Quote from: pekobites on December 21, 2017, 02:31:17 AM

Charlie lee has been warning against this for sometime already

I trust him

What the hell are you talking about? Due to all the idiots trying to stop Segwit in Bitcoin, Litecoin activated Segwit before Bitcoin did.

Litecoins Charlie Lee is strongly pro-Segwit; so if you trust him, trust him on this:

Quote from: Charlie Lee

Youve probably seen that I recently started advocating for SegWit to activate on Litecoin and Bitcoin. [...]

So you may wonder why Im pushing for SegWit. Litecoin does not have a block size problem. Thats right, and SegWit is not just a block scaling solution. I would even say block scaling is just a side benefit of SegWit. The main fix is transaction malleability, which would allow Lightning Networks (LN) to be built on top of Litecoin. And there are a bunch more nice features of SegWit.

Quote from: ir.hn on December 21, 2017, 02:53:14 AM

So what is the net effect if all non-mining full nodes ignore a block they think is invalid and no longer acknowledge blocks from that IP address? It would just be as if those nodes no longer exist, and as I've said before, bitcoin worked before anyone ever invented the "non-mining full node". Unless you can stop other miners mining on the block you think is invalid, you have no power. Or you actually mine and win the next block, then what you say matters.

No, you have it backwards: It would be just as if the miners who are mining invalid blocks did not exist.

Any miner building further upon an invalid block would mining on invalid chain, and thus similarly would be ignored.

When you say nonsensical gibberish such as bitcoin worked before anyone ever invented the non-mining full node, you clearly demonstrate that you have not even the slightest inkling of how Bitcoin ever worked. Nodes run the network, and always have. Miners are employees paid handsomely to provide Byzantine fault-tolerant transaction ordering. Do you even care what that means? I ask rhetorically.