Quote from: mimini0147 on April 25, 2017, 06:42:06 AM

This just goes to show that we should not rush into options such as BU and segwit.

Just imagine what would happen if we rushed to implement bitcoin unlimited and this happened, the price would drop significantly. Hopefully we will see a permanent fix for this in the future because this is the third instance of this happening. The numbers should be back up soon but the coders need to fix whatever bug is causing this, It's the third or fourth time that I've seen this since February.

the issue is not about segwit vs BU

the big picture is peer network vs tier network
(because segwit 'features' are empty gestures... the only long term network wide effect of segwit is the tier network)
then below that

dynamic blocks less reliant on dev control vs segwit reliant on dev control

there are MANY implementations out there, not 2. but the reddit crowd are only mentioning 2 because they want to make it sound like an election for who controls bitcoin. by making people think there are only 2 options to choose from.

the reality should be to realise that there are a dozen different implementations at the moment. and where the diversity allows a proper independent choice of brand. where by the rules upgrade only when the majority of the community can find something they can all agree on.

and to keep our mind open to a diverse decentralised peer network, rather then a dependant tier network. this prevents any brand from doing a half assed gesture of temporary drama of features that wont actually meet expectations

if your first thought is to attack anything thats not core. then its time to stand back and ask yourself are you defending the code or the devs.
in short.. if all the lines of code were the same. would your stance change if say hearne wrote segwit

bitcoin is code. if you prefer to only care about the devs that can come or go.. rather then what could happen to bitcoin in the next 120 years, then stand back and spend a few minutes thinking about things