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:
That picture puts it clear. Then you have BitFury's George also parroting another confused notion of the agreement. How many version i've heard of this so called agreement already?
This is what happens when you put a bunch technological illiterates together in a room while disregarding the top bitcoin developers which actually know how stuff works.
This is just ridiculous. If they don't want UASF, then let's get a compromise to get segwit activated right now, with miner agreement, with a soft fork as originally intended, then an eventual 2MB blocksize with a planned hardfork with a good 1+ year. This is what a lot of people are seeing now as the next reasonable step.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014380.html
This looks like a good idea. Reduce it to 80%, so we need that supposed same 80%+ that Barry got, to do some small changes in the agreement. If they rejected this, then UASF will be the only way out, but please let's try first to reach that agreement. I don't want to see 2 coins in exchanges, it will kill the current uptrend.