Quote from: metalicjames on April 06, 2017, 10:12:55 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).

The nature of a "soft fork" means that there will not be two chains, unlike a hard fork. This is because non-upgraded wallets still understand and follow the newer, upgraded chain. In terms of security, any transaction malleability is a bad thing and SegWit fixes that. Futhermore, general improvements in the Bitcoin Core software make it far more resilient against DoS and eclipse attacks not to mention the massive increase in sync time. Re-basing from Bitcoin Core also allows us to more easily incorporate further improvements in the future. In terms of Lightning, it's true that we don't have a capacity issue (transactions fees are negligible), payment channels are a great innovation in themselves and allow things like cross-chain transactions.

The nature of a soft fork is that it is designed not to create 2 chains. That I understand. But design isn't always correct, people make errors, bugs get missed. Any transaction malleability is a bad thing, no argument, but the elimination of something bad doesn't necessitate any level of risk unquestionably. Suppose someone offered up a solution that fixed transaction malleability, but carried with it a great and forseeable risk- would you want such a thing to happen? Of course not. Any improvement is based on a cost/benefit analysis. Transaction malleability, DoS and eclipse attacks haven't killed vertcoin, they haven't caused mass chaos or a lack of security. Just looking at it functionally. Is it perfect? No. Is it still secure despite being imperfect? Yes.

I also suspect that Bitcoin will not be able to make an significant changes to its core code. I don't think the miner support will ever be there. I also believe one day bitcoin's scaling solutions, security upgrades, and ability to operate smart contracts will all occur without changes to the core code. Someone brilliant will one day find a solution to all of these issues from being forced to work with an unchanging core code. At that point will it be better to have an alt coin with a ton of extra details written into it that were never implemented on bitcoin? Or would it be better to have a simpler code, geared toward small miners, that can simply implement whatever brilliant solution was applied to bitcoin?