Quote from: BillyBobZorton on February 02, 2017, 01:50:05 PM

Quote from: Lauda on February 02, 2017, 12:57:43 PM

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on February 02, 2017, 12:55:56 PM

We'll have a blocksize increase after segwit. It's not Core's fault that miners are fucking stupid and are not signaling for segwit as soon as possible. Segwit is needed before we increase the blocksize.

Segwit provides a blocksize increase. Putting that aside, I would welcome a properly written HF proposal that builds upon Segwit. However, I would not be willing to accept something that reduces the block size limit (as proposed recently by luke-jr).

It's funny that the same idiots that are complaining about lack of blocksize increase are blocking segwit and by doing so blocking any real chances of a blocksize increase.

Kind of makes you think that people are diametrically opposed to Segwit, eh? It's not ironic, it's obvious that people did not listen, and they wasted thousands of hours developing something people don't want. Chinese miners probably don't want to lay the groundwork for Lightning Network because it takes away from their transaction fees. I don't like the looks of Lightning either - I'm already using several alts, and believe they're way better than Lightning could ever be.

I'm opposed to Segfault because it's over-complicated and unnecessary, and breaks almost all existing bitcoin software (which is still not updated to support it, and likely won't be). Bitcoin has hard-forked in the past and could do so again. Just sayin'.

I don't think running this sh**ty BU software is the best solution either... but the blockheads at Core won't listen to the masses, and their arrogance and disconnect with reality are only getting worse... The Soviet Politburo marches on, undaunted.