Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 08, 2017, 10:09:04 PM

Quote from: The One on July 08, 2017, 09:34:33 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 08, 2017, 09:03:42 PM

Quote from: The One on July 08, 2017, 01:21:21 PM

Quote from: gmaxwell on July 08, 2017, 01:15:04 AM

Quote from: ComputerGenie on July 07, 2017, 03:37:27 AM

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.

More bullshit if you are trying to act as if there really is some kind of technical issue in the protocol (beyond segwit and other projects that core is working on and Gmaxwell listed in his post) that would achieve the various objectives that you listed (eg.. more transactions, greater adoption, lower fees, faster confirmations).

The reality is you are attempting to simplify the matter and to suggest that a 2mb limit increase through a hardfork is going to accomplish your listed objectives, but the reality, The One, is that a central goal of big blockers is emotional, namely the heads on spikes thinking.. which just is conspiratorial fantasy to keep asserting ill will of core and the various members and that core does not have the best intentions of bitcoin in their multiple disjointed heads.

What you and small blockers don't understand is that for Bitcoin to become more widely used, it will need bigger blocks to accommodate more transaction. Even Satoshi understood that. Sticking to small blocks isn't go to cut the mustard. That's the reality.

Who says anything about sticking to anything?

There is merely a point that if something is currently not needed, such as increasing the block sizes, then why implement it if it is likely bringing more problems than it resolves.

You act as if bitcoin is broken in some kind of way in some kind of technical level, and it is not.

And, your appeal to authority is utter nonsense.. who the fuck cares what Satoshi thought in 2010? We gotta role with the times and understand bitcoin for what it is rather than what it was theorized to be in 2010, no?

It is not an appeal to authority. It is simply a matter of following the objective of Bitcoin as outline in the whitepaper. If you don't like it then bugger off elsewhere or start your own shitcoin. Bitcoin wasn't a theory in 2010, it was a functioning software, the theory was pre 2009.