Quote from: bitserve on June 21, 2017, 02:27:36 AM

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.

Yep.. you are getting caught up on irrelevant facts. Bitcoin has been going up in amazing ways during this whole time, and the fact that various alts, including ethereum and ripple, were pumped 2x to 50x more than bitcoin does not cause a logical conclusion that bitcoin is broken but instead some kind of false narrative that you seem to want to buy into... and measure "success" of bitcoin based on term and pumping that has been created by others.

You seem to be getting distracted by bullshit and nonsense.

Quote from: bitserve on June 21, 2017, 02:27:36 AM

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 reach 80% 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.

Look at you. Admitting that you do not know, but at the same time prescribing something based on whatever you know about networks.

Do you know about the technology of seg wit? Do you know about spam attacks? do you now about economics and market behavior?

Quote from: bitserve on June 21, 2017, 02:27:36 AM

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.

I don't how it is going to play out, and I already stated what I think. I think that there is consensus to get segwit first in the form of a softfork, and that is what is seeming to excite the market and the signaling at the moment. I don't know how the rest plays out because I do not know how the results of the code testing is going to play out and I do not know the level of consensus that will be sustainable in reference to the 2mb aspect of the compound question...

Yeah people seem to agree about the first part of the compound question and that seems to be what is causing the signaling and the market excitement, but still a question regarding how the second part is going out play out, no?

Quote from: bitserve on June 21, 2017, 02:27:36 AM

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 know if any kind of USAF would be required. We get segwit going and then there is not enough support for the rest. Why would a UASD be needed in order to block the 2mb part from getting activated? It seems that if there is not enough support for the 2mb aspect then it would not get implemented, right?

Quote from: bitserve on June 21, 2017, 02:27:36 AM

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.

Why does it matter what you want? The situation is going to play out however, it wants. Why do people continue to want to project what they want? Either you like what bitcoin is and you invest or you do not like it and you invest in something else.. why does the rest regarding what you want matter?

Quote from: bitserve on June 21, 2017, 02:27:36 AM

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

Yep, and that makes me REALLY happy. Maybe you don't want to celebrate it... But you will when you see the outcome. Wink

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about? I see the segwit2x support and it appears like it has a good chance of going to the next step. It seems to be a very bullish development. I am invested in bitcoin, so I like bullish developments because I become more wealthy as the price goes up, as long as my coins don't get hacked and as long as I don't sell too many of them. Wink