Quote from: BruceFenton on April 18, 2017, 07:13:13 PM

This is a well written response that makes some good points.

Quote from: praxeology on April 15, 2017, 08:35:53 PM

Gregory Maxwell,

> If the goal is user activation I would think that the
> expectation would be that the overwhelming majority of users would be
> upgrading to do it, if that isn't the case, then it isn't really a user
> activated softfork-- it's something else.

Oh... so _that_ comes out. I do not care what the majority wants. The majority of people are thieves if they could get away with it. Consider this: Lets propose a policy where the world can vote on taking half of the current Bitcoin owner's coins away and evenly distributing them to each world citizen. Screw that, I've had enough of that. Distributed money doesn't have to be that way.

Lets stop with the whole soft/hard fork designation when there are two disparate groups with conflicting preferences on a policy change. Soft/Hard doesn't matter anymore. Its just a fork.

I want SegWit. I'm perfectly happy w/ forking the money supply I use from the people who don't want SegWit. I just want replay attack prevention.

To all of you out there who want sound money, this is our song:
Green Day - Minority
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDBlqu6KF4k

Cheers,
Praxeology Guy

Good points, where?

All it say's to me,
"I do not care what the majority wants. "
"I want SegWit."
"I just want replay attack prevention."
(to protect his minority hash chain from ruin!)