Quote from: btc_enigma on December 06, 2017, 09:57:08 AM

Basically it requires work to implement which is not as profitable as floating a shitcoin on your exchange and getting profits off that.
Some companies like blockonomics have already announced segwit support

We have about 120 coins on our exchange, our main business is p2p loans and we let users decide what coins they use or not, also my personal preferences doesn't matter much at all ( Would not support segwit personal ).

Offering all features for other coins doesn't mean we stop offering them for Bitcoin, users will just have more choices.
Lets call it market.

And why do you tell me that whatever company announced support?
We supported it as one of the first but can't fully support it as our transactions are done with bitcoind and the change goes straight to non segwit addresses.
If the change address type was a config option we would've full support as the first company few hours after activation of segwit.
We was also the first site who had Bitcoin Cash deposits and Withdrawals enabled and the second who had Bitcoin Gold enabled ( Initial sync on that coin was very slow probably intention so the devs had some advantages over others ).

What I was just initial saying here is that if core had full support in bitcoind then the adoption would already be bigger but users blame only companies here for not supporting it.

And saying that they need time is a lame excuse, for merging Bech32 support what isn't supported by most wallets there was enough time.
And Bech32 causes a lot more confusion in the short. ( I'm neutral on Bech32 personal ).

Go back in history how Segwit was called ready all the time and only the "evil" miners blocked it.
In fact nothing was ready and then the excuse comes that they can't develop when they don't know if it will ever be activated.
Thats another lame excuse as they clearly said its ready.
All the features could've been coded in already and a little check if segwit is active on the network would've been enough.
Segwit supporters also said more than once that Segwit will solve the scaling issues instant, after it was activated they switched to "give it some time".
It really doesn't matter if someone like segwit or not, after it was activated most would just use it to avoid high fees if it was possible at least.

Quote

I disagree with you, SegWit fixes transaction malleability and allows use of payment channels for example.

Mallaeability is not a big issue and there was better prospals to fix them on all transactions not only on segwit ( Flextrans as example ).
But those would need a HF.
I don't like the payment channels either as it causes or could cause a lot new problems and doesn't fix on chain problems at all.

In the end it doesn't matter at all, not scaling on chain caused the forks and will cause a lot more forks and those causes lot more work and problems.
On chain scaling wouldn't be a problem a HF would've been easier to deal with than all the mess now and all the things Segwit does would've been possible without if a HF was done.
Now Bitcoin will be forced to HF also in the future as it can't compete with the Bitcoin Cash DAA in the long, the first time bigger effect you'll see in a few hours for the next diff epoch.
Blocks will probably be slower for longer time and the backlog of tranactions bigger for longer time and fees higher for longer time and it could happen that the problems only increases with each cycle.
1. Cycle faster blocks as now but still mempool not a single time empty during this epoch.
2. Cycle slower blocks with even higher backlog in the mempool and higher fees for longer time.

It could happen that the cycle with faster blocks becomes even shorter and the cycles with slower blocks longer.
Must not happen and the price difference + backlog with high fees will cause also hashpower switching but in the long it will happen.

Some users fears huge blocks but ignore the fact that scaling on chain doesn't mean there can't be devloped sidechain solutions as well and if those are better they will lead to smaller blocks on chain no matter what the max blocksize is.

Bigger blocks now isn't a problem at all and we don't know if the current sidechain solutions are the best or if there will be better solutions in the future, its trying to solve non existing problems and thinking we're smarter now than people in the future.

Reality is just proving that there was so much going wrong and still going wrong but most are still ignoring reality.

The 2 ( biggest ) mistakes Satoshi Nakamoto made:
1. No dynamic blocksize based on demand like the daa ( Max blocksize = average Blocksize over last N blocks + xx% with a limited max increasing and decreasing to avoid manipulation).
2. Making Gavin Andersen lead dev without asking him.

Without those 2 mistakes we won't debating a scaling issue at all and still smart and good devs would develop more solutions what gives value to the network.