Quote from: RealBitcoin on February 16, 2017, 12:22:47 PM

It's just intuition for now, we shall see if it becomes reality, in the following years.

Completely useless in this case. Keep the baseless propaganda to your own mind.

Quote from: RealBitcoin on February 16, 2017, 12:22:47 PM

For now I can't decide which one is better, because BTC has the obvious security advantage. But that might change in the following years, if BTC is unable to evolve.

Segwit or not, there may come a point when an upgrade will be crucial, and if BTC will be unable to evolve, that will be it's certain demise.

I'm pretty sure that no single serious investor gives zero fucks about Dash or whatever "tech" it provides. The same goes for 99.9% cryptocurrencies.

Quote from: RealBitcoin on February 16, 2017, 12:22:47 PM

Banks used to be decentralized before central banks. But slowly it became this centralized monolithic financial system.

False equivalency.

Quote from: franky1 on February 16, 2017, 04:47:06 PM

bitcoin 2016 stats could easily have run on Raspberry Pi v1

2016.. "easily"? Go test this and update me after you've spent several days/weeks trying to catch up with the network.

Quote from: d5000 on February 16, 2017, 06:41:18 PM

Both sides - "big blockers" and "segwitters" - have valid arguments in my opinion.

Segwit = big blocks. They are not opposing sides.

Quote from: d5000 on February 16, 2017, 06:41:18 PM

So the goal should be to find an agreement (Satoshi Roundtable Consensus 2?) on block size that makes possible for nearly everyone with a full-sized computer to run a full node, but not on a cheap smartphone, that would be too limited even today. And for the "payment system" my proposal would be to find a block size that should be able to handle all mid-to-large payments (let's say over 20-30 USD) on-chain but also facilitate off-chain payments with solutions like LN for real microtransactions (coffee, mp3's ...).

Simple: Segwit then implement a hard fork for a base block size increase to 1.5 or 2 MB.