Quote from: classicsucks on May 24, 2017, 06:08:26 PM

Quote from: sturle on May 24, 2017, 05:16:47 PM

So you want a hard fork to destroy bitcoin and it's dominance, and the other arguments you made were just nonsense?

STAHP. Educate yourself. Don't you know that bitcoin has already hard forked several times in its history?

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawiki

Bitcoin didn't split in half - there is still only one bitcoin.

This is different for many reasons.

First of all the immediate fix was a soft fork. They went back to a chain which every node could validate, instead of having two chains. One which only new nodes could validate, and one which only old nodes could validate correctly. Then people could either upgrade or increase the maximum locks for BerkleyDB. Those who didn't would experience random crashes.

The solution was a bugfix. Non-upgraded nodes would experience random crashes.

This happened a long time ago when Bitcoin still was young and had very few tech-savvy users. Upgrading all nodes with a non-controversial bugfix or just increase the maximum locks, was easy.

There was absolutely no risk of anyone losing money by getting on the wrong side of a hard fork. In fact, there never was a hard fork. No block has ever been produced on what would be the other side of that fork.

Quote from: classicsucks on May 24, 2017, 06:08:26 PM

When it becomes absolutely necessary to modify the protocol, sane people work together and get it done. Like when the blocks are totally full, and people have been waiting for years to do a trivial blocksize increase...

We already know it doesn't work like that. For how long has segwit been ready? It is still not activated. Even when it fixes several bugs and weaknesses, in addition to increasing the block size.

When even a soft fork which solve many problems in one go, including the full blocks, proves to be too controversial to activate, then imagine what would happen with a controversial hard fork which only partially relieve one of the problems with no long-term solution.

Quote from: classicsucks on May 24, 2017, 06:08:26 PM

Even if bitcoin DID split into two chains, one would have more hashpower, and would therefore be more valuable than the other, like Ethereum did. Ehrmagerd, it didn't die!

Hashpower does not make a coin valuable. People do. If Bitcoin proves to be changeable by a few people in suits just agreeing to handing themselves a few million coins, it will loose it's value very quickly.

Quote from: classicsucks on May 24, 2017, 06:08:26 PM

Bitcoin dominance is ending because the blocksize is still too small.

Nah, it is mostly due to it's limitations. Segwit tries to remove many of those limitations, but a small group of people don't want that top happen. Larger blocks alone would just add another limitation. Initial block download won't go any faster with larger blocks, unless something is done to make transaction validation scale at the same time.