Quote from: etang6000 on April 06, 2017, 06:57:54 PM

Quote from: remistevens on April 06, 2017, 03:43:50 PM

Quote from: metalicjames on April 06, 2017, 03:12:13 PM

Quote from: remistevens on April 06, 2017, 02:22:47 PM

Quote from: SwedishGirl on April 06, 2017, 01:01:25 PM

Quote from: connexus on April 03, 2017, 11:41:31 AM

Quote from: altcoiner555 on April 02, 2017, 05:06:40 PM

Syscoin already upgraded to Segwit and the market didn't care.

Perhaps the market thinks there's nothing special about it, most altcoins that uses bitcoin code can easily upgrade to segwit.

Perhaps the market thinks that adding a scaling solution to a coin that does not need scaling is not a big deal?

Sure. Also, hasn't VTC kind of staked its claim as a small scale miner coin by changing the algo? I thought the whole long term strategy of this coin was to play safe and keep out big scale mining operations. Segwit adds functionality that has no relevance to that purpose that i can ascertain.

And the fork talk. People would really like to see this coin split into two? You think it has the market cap value to support that and survive? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Vrn miner who refuses to switch has plenty of hash on its own and could very well mine the old chain and sustain it if forced to fork away- is that right? So if the method mentioned earlier to knock him out is successful and he doesn't switch, he would be forked away but continue on?

VTC has survived by remaining relevant to small miners and a lack of competition among early coins as many of them have died off. There are only so many coins left from that era. Age=value. Look at NMC. Its not of much use as a crypto, but remains valuable given its age and what it has outlasted. Shouldn't that be the ultimate goal here with VTC? Survival. Forking the coin and adding function it doesn't need (and done by countless newer coins already) seems counter intuitive and adds unnecessary risk for the long term goals.

Sorry if this pisses people off. Honestly I'm on the fence, but I do have a lot of concerns. I've also been into VTC from the very start, I'd hate to see one of my favorites do something dangerous soley for the purpose of hoping for some market attention and a pump.

Upgrading to the latest Bitcoin Core base though adds a lot more security to the network from upstream fixes. Futhermore, SegWit will allow us to support the Lightning network once it is ready. Finally, a number of the BIPs (including SegWit) fix malleability issues that increase the security of the chain. All of this will allow VTC to outlast a great many coins.

Interesting, thanks for the reply. I'm not sure I understand the need for security upgrades, maybe you could elaborate please? If there was a security issue, wouldn't it have been exploited by now on this or countless other coins running similar codes? What security risk is being diminished? My understanding was that even the quantum computer risk can be nullified by using a new wallet address for each transaction...

Also, I thought this coin didn't have a scaling problem and therefore doesn't need the lightning network?

There are inherent risks to any fork, I don't need to be a coder to understand that. I also have a good sense of markets and trading. From that perspective forking into two chains, in my opinion if it happened, is a bad idea.

Sorry but its not convincing to me. I'm looking at cost/benefit. The cost here is a risk of forking into two coins and any inherent risks in the more complicated Segwit code that may not yet have been flushed out. I'm weighing that against the benefit that seems to be adding security upgrades that aren't needed and scaling which isn't needed. So its taking a risk, for no forseeable benefits (with the exception that it would almost certainly cause a short term pump).

Where are you getting a risk of vertcoin being split into two coins ?

I was commenting from this last week by another poster:

Quote from: TheCoinFinder on April 02, 2017, 05:28:26 PM

If we can generate a CSV transaction with a locktime for an output TXID, and get Vrn to mine a block that spends that transaction before it should be spendable, we should be able to get it to fork away, I think?

Also, any time parts of the network are using different versions there is inherently a risk of an unintentional fork. Unforseen complications wherein one group finds a block the other group doesn't confirm. I know this is not the design of segwit and this soft fork, but design isn't always correct. No one expected BU miners to find a block bitcoin core miners would reject, yet it happened. Also looking at Jan I think it was where different version of ETH that were designed to work with each other without issue, all of a sudden disagreed and created chaos. If everyone is on the same software, these types of unexpected events can't happen. Can't have a conflict between versions if we're all using the same version.