Quote from: franky1 on November 08, 2017, 11:45:30 PM

Quote from: ahmedjamal1998 on November 08, 2017, 11:24:50 PM

Now that's some good news that I'd love to hear and confirm.
As I said a few days ago, I've always been in favor of applying segwit as a whole to the bitcoin network as it was only supposed to get us better. I'm talking about a faster network with lower transaction fees.

But at that time it never came across my mind that it might come as a hard fork. And when I realized it, it really upset me.

segwit has been active for months. the funny part is that the mining pools themselves are afraid to use it.
check out their block reward addresses.. yep not segwit addresses.
btcc and slush were the two main mouth piece advertisers of how much they loved segwit.. and yet, still use legacy addresses for their rewards.

although the pools were arm twisted/paid off into accepting segwit earlier this year due to the subterfuge that it was part of deal to then also upgrade the base block.. now the baseblock has not got the 2x upgrade, we are not really in much of a better legacy position than 2015

even gmaxwell himself cant even get himself to change his own donation address to a segwit address
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11425
Bitcoin address: 17F6gfDfTXpUdT9g2o3eqSmmwnUsPRokPB

Miners will mine SegWit2x but yes hardly anybody uses or mines segwit transactions and the block size is still small and Greg Maxwell uses a non-SegWit donation address. Nothing has changed since 2012 except performance and security and UDP satellites relaying block headers. Scalability has been ignored even in regards to LN putting all of the transactions into such tiny base block sizes and if hardly anybody mines SegWit then it will be even worse in regards to congestion (on-chain). Many hurdles ahead.