodes have 3mb base 6mb weight
30% of nodes have 2.7mb base 5.4mb weight
10% of nodes have 2.5mb base 5mb weight
6% of nodes have 2.2mb base 4.4mb weight
4% of nodes have 2mb base 4mb weight

pools can see that 100% agree to 2mb base 4mb weight. and see 96% agree with 2.2mb base 4.4mb weight.
yes those numbers are correct. because a 3mb base agreement means anything below 3mb is acceptable. its not the opposite.
so a 0.99mb block IS.. emphasis IS happily accepted by nodes with higher setting. just like (random number 0.2mb) is acceptable to 1mb limit nodes for the last 7 years

meaning pools can while making blocks anywhere between 250bytes to 2mb(when consensus shows 100% agreement to upto 2mb),.. pools can go through their own mining flagging consensus to see if 2.2mb base should go forward which will prompt the 4% laggers to dynamically change if pools reach an agreement.

all done dynamically without developer spoonfeeding.
obviously it stays at 2mb unless pools consensus reaches agreement

basically everyone gets their cake and gets to eat it.