Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
Quote from: JayJuanGee
Bitcoin is not sinking, and bitcoin is not broken.
Sure there are various tweaks that can make bitcoin better, but there is no emergency death situation as you seem to want to argue.
If you think going from 90% to less than 40% market dominance is not an emergency... And scaling, or better yet, this absurd drama has played some part for that decrease of market quota.
Also, Bitcoin is not broken, that's right... And I don't know enough about blockchains as I do about networks and most networks that exceed 80-90% capacity are bound to severe issues. We would need to reduce that congestion to 50% to be safe. Segwit will largely help in the long term, a blocksize increase can aleviate some of the issues right now.
Quote
I thought that I already got a consession from you that the first step is Segwit? So, yeah the second and third steps might happen, but you gotta do the first step before you get to the second step... so even though the odds of the second step might be pretty decent, the second step is not inevitable, as you seem to continue to suggest .. and maybe you have some kind of misreading about what has to happen in order for the second step to take place... and in any event it does not seem to be inevitable.. so why do you keep getting ahead of yourself? one step at a time, no?
By the way, it looks like there are people who will be working on testing the second step and going through various kinds of work to carry out the second step, but that still does not make the second step inevitable, even if it has decent chances to occur.
And, stop suggesting what I want, because I am only calling the situation as I see it, and this is not a matter about what I want or do not want, but instead a description of community dynamics and sentiment about the 2mb (second step) aspect of the segwit2x.
What miners are signaling is Segwit2x and that includes a compromise to a blocksize increase to 2MB. Are you suggesting that after getting the Segwit part, there will be enough support for a UASF to block the 2MB HF? Good luck with that.
Quote
I don't know why you are getting so worked up about this? It seems pretty likely that the first step is going to occur, and even if the second step were to fall through, we still have the first step... so cross that bridge when you get there rather than getting worked up and suggesting that the whole thing might be a failure if the second step were not to occur.
It would be a disaster if after getting Segwit some people insist on an UASF to avoid the 2MB hard fork. Anyway, I am pretty confident that won't happen.
I don't want a UASF, I don't want a contentios SF or HF, I don't want EC/BU no matter that... I basically don't want anything that could result on a split.
Quote
Well, it looks like you are in luck and there appears to be a largely non-contentious solution on the horizon... right? It looks like the current variation of segwit2x that allows a softforking of segwit first is gaining pretty likely success and support.
80.6% support on coindance 24 hour marker right now.
https://coin.dance/blocks
80.6% support on coindance 24 hour marker right now.
https://coin.dance/blocks
Yep, and that makes me REALLY happy. Maybe you don't want to celebrate it... But you will when you see the outcome.
