Quote from: earonesty on January 16, 2017, 04:41:19 AM

Quote from: franky1 on January 15, 2017, 04:01:23 PM

Quote from: alyssa85 on January 15, 2017, 03:55:21 PM

So what actually happens now? Will the miners go for Bitcoin Classic or Unlimited, or does the bickering continue without being resolved for another year?

... it should have been a node consensus first, pool consensus second strategy.

There's like 4000 nodes running core, and 3000 of them are signaling segwit. There are about 400 nodes signaling "other things" ... (XT, Classic, BU, etc.). It's as clear as day on the node side. Only miners hoping they can delay the fee drop and capacity increase a little longer.

Node count is a very poor indicator of user support for a number of reasons:

*Not all nodes accept incoming connections, so you will not be able to poll all active nodes what version they are running

*It is trivial to run multiple "fake" nodes (fake by one definition or another) signaling support for one version or another

*A business may be against SegWit, but will still be prudent and run a SegWit compatible node for both testing and preparation purposes in case SegWit activates against their wishes, it is also possible that a business might be against SegWit and be running multiple full nodes for testing/preparation purposes. The same is true for other Bitcoin implementations as a business might be against Unlimited or Classic but still be running an Unlimited node for similar reasons -- although I believe it to be less likely they would be running multiple Unlimited nodes.

*A business may be neutral about SegWit but would still prudently run a SegWit node for reasons discussed above.

*In case you haven't noticed, there is a message at the top of the page displayed to everyone who visits the forum to "upgrade" to 13.2, which IIUC signals support for SegWit, while someone who does not support SegWit, or who supports another implementation would need to actively find another version to run.

Quote from: earonesty on January 16, 2017, 04:51:41 AM

you'd need fast and efficient 100MB blocks that can be easily and quickly transmitted to all nodes in the network. 100MB is crazy and can never work. Networks just don't scale that way. So let's please stop fooling ourselves and pretend off-chain scaling *isn't* the end game here.

Sure they do. There is no reason to expect technology to stop evolving from where it is today. It was not all that long ago that my family was upgrading to a 56.6kbs modem (<2 decades), and today for about the same price that my family paid for a 56.6kbs internet connect (extra phone line + internet service), I could get 1,000 mbps with google fiber.

The reason why specific blocks are not full is often because said block was found quickly after the preceding block, and/or the pool operator is having problems with their node software. I think it is fairly reasonable to say that blocks are currently full, based on the growing tx fees attached to found blocks. Look at the attached tx fees to blocks found a few years ago, and look at them now.