Re: The Barry Silbert segwit agreement with >80% miner agreement.
1) A few companies, i.e. people in suits don't define Bitcoin.
2) The people who are stating that there should not be a block size limit at all are uneducated idiots.
3) "Consensus reached" articles are written by even bigger idiots.
4) The agreement has already failed:
2) The people who are stating that there should not be a block size limit at all are uneducated idiots.
3) "Consensus reached" articles are written by even bigger idiots.
4) The agreement has already failed:
My view...(not that I know what I'm talking about in this epic cluster) is that there will NEVER be an agreement
as long as they want a hard fork to increase block size.
Bitcoin Core Devs will just block this ...like BU blocked segregated witness
They COULD perhaps do a deal like litecoin that said seg witness is a done deal and a soft fork
in the future to increase block size .....but hell that might be stretching it..because even litecoin
said something to the effect hard fork or soft fork whichever is appropriate if I remember right
But a hard fork is dead in the water (again imho) because it is NOT backwards compatible with those
that do not upgrade and bitcoin core I think sees this as a huge cluster...thus their push for UASF.
Not saying any bitcoin dev of any flavor has the answer here...just saying for getting on the same page
it is not (again imho) gonna happen with bitcoin core as long as hard fork is mentioned as a solution.