Quote from: JayJuanGee on September 12, 2019, 01:26:03 AM

Quote from: jbreher on September 11, 2019, 04:12:20 PM

Quote from: DaRude on September 10, 2019, 05:53:19 PM

Quote from: jbreher on September 10, 2019, 04:43:04 PM

Quote from: DaRude on September 10, 2019, 06:53:55 AM

Wait so Bitcoin = bad because Segwit is "indeed an alteration of the Bitcoin protocol"

BTC is suboptimal not merely because SegWit is an alteration, but because the SegWit Omnibus Changeset is a net negative alteration.

Quote

but bcash Bsv = good because their shitty changes are "legitimate claim to a protocol change"

One of the things that makes BSV good is that it is being incrementally returned to the original Bitcoin protocol.

Do try to keep up.

Thus coming back to my comment about original design of planes not having jet engines and cars not having air bags etc... Can you provide any other technology which was not improved and is stuck at its original design? BSv's whole premise relies on cult thinking rather than logic. The design of first car, computer, TV etc etc etc have little to do with their current revisions and no one cares about ENIAC and steam powered cars.

Which, of course, brings me right back to the observation that the SegWit Omnibus Changeset is a net negative alteration. Degradation is not improvement.

Who cares about your qualitative assessment of segwit (and your attempt to change its name)? Your opinion on such point does not matter.

What matters is that segregated witness was passed by overwhelming consensus in August 2017 and locked in and implemented all in that same month. Ever since then, segwit has been built upon more and more and more. Segwit systems have been embedded into the current workings of bitcoin as we know it.

Segwit is also an optional component, as you know. You can participate in such new segwit systems that are offered within bitcoin or you can stay with systems that do not utilize segwit. Many people are not going to know the difference between what part of the system they are using, and it is not going to matter to them, except that they will likely realize that fees and transaction times are lower through such useage of segwit.. which seems like a net positive, to me.

Of course, you know that you can refuse to use bitcoin because of bitcoin's evolution in terms of better systems, such as segwit, and there are those dumbass bitcoin wannabe shitcoins that don't use segwit (yet), too, as you know. They are not really doing too well, either, in terms of adoption, are they? You dumbass (I call you a dumbass in a kind of redundant way because you remain in support of such bitcoin wannabes, and even erroneously believe them to be bitcoin.. which fairly clearly shows that you to have fucked up conceptions regarding even what is bitcoin.. that is if even you believe that crap).

I doubt your whining, the whining of BIG blockers or the whining of bitcoin naysayers is going to cause consensus on that segwit included in bitcoin topic to be undone. Your lobbying does not seem to have much of any effect regarding perception about the benefits of segwit on bitcoin, but it does continue to cause you to appear as an ongoing lame-ass whiner... a whiner about an issue that has about a snowball's chance in hell of changing in your stated preferred direction.

Also your ongoing whining on this segwit in bitcoin topic seems to be just another example to show that you like to focus on irrelevant issues and to attempt to describe such supposedly important issues in a way that exaggerates their actual affect on bitcoin - in other words, an example of your ongoing disingenuineness in regards to relevant and material facts in regards to bitcoin.

So jbreher vacated his argument about sticking to "original" and now he's back to Segwit = bad, which JJG covered in length above. All i'll say on that topic is it's been over 2hrs and it's not going anywhere, now get over it and get on with your life. Or continue trolling from a sideline, the choice is yours, we've made ours.