Quote from: shivamchawla on June 01, 2017, 01:05:43 PM

Quote from: 25hashcoin on June 01, 2017, 12:43:51 PM

Quote from: shivamchawla on May 24, 2017, 03:01:31 AM

I am strictly against hard forks. A hard fork must only be done if it is really really necessary like a bug in the code or something. Also they keep pulling back the release time and are trying to release the hard fork as soon as possible which means the code wont be thoroughly tested which is absolutely necessary in case of hard fork. I dont want an early segwit with bugs. A delayed segwit would be better so that more people can go through the code and verify it.

Bitcoin has been stalled for years...now you want it stalled more? Those corrupt Core developers really fooled you guys good. Can't wait for miners to take back bitcoin for good.

Bitcoin development was never stalled. New features are released on a regular basis. This problem however does not have a good solution. What the core developers want is a good solution. Increasing the blocksize is a horrible solution. Also there were a lot of bugs in BU's code which were fixed later on which destroys their credibility. Handing over bitcoin to miners lead to centralization which is horrible. If core devs were corrupt, they would have already forced segwit on everyone which they didnt do. Miners however want to force BU on everyone and are asking for hard fork.

Well, they're the ones forking, we stay on the original chain and we keep the name. Cheesy