Quote from: franky1 on May 09, 2017, 12:54:12 PM

Quote from: mindrust on May 09, 2017, 12:38:02 PM

Quote from: franky1 on May 09, 2017, 12:32:16 PM

atleast you are admitting subtly segwit is an altcoin instead of your old rhetoric that segwit is bitcoin and anything else running on bitcoin is the altcoin. one step in the right direction.

as for the social drama of bu vs core.
funnily core has a speak no evil about their own bugs for 30 days after fix is released, but REKT anything not core as soon as issue is found.
very professional and independent (sarcasm)

read all the core devs saying how release info on exploits within 30 days of fix is bad.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10364

kinda hypocritical

How is segwit an altcoin? Please explain. Segwit is a soft fork, a protocol upgrade, not an altcoin. You can make an altcoin out of segwit (and there are some already) as you can make one from almost anything.

BU will be the altcoin if it ever manages to succeed HF.

if you read passed the reddit drama and look at reality
a successful hardfork is ONE chain of united community agreeing that all upgrading to a new consensus rules is good.

a hard fork is not a guarantee bilatral split. and if you look at who are the protagonists screaming to cause a split. its the core fans and devs that want to split.

Quote from: gmaxwell on October 18, 2016, 08:21:30 AM

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

rekt campaigns "just f**k off"
rekt campaigns they dont agree so we need to MASF and UASF them away to their own chain and make them program a no replay attack

meanwhile the MANY implementations that want to stick with a diverse decentralised PEER network have actually laughed and declined core devs invitation to split.

in short you should have said:
in a UNsuccessful hardfork there might be a split with a altcoin, where the minority becomes the altcoin

Nobody is against Bitcoin Unlimited forking and becoming what it is (an altcoin).

What we don't want is what they are doing: Trying to subvert BTC so they get to steal the BTC token. It's all a war for the BTC token, nothing more.

If they really thought their solution was better, they would fork already and use their own token and compete against BTC and people would freely choose, but they choose drama instead, at expense of every holder.