Quote from: JayJuanGee on May 29, 2017, 01:49:16 AM

Quote from: yefi on May 29, 2017, 12:59:16 AM

Quote from: bitserve on May 29, 2017, 12:29:18 AM

I hope that Segwit+2MB gets enough support to finally end this absurd war. At this time it looks as the only non contentious alternative. I don't like the idea of non unanimous hard forks, nor UASF. Whatever is supported by an almost unanimous majority is ok to me at this time (Well, except BU/EC as I am totally against it).

Seemed like a decent compromise to me. Core programmers snubbing it was disappointing.

It's an attempt to change governance and to accomplish such in the form of a hard fork.... A hardfork is not necessary. so why agree to something that is not necessary and that is problematic and that is going to set bad precedent for future take overs.. especially if they agree to either a hardfork or a change in governance.. ?

Because it appears to be the only option on the table that a consensus can be built around. Also it can be rolled out by the Bitcoin Core team hence no change in governance.

Quote from: CoinCube on May 26, 2017, 02:48:58 PM

The lack of code is probably a good thing at this juncture. I have been following this dispute only recently but the strong impression I get is that the only possible path to consensus on something like the miner agreement is if the code is ultimately produced, vetted and shipped by the core developers.

The miner agreement at this stage is simply a proposal. That proposal must now be vetted by the rest of the community to determine if a grudging consensus can be built around it.

Hopefully such a consensus will be possible. It strikes me as a far healthier path forward then stagnation forever in the current state or a civil war leading to a split into two coins.
...
It appears very clear that regardless of their technical merits neither

1) Variable blocksize
or
2) SegWit alone without a block size increase

can achieve consensus at this moment in bitcoin history. Thus neither are viable pathways forward right now.

Some compromise position must be adopted. It does not matter if it is a perfect solution. All it needs to be is safe and good enough to achieve widespread if grudging consensus.
...

There is fundamental disagreement in the community regarding on-chain versus off-chain scaling. Best hope of a breakthrough is a half-measure that allows both sides time to show what their solution offers.

Personally I hope to see some variation of Barry Silbert segwit agreement coded up vetted and released by the Bitcoin Core team as this is the only option on the table that appears to have any chance of achieving consensus.
...

We don't need to make a final determination between on-chain and off-chain scaling at this time. Kicking the can down the road by allowing both to be tried in parallel under the vetting and safety provided by the Bitcoin Core team sounds pretty good to me.

Plus though it is not the primary concern here it is worth mentioning that a successful consensus solution to this problem would likely be very good to everyone's pocketbook.