Quote from: d5000 on June 26, 2017, 07:57:16 AM

Quote from: Hyena on June 26, 2017, 06:30:10 AM

wallet implementation centralization is even worse.

Well, Segwit2x could impose a second popular segwit-capable wallet implementation, apart from Core's AXABlockStreamCoin Wink

. In any case, Segwit itself is not what leads to a "wallet implementation centralization". This centralization has more to do with the tradition to regard the Core client as the "reference implementation". But Core formally is not different from any other development team that tries to code and distribute a Bitcoin client - only these informal mechanisms give them so much power over code and protocol. As already said, Segwit2x could change that, so you should embrace it if you favour a more diverse "development ecosystem".

Quote

better increase the block size to 4 MiB until a better scaling solution is invented by someone else than blockstream

With Segwit2x we'll get probably about 4 MB blocks. Isn't that exactly what you want?

segwit as a technical solution is complete nonsense, there's so much material about it online, just research it. I want a proper protocol upgrade that does not introduce any additional technical debt. take flextrans for example, way better solution to the same problems segwit attempts to solve.