Quote from: Hyena on December 18, 2016, 12:04:08 PM

Quote from: thejaytiesto on December 17, 2016, 06:34:05 PM

Lmao this is the ultimate reasoning that /r/btc nutjobs can reach. And then when they claim blockstream and segwit is a "bankster trojan horse" then that's perfectly fine to say and it's not conspiracy theory nonsense. Always the same fucking bullshit. When /r/btc says something like that it's legitimate and not a conspiracy.

Get real, the fact people that know better than you all agree on segwit needing to be activated before a blocksize increase doesn't mean that they are all together against you and are all bought by "the banks". In fact, if someone is working for banks, then that's Roger Ver and the rest of people wanting to raise the block size to make the network less decentralized by making running nodes way difficult for common people, and by not activating segwit which would give us endless possibilities to make bitcoin more anonymous. But you keep thinking you are a smartass and AA and the rest are all compromised by the banks lmao.

....someone is getting desperate... Roll Eyes

I'm not saying AA is necessarily corrupt. I don't judge people by what they say but what they do instead. He gives really good lectures, this for example. However, there is no way for me to know the absolute truth about AA. I just cannot blindly follow him. For that reason I have done my own research about SegWit and the block size issue and I have come to a conclusion that SegWit must not be accepted as a package of many features all at once. Instead, those features should be judged one by one by the community. So I reject SegWit, I hope it never gets accepted in its current form and I will do everything I see rational to prevent it from happening.

Ideally, the Core team would discard SegWit and deliver a fix to TX malleability in an elegant hard-fork style. Nothing else. Just that. One by one they should offer the enhancements to the community. I would like to have TX malleability fixed, then a large TX DOS attack vector (signature verification CPU consumption), followed by the block size increase. Hard fork is totally OK and there will be consensus when the bug fixes are offered one by one.

There is nothing wrong about fixing TX malleability and signature verification DOS vulnerability. I don't think anyone would oppose them. So let the Core team deliver a fix to these two as a proper hard fork. After that we can start thinking of ways to increase the block size. There is absolutely nothing to be afraid of regarding hard forks if they are activated only after super consensus is reached. Detection of super consensus is rather trivial anyway.

So, all in all, I just see through the bullshit regarding SegWit and I oppose it. My vote is against it because I do what I see best serving the Bitcoin network. I don't take this debate personally. I do what I see best fit for Bitcoin and you feel free to do what you think is the best for Bitcoin. In the end we "count the votes", see whose opinion was amongst the majority and we move on with our lives, hoping that the majority made the right decision.

The elegant solution is segwit precisely because it doesn't require a hard fork. There's nothing cool about a hard fork, it's the opposite of elegant. Also you are asking for things that don't make sense technically. Segwit is everything that's needed to fix transaction malleability and so on, and it will make the LN better and allow us to have Schnorr sigs and other cool stuff that anyone that isn't a troll or stupid would agree to add at a protocol level.