Quote from: Viper1 on May 13, 2017, 04:58:32 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on May 13, 2017, 04:35:42 PM

Quote from: Viper1 on May 13, 2017, 04:31:14 PM

And I know you like to bring out Satoshi as if he was an all seeing all knowing deity that foresaw where things would be decades from the time he created bitcoin. But his short little 1 line comments about some of these large issues forces me to question whether he really gave them the sort of serious thought they apparently needed. At the end of the day, much has changed and we don't have a clue what he might think or do now. Anyone pulling out those old one liners as some sort of "proof" is simply trying to use him to suit their agenda.

But even if I didn't really agree with Satoshi, i would still likely think the core team needs to bend more from their roadmap since 2mb is entirely reasonable, the miners aren't agreeing to "segwit only" and the impasse is damaging Bitcoin. (Yet, core doesn't seem to care and in fact is happy with this. That was my point.)

"Everyone" is damaging Bitcoin. Core, Ver (BU), Jihan, "you". Playing the blame game is damaging. Saying only one side is at fault is damaging.

Miners not signaling a scaling preference are also to blame, I would agree with that. I don't blame either Bitfury or Bitmain -- they are at least signaling what they perceive to be the best solution. How are investors to blame for trying to make logical arguments about what is happening?

Quote

As for "miners", as far as I can see it has nothing to do with segwit only but because maxwell pissed them off. They activated segwit on LTC just on the "promise" of a bigger block size once they get half full (I predict LTC will magically get to half full far quicker than it should). So it looks to me like it's all just out of spite now.

Bitcoin core devs Would agree to a similar agreement? Very doubtful.

Quote

As for core, last I heard the "plan" was something like segwit, LN and if it's still needed a block size increase.

Yes, that's their roadmap, but who decides when "if its needed"? Greg? He'll never say its needed. If they can't agree we already need it badly right now, I don't see why there would be any logical explanation for them to act reasonably in the future.

Quote

As I said, I think not doing hard forks while bitcoin is still "young" and learning lessons from doing them is foolish. So IMO a 2Mb change would have been a good idea for a variety of reasons. But we are where we're at and everyone is entrenching. I see it ending very badly for all of us users that just want to move forward.

Could be. I hope it doesn't end bad as I'm a hodler. Maybe there will be a network split. Who knows.