The contention is "what comes after segwit?" On the Core side is "nothing" (i.e., just segwit)
lol
In fact, the Core has many things after segwit; some of which are already done (compact blocks), signature aggregation, weakblocks, flexcaps, etc.
All anyone else has is MOAR BLOCKSIZE REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES and some heads on spikes.Yes some nice consequences of having more transactions, greater adoption, lower fees, faster confirmation - no head of the spikes is necessary.
You do realised that Bitcoin is not your toy, such that your personal agenda/opinion/perspective is irrelevant. Only what is best for bitcoin and the users matters.
Im a bitcoin user, and I don't want bigger blocks anytime soon. So what's your point again?
How do you measure what bitcoin users want in any case? Let me tell you what nobody wants: 2 bitcoins and a massive price crash.
The contention is "what comes after segwit?" On the Core side is "nothing" (i.e., just segwit)
lol
In fact, the Core has many things after segwit; some of which are already done (compact blocks), signature aggregation, weakblocks, flexcaps, etc.
All anyone else has is MOAR BLOCKSIZE REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES and some heads on spikes.
in short core is not promising to copy the 2mb base within months of segwit.. thus expect big issues in regards to the 2mb event 3 months after segwit, due to lack of node support.
(expect major orphan drama)
hey gmax, how about re-implement a new fee priority formulae and stop this mindless 'just pay more' mantra
Why is it so hard to understand for some that nobody can "promise" a hardfork?
You can show your intention, but you can't promise a damn hardfork.
I want an eventual hardfork, that includes more interesting improvements that a blocksize increase:
https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/Do I want a hardfork to get 2MB in a rushed way in a couple of months? fuck no! im not insane.