Quote from: AMIANORPHANEDBLOCK on August 02, 2017, 04:41:29 PM

Quote from: bitserve on August 02, 2017, 04:23:12 PM

Quote from: AMIANORPHANEDBLOCK on August 02, 2017, 04:20:23 PM

Quote from: bitserve on August 02, 2017, 04:07:49 PM

Quote from: AMIANORPHANEDBLOCK on August 02, 2017, 04:04:26 PM

Quote from: traincarswreck on August 02, 2017, 03:20:21 PM

Quote from: AMIANORPHANEDBLOCK on August 02, 2017, 03:01:35 PM

Large blocks = Gold
Segregated Witness = Fiat

Asia wants gold.
USA wants to print money.

changing bitcoins block size via politicalbattle destroys its gold like property.

So you're admitting segwit destroys bitcoins gold-like properties.

When 100% of hashpower and most actors and participants have agreed that Bitcoin have to have Segwit, then that's Bitcoin and if it doesn't have Segwit, it isn't Bitcoin. If, tomorrow, almost everybody agrees to have bigger blocks, then that will be Bitcoin and smaller blocks won't.

How is that so hard to understand?

That's a good explanation. But what happens if 51% of hashpower want bigger blocks but Core Developers refuse?

51% would be an attack. In fact that how it is defined: "The 51% attack". Consensus is somewhere around 95%. No consensus? No change.

It is undeniable that we have had the utmost consensus on the segwit issue, so: It is Bitcoin.

Miners have power, Core does too, Exchanges too, other major players and users/participants too... If almost everybody except core agree on something then you can be sure Core will be unable to avoid it.

If 100% of hashpower want bigger blocks, do you think the devs will fold for economic reasons like how the miners folded for segwit?

Yes.

But it is a bit more complex than that... You don't even need 100% of miners while you need some more actors besides miners too. That's why I mention CONSENSUS, not only pure hashpower. Segwit2x have been a CLEAR example on how future improvements can and should be made in Bitcoin.... be it Segwit, bigger blocks, or whatever.