Bitcoin Forum

Looks like those assholes at Blockstream are losing finally.  Looks like their 1MB block limit crippling of the blockchain so we all need to buy their Lightning Network isn't working out.  I knew people would finally jump over their very dumb arguments that 2MB would lead to centralization. 

I am not in favor of a private entity owning a group of core programmers who take a position to make valuable the offerings of that private entity.  That just reeks of improper.  Good riddance Blockstream.  Looks like the new kid on the block is Bitcoin Classic!!!

http://paymentweek.com/2016-1-20-bitfury-now-supports-bitcoin-classic-and-2-megabyte-block-size-seems-to-be-winning-the-battle-9421/?utm_content=bufferf2145&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer (http://paymentweek.com/2016-1-20-bitfury-now-supports-bitcoin-classic-and-2-megabyte-block-size-seems-to-be-winning-the-battle-9421/?utm_content=bufferf2145&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

Now we just need to take their commit keys away from them for getting sucked into acting on the code for the benefit of a private concern.  A clear conflict of interest.  Can't someone fire these guys?

key debunks
core: "2mb will cause a fork and an altcoin"
no. because:
1. if a miner upgrades and 10 dont.. he might cause drama.. until....... another miner makes a block minutes later that doesnt have the non consensus block in its header chain, thus orphaning the miner who got too eager.. orphans happen already. its not a problem and definitely not an altcoin creator
2. miners wont upgrade unless they are sure that the community is ready otherwise they would get orphaned/rejected = no pay
3. the only way to create an altcoin is for an implementation to only link to its own kind, and only to miners of the same kind. otherwise the orphan/reject rule checks will sort it all out and bring everyone back into line on one chain, because the data would very and there can only be one winner

core: "2mb will cause fullnodes to need to be in datacenters"
1. tell that to 30million non datacenter netflix customers happily downloading 166mb every 10 minutes for SD streams or 500mb every 10 minutes for HD streams
2. if you take away the wishy washy shift of signatures and count up the total REAL data of segwit.. its the same

core: "full nodes would be forced to upgrade to stay part of the network"
1. segwit makes fullnodes not fullnodes but "compatible nodes" if they dont upgrade also. as they cant verify transactions unless they upgrade to segwit

core: "2mb doesnt fix the malleability attack issues, or doesnt allow other features"
1. then how about do the 2mb and your features all at the same time, seeing as fullnodes are going to need to upgrade to stay at full verification ability when segwit is available you might as well hit 2 birds with one stone.

core: "but anyone wanting 2mb is a corporate shill"
1. core you are governed by blockstream that has ties to pricewaterhousecooper.... ..
2. the community is millions of people.. not 100 in your bandcamp and 30 or so in the classic bandcamp.. you forgot those in the middle pissed off with both sides..
3. we just want bitcoin to do more. we would even be happy with a 2mb+segwit (2birds one stone) as long as its clean code
4. or even 2mb block limit.. with segwit miners having the 2mb block relay acceptance limit but a 1mb segwit creation preference. win win win

core: "but we only care about bitcoins future and only care about the underlying code. with no corporate drama or wanting people to use alternate gavinchains
1. pricewaterhouse cooper
2. liquid
3. sidechains

and finally
core: "we have a roadmap, if you dont like it. we will insult you, tell you to STFU and carry on with our agenda

If you disagree my friend, create your altcoin ;D

With your amazing understanding of crypto-currencies, it's going to be an amazing success!

Maybe your coin becomes more popular than Doge!

Good luck ;D

All this big war between people which have the same aim - a better bitcoin as a unique product and invention - is only damage for it and put in discussion its future. Both group has their followers according to various factors which has conditioned even this big division and, according to me, at all necessary. Not being a technician cannot understand what is right and what is wrong or what variant of bitcoin is better than another but for me being 1 MB or being 2 MB it is almost the same. If they cannot deal about such (repeat for me which judge only apparently) kind of matters who knows what may happen for more important question. Anyhow the division is now a fact and the aim of my post is to tell that from now and in the time to come the followers of bitcoin will take care more to fight with each other trying to argues which variant is better than will care with bigger problems of bitcoin such may be its spread, its acceptation and its regulation. What a pity!

Blockstream just announced a strategic alliance with Price Waterhouse Coopers. Cypherpunks need fancy mansions too.

instead of wanting more for bitcoin, which is what the community wants.. you propose sheep-follow the 100devs agenda or f*ck off to an alt
shame you didnt debunk my debunk with actual real life case scenario's that 2mb is deadly.. or using science to show that it cant work..
even simple maths would have done fine too.. but no,

seem like war started and it not gonna end up well for us
opinions are divided so next moves will be bold
what will be we will see but some thinks this is good other that is bad
what about us who are in the middle?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZ3lzCyW0AAw0BJ.jpg:large

Core devs ARE Bitcoin. The day they get tired of the idiots wanting to hard fork for no reason is the day the hard forkers will be fucked, since the team will consist on talentless idiots trying to rull the fun node. That's the day im dumping my coins too. Fortunately, the Core scaling roadmap will continue and Crapsic will die just like XTrojan died.

This thread is just butthurt by a sore Gavinista.

the r/btc spooks are having to do overtime here, getting more desperate by the day, as the rump sub they run fails to ignite, and the realisation sets in that the reddit zombies they play to there have no real influence over anything

gavin is trying to flank the bogus classic approach with *his own* barren last stab at wrestling the code from the strong hands too, as classic's dead end fork has been revealed to be as lacking in insight as their 'developer' jtoomim is in coding skills...

here's an imgur set of screenshots of adam back calling out toomim on the Bitcoin slack a few days ago - toomim literally runs away from the exchange as adam starkly highlights toomim's lack of ability - in front of other devs...

https://imgur.com/gallery/wbsxJ

This has to be some joke. I have no idea how someone has successfully spread out the 'Blockstream is evil' propaganda among so many people within the community. You're living in a delusion.

FTFY. There is no "buying their" LN. The Lightning Network is going to be part of Bitcoin and it is free to use.

Technically you could say that. Basically people are trying to push them away due to some Blockstream propaganda. Apparently they like to think of non-Bitcoin users as the sheep/average Joe of the financial system while in fact they are the sheep of the cryptocurrency system.

Like bitcoin is free to use! ;)

Thanks Blockstream (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1305286.msg13434349#msg13434349)!

Do you know why the paragraph is titled: '8.5 Fees'? Because in the future they will just make the amendment '8.51 Additional Fees' and lay down a fair use price to be paid to Blockstream.  Blockstream is privatizing Bitcoin via a sneaky run around.  Their make excuses all day why 2MB is dangerous - when in fact 8GB probably isn't.  They are merely creating a need for their Lighting Network.

Core is the now the fucking Alt.

Yes, exactly like that. Free as in speech, not as in beer.

As previously said LN is free, so free as Bitcoin. If any of you guys had realk skills you could develop your own version of LN and make that the official one, but unfortunately you don't.  :)

No. Stop posting nonsense. This is not going to happen. LN is not "theirs", sidechains are. I'm getting tired of the nonsense from shills.

Essentially if you remove Garzik and Gavin from the Classic team you're left with a group of newbies that have no idea what they're doing.

Hmm we are still going on about Blocksize well bigger is not always better but I see a 2mb implementation being useful especially since it keeps more free nodes (Free defined as nodes not centralized to any groups) on the system, bandwidth being an issue and the need for Global Nodes not just US centric located nodes will allow home users with a decent net connection to maintain their presence on the network especially in low node areas like Africa, Latin America and some parts of Asia (Partially including slow internet China).

“We call our code repository Bitcoin Classic. It starts as a one-feature patch to bitcoin-core that increases the block size limit to 2 MB. We will have ports for master and 0.11.2, so that miners and businesses can upgrade to 2 MB blocks from any recent bitcoin software version they run,” they further explained.

As long as I can run it and recall from a 0.8 0.9 gen editon of Core I see no qualms with this upgrade, or I'll need to check two edition compatibility with a multi-sync in a 1.0 patch edition somewhere lol.

(Then again I have not looked in a few weeks but if all it does is make 1mb 2mb then no conflict there as far as I can see) based on what I can tell this is a stop gap implementation I would run finally as one of those stubborn Core nodes :P.

(Expands time for upgrade and size crisis do research and fix patches/add features in the future, reduce the damn drama for a bit win win win)
http://dcinno.streetwise.co/2016/01/29/what-is-bitcoin-classic-an-explainer-on-blockchain/

the only accurate part of swordsoffreedom's post is that 'bigger is not always better'

pruning, segwit, IBLT/weak blocks/thin blocks - a phase of refinement created through experienced insight.

by comparison the clunking classic fork is a lumpen, cretinous lurch, for which apparently, 'not much testing is needed'

Regardless of the preferred route to increase capacity, your comment is the type that causes division, mistrust and hate. It leads to the darkside.

Give the guy some credit for pounding the streets during the early days and getting investors interested in Bitcoin and being part of the reason that it has so much value today.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=koIq58UoNfE

The eventual answer will be the right answer and the name will remain or revert back to being called Core.

Very valid point. But this assumes that everyone will stop working on the main chain if the Classic implementation passes the consensus threshold, which I doubt.

That's not what I meant. I was comparing the current two groups, people contributing to Core and people who are/will contribute to Classic according to their website. I don't think that everyone would stop working on Bitcoin but I'm sure that we would lose some very important names due to this.

If you take emotion out of this, the version that reaches consensus first, reaches consensus for everyone. This happens every 10 minutes already. Joining the consensus opionion is part of the protocol.

On paper, why sould anyone leave? This is how bitcoin is supposed to work.

Scenario: 75% miners adopt hard fork and it happens, 25% disagree. How can they reach consensus for "everyone"? This does not make sense.

A lot of people will leave. However, maybe more would join. Who can know exactly what is going to happen?

75% is often seen as a majority vote. If you are in the 25%, would you not consider it a fair vote and your view is in the minoirty?  In any event, the level to be reached to achieve consensus is evidently the first thing that needs consensus.

Who knows what will happen, but as long as Bitcoin remains internet money, it will continue to evolve. Who knows, creating more capacity to expand its attractiveness may bring even more people into the development community.

Gavin has been unsucessful in trying to fracture Bitcoin and increase the blocksize already. What makes this approach any different besides magically changing a number ?

I would not because Bitcoin is not a democracy.

Segwit offers an increase in capacity as well. Nothing special about the fork and 2 MB blocks. I do wonder what is going to happen though.

I'm reasonably sure segwit will end up needing a hard fork.  How do you deal with nodes that fail to update? There will be differences in the data between full nodes. There is too much risk at the moment with the soft fork without more testing. It sounds feasible to soft fork, but....there is always a but.

It won't. Nodes that do not update will not be able to validate the data, that's about it IIRC.

Peter Todd recently said it should probably be a hard fork. Did you follow that?

Core's view of how Bitcoin should be governed:

1. All changes should be with consensus

2. Consensus means everyone agrees.

3. We don't agree to anything but our own roadmap.

4. Therefore, anything but our way isn't consensus and can't happen.

5. Hard forks threaten consensus too, so no hard forking unless
we say so and no doing anything unless Gregory says its ok.

It's almost impossible to reach 100 consensus

it makes more sense to think about "majority" instead of "everyone"

no?

I didn't. Where?

Only a minority disagrees with it. Another group is obsessed with Core and Blockstream and the third group is just weird.

100% is realistically impossible. 90-95% is possible and we should not even try anything under this number.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/43fadt/peter_todd_segwit_is_not_safe_to_deploy_as_a_soft/
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/012301.html

I didn't follow it...

No. What you wrote is misleading and it is probably because you haven't looked into it yourself. He made a proposal on how to reduce the risk of deployment via the soft fork (regarding old nodes being unable to verify new data). I haven't followed up on the next posts on the list, but it seems like a good proposal that should shut some people up (that have been complaining about this like it was going to kill the whole system). 

I am not sure how you think this would ever be possible.

1 - Blockstream took a bunch of VC money and will need to somehow turn a profit. The LN is their only "product" therefore LN must somehow generate revenue for blockstream

2 - Even if the above were untrue, there must be some mechanism to keep track of who is owed how much in the LN and whoever keeps track of this is not going to do this for free (in Bitcoin the miners do this via confirming transactions and extending the blockchain, and in return they get the block subsidy plus the tx fees)

Lightning Network is a Joseph Poon invention. You're probably thinking of sidechains.

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper-DRAFT-0.5.pdf

People seem to mix these two up. There's only 1 developer on the Blockstream payroll that is working on LN (as far as I know). Would the whole company put only a single developer on their "only product"? No. Another thing that people seem to forget is that they're free to develop LN themselves if they have the adequate skills to do so.

The conflicts of interest inside Bitcoin core have reached near deadly levels. At one time core was free and independent, this is no longer true.

Taking a look around here, it's not very hard to see that most devs opposed to 2MB blocks are on Blockstream's payroll. Very sad and disgusting.

That should be and argument strong enough to drive the consensus towards the 2mb implementation ASAP!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1305286.msg13728330#msg13728330

classic's coinbase clunkers should implement their bloatcoin as a Bitcoin sidechain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE_elgnIw3M

Oh, so what other products/services does blockstream offer? How else do then plan on generating revenue for themselves?

If that is true then there's no need for you to continually lambast
about how dangerous 75% forks are, since the conversation is about
needing 75% to fork away from core, which is a large majority
not a minority.

I don't expect you'll stop doing it though.

It is most likely going to be sidechains. My guess would be custom made sidechains with technical support or something of that sort. I honestly have no idea and haven't looked into it.

1. It is dangerous and harmful; 2. It doesn't matter who's forking away from who. If Core proposed an hard fork with a 75% threshold, I'd be against it. Nobody in their right mind would propose such a low threshold unless they don't really care about the system but just rather want to get their own way as quickly as possible.

But if those very important names are taking money from private interests, where those private interests want them to impose artificial limitations that force bitcoin users to adopt fixes like those known as Lightning, then it is good to see those 'important names'.

This is called 'conflict of interest'. Bitcoin Core is controlled by those having a private interest aligned with limited the blocksize.  Therefore, fuck them.  Good riddance.

Wrong. There is basically zero evidence (which would be considered real and legit) in regards to these accusations. You've been deluded by the opposing party to think so (of course there's a chance, but that chance exists with everyone (see what happened with Hearn)). Segwit is essentially much better than a 2MB block size increase and it adds capacity as well (which grows upwards and is not an instant jump). Nobody is forcing Bitcoin users to do anything. Bitcoin can't scale efficiently without solutions such as the Lightning Network.
Interestingly everyone seems to forget that the Core developers own a decent sum of Bitcoins and would probably profit more if the price went upwards.

---

---

The only underlying logic present here is: They don't agree with my view, therefore they are evil and want to artificially limit Bitcoin.

scaling is about far more than just making arbitrary numbers bigger - classic clunkers need to listen and learn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYHyR2E5Pic

Partnering with PwC probably got income already. The worst thing is Bitcoin meant to be decentralized, but the weakest point in decentralization chain become Bitcoin Core which got basicaly monopolized by BlockStream and Bitcoin as just settlement mechanism developers. It is obvious bad actors have reason to attack the weakest Bitcoin point and overtake it, without decentralized development and more alternatives people can choose from the one which fits their need/or future Bitcoin vision, there will always be this risk.

Can you explain this for me?  Bitcoin Core is a project with dozens of people. One of the main developers of Bitcoin Core is a founder of Blockstream. And this is "monopolized"? Please, help me understand what you're thinking here.

Meanwhile, the developers of other implementations just don't bother to tell you about their business partnerships at all. Makes me sick.

I dont see a reason to stay with 1 MB all the way.
Just seems so vintage.. which isnt suitable to bitcoin at all.

The Lightning Network which is privately owned by Blockstream.  They want you to believe Bitcoin can't scale without you having to buy access to their system. 

But, I believe lots of solutions for scaling can be devised without any overlord owner. 

Core programmers have a conflict of interest - they say things like: "Bitcoin can't scale efficiently..."  Because convincing others of this allows them to burden the system with a limit that drives need for their solution. 

Fuck that.  And fuck those guys who were trusted to control the software while they got on Blockstreams payroll.

It is now useful for Blockstream to block expansion to 2MB so there is greater need for Lightning.  They monopolized Core because their de facto 'veto' vote has stopped Mike Hearn and others from going down a road that permits scalability without the Blockstream privately owned solution.

Look, you guys got found out.  The community isn't that stupid.  Knock off the bullshit.

LN is not privately owned; you're trolling. Get your facts straight before spewing nonsense around here.

So then your argument is purely academic, since you believe there's only a minority supporting a fork anyway.  Correct?

I'm not sure that increasing it to 2MB would cause re-centralisation of the bitcoin network.
I am also not sure that increasing it to 2MB would do very much! We could probably do wih increasing it to 10MB to make it more viable and a faster network (also offering greater difficulty and with greater difficulty can come a faster speed of hardware).

The answer here is both yes and no. Currently I believe that only a minority supports the fork. I'm not saying that this can't change though, nor am I saying how many people are actually in support of a block size increase (where supporting a block size increase doesn't imply that you support a different proposal (fork)). I wouldn't mind 2 MB blocks right now (if they properly fixed that attack vector without a workaround as Gavin proposed). However, in regards to Segwit or 2 MB blocks, I'd take Segwit.

All wrong. 2 MB might cause some centralization due to less nodes being online (the number is dropping anyways though). We can't do 10 MB blocks because of propagation delay, validation time and orphans. An increase of the block size limit won't make the network 'more viable and faster'. The speed of the network will remain the same.

Perhaps a register of interests for those working on the production infrastructure or proposing changes to the production infrastructure might be worth thinking about.

Don't divide and conquer idiots, the price will halve.

Do you really want that after all the struggle we've been trough?

So then we agree on that point.  But lets see if Core will do it.
Based on Greg's comments thus far, I'm sensing resistance.

its not rekt and never will be core is the best and it will the main thing, classic will not take over

Then go ahead. Who's preventing you from helping out in the current situation? Make a website about this and I'm sure you will attract attention and others will help.

It makes sense though. SegWit + 2 MB block size right now would be pushing it.

This is why I would be willing to accept a fork that has a high consensus threshold. Whatever happens there we stand united (pretty much). I dislike the idea of splitting at 75% and forcing the other people to join because of high difficulty and whatnot.
If Bitcoin does end up being harmed because of it you can be assured that this was all part of someone's plan.

Segwit as a hard fork could enforce a 2 MB limit on the transactional data (i.e., including the segwit data).  

With segwit as a soft fork, an accounting trick is necessary in order to limit the non-segwit data to 1,000,000 bytes (if segwit = 0, then this inequality reduces to "base <= 1,000,000 bytes"):

   base x 4 + segwit <= 4,000,000 bytes

But with segwit as a hardfork, we would have:

   base + segwit <= 2,000,000 bytes

Or more simply:

   transactional data < 2,000,000 bytes

I hope you dont want compare partnership with PwC and sponsoring from successfull Bitcoin companies like Coinbase. If you do, I suggest you google controversies about PwC and what damage it can cause to Bitcoin when so many important Bitcoins developers are sponsored by Blockstream partnering with PwC.

Many important Bitcoin Core developers are sponsored by Blockstream and althought all these sponsored developers can have similar vision of Bitcoin future as mostly settlement layer for offchain solutions even if they received no Bitcoins from BlockStream, they are more likely to make little compromises than they would do otherwise. Maybe for example supporting artifficial blocksize limits now before offchain solutions exists and provably works - althought I dont understand why Blockstream want limit bitcoin adoption this way, I personnally know when Im paid by clients I dont mind doing favours back to keep good future relations.

the intensity of the attacks on the development teams that are bringing about a step change in the extensibilty of Bitcoin - via sidechains, and the refinement of the protocol thru segwit/IBLT/weak bocks - has a desperation about it.

and the inferior approach to development favoured by classic/gavin seems lacking in insight, and innovation - it appeases, it doesn't inspire...

forum noise is one thing - innovation is another...



Epicenter Bitcoin EB65 - Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell : Sidechains Unchained

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE_elgnIw3M

Epicenter Bitcoin EB95 - Adam Back - Why Bitcoin Needs A Measured Approach To Scaling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYHyR2E5Pic

bitcoin core devs are history, we will have new devs in a few months. bitcoin chaos is upon us and we will see the next 9 months that will be insane.... good luck all

This is just a opinion full of assumptions. Once you have evidence of anything then we might discuss it. Apparently you think Coinbase is a good (and honest?) company; is Brian a saint too?  ::)
Just keep in mind that Maxwell's opinions (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/43n552/itt_prescient_statements_by_greg_maxwell/) have not changed since 2013 and Blockstream was funded in late 2014.

No. You are willing to risk a 6 billion market cape and hope that we will "have new devs in a few months". This is irrational at best.

What a beautiful post.  Couldn't have said it better myself.  I wonder how the Crypto world will remember Blockstream?  After the Fork.... will they be punished?  .... or forgiven?  

I know how I will be voting in that one...... assuming of course they do not IMMEDIATELY turn from their destructive ways.  Although, it is sort of ironic.... that the harder they fight against Classic, and the inevitable change that the OVERWHELMING majority has made clear it wants.... the more evil they look, and that is actually helping solidify resolve in the comunity against them, and for Classic.

Yep. 

It has now become the case that Classic is the will of the people, large block size is what the majority wants, and SegWit and sidechains is the Alt.  Core has benefitted mightily by calling everything the 'alt'.  Now, they are the alt.  Core Devs need to be replaced.  You can't work for Blockstream and impose unnecessary restrictions on bitcoin just because your cool new technology needs the capacity failure to drive demand.  100% bullshit.  Those Core Devs can't be trusted. 

Blockstream is 100% bullshit.  Time to stop this crap now.  Remove the 1MB cap. 

no the majority want to stay with core, unless you have proof that classi has 90%+ of consensus

also blockstream is not related with classic and segwit, segwit is just a temporary solution, there will be an increase in the future with core

You're not even trying anymore which makes me wonder if you've become desperate? You're just working against Core and in favor of Classic. Usually most of the stuff that you've written is false.

Lauda, you are such a lying, misdirecting shill.  I am hardly desperate....  I moved most of my bitcoins into Ethereum.  I'm up 30%.  If you and the rest of the idiots sitting around in denial about Core's demise continue to make it clear you are willing to kill Bitcoin if you can't have your way.... then I'll move the rest of my coins into Ethereum.  And I WILL make money.  Now, after you guys are gone, and Classic Devs back in charge.... I will come back into bitcoin.

But the FUD, misdirection, lies, and sabotage that is being played by Core/Blockstream supporters is getting dangerous, and I thnk this Fork may turn out very badly for people not careful.  What bothers me is that while MOST people may not step on any financial disater mines during hte Fork..... I think Core Supporters will stop at nothing, including spreading lies that may drive some hapless uninformed people to exchange coins that render them useless on the Core chain.   

Innocents will lose money.... because of people like you.

Core/Blockstream is crazy to think bitcoiners are just going to sit around while they bend the direction of the network into their own little private project.  No way.  Bitcoiners do not like privatization. 

Core devs are conflicted.  It is a conflict of interest that they impose a 1MB blocksize which clearly serves no purpose other than to drive need for their bullshit sidechain solutions which are going to generate money for their company. 

Core = Blockstream.  We need Classic today and 8MB blocks to render Core/Blockstream irrelevant.  How did Maxwell get so much power to stop the masses anyway?  This 'Veto' power is dangerous.

Moronic memes won't make your case any better.  Blockstream is trying to own Bitcoin by calling everything else an 'Alt'.  Large blocks are needed, necessary and prudent.  Blockstream is a private company trying to cripple blockchain so people will buy their solution.  They've got to be stopped!

You have no humor which tells me something. Anyhow, Blockstream never really called everything else an "alt". You're really confused, or you've been deluded by people spreading propaganda or it is because of something else. You're confusing Blockstream with theymos in this case.

Large blocks are not needed right now. We need a increase in transaction capacity. This does not mean that we need to increase the block size necessarily. Segwit will do just fine for now.

Sidechains are open source, LN is open source and free to use. What's your point here exactly? You're not buying anything here.

---

---

Please avoid ad hominem, propaganda and baseless accusations against anyone. One could argue that Gavin is corrupted by the CIA, but it is best to avoid these things when there's no proof.

Now I am really confused.  What is "LN"?  Are you referring to Lightening Network by Blockstream?

Heck, that is pretty much Vaporware.  i.e.... an unproven marketing concept that isn't yet backed up by actual working code.

I for one wouldn't touch Lightening Network with a 10 foot pole.  Its toxic.  My guess is that the Blockstream Investors are feeling pretty stupid and pissed off right now.   They probably had no idea they were backing incompetents.

I agree completely. How could bitcoin community work to stop this corporate rats?

Let's start discussing concrete plans or we'll just be dragged down the toilet.

And this brings up another interesting point that I think all the Blockstream Investors are probably wondering about.  I know I would be.

I'd wonder how my monies were being spent.  I mean... it seems to me that much of Blockstream time is spent playing social manipulation games, when they should have their noses buried in their Lightening Network codework.

Thats the real problem.... blockstream appears to have chosen a lazy development path of "Cripple Bitcoin and we win by default".... instead of doing hat everyone else does.... work hard to improve your own code,and try and win marketshare by honest means.

If it was my investment money, I would be looking at my agreement to see what sort of Audit of the books I could be entitled to, and if I had grounds for legal action to recover my investment.

Yeah, let's make the blockchain grow 8 times faster guaranteeing people can't run nodes and the process of node centralization starts and we end up with both centralized nodes and centralizing mining.

Let's also "make irrelevant" Blockstream which is the only way to scale Bitcoin to global levels without the massive centralization that raising the blocksize to retarded/Toomin/XT levels would bring us to.

You have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. Please go study a bit and then come back with some sound arguments.

Why is Gmaxwell so relevant? Maybe because he is one of the top contributors to Bitcoin and has done more useful things than you'll ever do in your life.

By the way, Gmaxwell has been defending his same arguments way before Blockstream was founded, so your tinfoil-hat type of arguments about the company are laughable.

INTERPRETATION OF THE ABOVE:::::

"Yeah, lets spread FUD, untruths, and throw an epic Rage Attempt to Destroy Bitcoin party on our way out the door!"

The Classic devs are a bunch of morons that wouldn't be able to run the full node unless they keep relying on Core devs keeping it up to date, what happens when Core devs get fed up?, that's why no one with a functional brain is supporting Classic.
Who has come up with SegWit? Core devs. Who has come up with Confidential Transactions? Core devs. Who has come up with the whole sidechains thing? Core devs. Who has come up with Libsecp256k1? Core devs. Who has come up with OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY? Core devs. I can continue all day.
What the fuck have Classic devs done? Exactly. When they can prove to do something of substance, they will be worth a contender to run the full node. Until then, anyone willing to put those guys in charge deserves bankruptcy.
You can keep FUDing with your low IQ replies while Core devs keep making great things.

I take it core devs are are running all of these?
http://s30.postimg.org/xkzcsdnoh/Capture.png

The most senior devs already left the sinking core ship. More will follow.

The question is really not how many will leave.  Its how many will stay and fight, and how much damage will they do.

as long as bitcoin succeed does it matter? no, who care who is behind the scene this thing is decentralized or at least is supposed to be so

But will it succeed.  And what percent of market share will it permanently lose due to the bad press, delays, and financial carnage that will undoubtedly come from the actions these few diehard bitcoin kidnapping rebels...... the Core/Blockstream Hijaakers......  These Crypto-Terrorists.....  That is the issue.

What damage can <25% of hashrate do?

At this level my guess is that would just decrease the rhythm of diff increase for a few days or weeks, and later on everthing would go back to normal again.

i'd agree, and given the 750 mined blocks courtesy period extended to those who haven't upgraded I think it would be in the best interest of any stubborn minority to accept the consensus view

In other words, the remaining 25% won't join because they agree to the proposal, they will join because they have no other choice (in case that this does really happen). Where quitting completely is not a choice.

the most possible scenario is the rest 25% to keep running the old bitcoin system and to change the mining system and ban asic miners. And i am very sure that for many months we will have two crap coins with no value at all and with 21 supply coins each other.

http://s21.postimg.org/uumzpb9mv/considerthefollowing.jpg

In other words, they're free to do what they want, just as they are now; free market. If you're suggesting that sticking by their guns would become an exercise in futility, that's just the way life works: You can't always get what you want.
P.S. Since this sort of "buht maa, that's so unfair!" arguments popped up so often, humanity invented tort law (read: binding contracts, with courts to interpret them & jackbooted thugs to enforce the courts' decisions).
Because otherwise we get this.

I don't think that the right word is choice here. A choice would be agreeing to a proposal between two or more. This is more of a ultimatum, either you join or you quit. Mining on the old and slow chain is pointless though.

Why would the remaining miners agree to make their equipment invalid?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice
Works for me.

they will not but is the best defence if a fork like this will happen

That is debatable although it would make sense to upgrade the chain to SHA3 and reconfigure some other things. It would be quite unfortunate if the network split into two parts, this would be quite harmful for both sides.

Your right, changing the PoW algo would be BitcoinCore decission, not miners decission. So Instead of about 20% support it would be changed to only hardcore fans wanting to back old Bitcoin with GPUs. Then the 20% of ASIC miners eighter switch to new Bitcoin rules, start supporting other SHA2 coin or sell mining equipment.

And about "we will have two crap coins with no value at all and with 21 supply coins each other", I dont think there is much incentive for the 20% minority to continue with 1MB blocks after the 28 days grace period, but let see who is right (if there really become over 75% support for the 2MB modification)

It depends though; I wouldn't say "hardcore fans" as there were a lot of people mining with a lot of GPU's before the ASICs got released.
It does not make sense to join that "team". Toomin won't even go with Bitcoin Core 0.12 (libsecp256k1  (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6954)), but rather 0.11.2 (i.e. it is possible that he is unable to apply the changes himself). Some might attack me for stating this, however I only said that it is a possibility. I can't find a good reason for which the changes should not be included in this release.

Why don't you bloatblockers just fork off and enjoy your "Classic" crapcoin without any definite rules (anything is up to vote!) Oh, and don't forget that it doesn't even have any guarantee of 21M hard cap: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4326ya/jonathan_toomim_on_bitcoin_classic_everything_can/

Enjoy this clown show! You well deserve it. Personally, I'll sell all the Classiccoins after the split while stupid people still think it's worth shit. And I'll reinvest it all in real bitcoins (no, the Classic clown show won't be able to monopolize mining - miners will switch back to Bitcoin as soon as they see how low Classiccoin sinks). And it seems that all the reasonable people will follow this simple strategy as well: http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground

which basically would kill bitcoin, not completely, but it would kill it by the adoption pow, which is kinda the same

the only good thing will be plenty fo cheap coins...

Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core is 0.11.2, thats why it is recommened to patch this version now if you support 2 MB.

Forget about "teams". Compile yourselves from source you wish to use and stop trusting authorites, this is only way to make Bitcoin decentralized. If you cant and need binaries, there is no need to stick with one team if you loose trust in the team, and you have to look for alternatives - this is what is happenig now.

not but they will continue to keep both of them. Is not problem at all for all of us to continue to have the same coins in both chains. This will confuse many and many will lost the trust in bitcoin system and that mean economical disaster for bitcoin ecosystem.
Is simple if a hard fork happen without consensus we will have.

1. Bank run from cloud wallets and exchanges
2. Collapse of bitcoin value
3. After that collapse of bitcoin mining
4 And at least to parallel bitcoin that all can trade for each other

anyway i dont think ever possible to a hard fork to happen in the next months.

Apparently some of the Classic supporters seem to think that it is (safely) doable within a single month. This makes it obvious that the main idea behind the fork is a "upgrade" to the ecosystem.  ::)

i dont think this is possible in the next months especially until sigwit patch. Imo i believe that we see an block increase after the summer and with a 100% consensus of all bitcoin ecosystem

There is no possible 90%+ consensus with so many people and different interests here. The 10% could easily be altcoin lovers who dont mind hurting Bitcoin a bit or have different reasons for capping onchain useability. I dont know how you want solve this problem then...



Switch was doable in one day, one month is enought but more time wouldnt hurt either this I agree. Push Bitcoin Core to compromise with 3 or 6 months grace period then...

Mining pools finally gearing up to Bitcoin Classic.

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/694080283407069184
https://twitter.com/slush_pool/status/694128642725679104

Core's days are numbered but that's not a big surprise. They don't give a damn about miners, businesses and users. 

It is not enough time. We can't even do a soft fork in that time frame. Segwit + 2 MB blocks are too much right now; it is either one of the two.

FTFY.

Technically you could do it pretty quickly if miners agree to it, but the question is how harmful this is.

 ::) Are you running out of arguments that much? AFAIK Toomim is the ONLY one that cared enough to move his ass to China to ask miners themselves what they actually want.

Here which miners that does support Classic from the website:

Bitmain/Antpool
BitFury
BW.COM
HAOBTC.com
KnCMiner
Genesis Mining
Avalon Miner

Now businesses that does support Classic:

Coinbase
OKCoin
Bitstamp
Blockchain.info (Peter Smith)
Xapo
Bitcoin.com
Foldapp
Bread Wallet
Snapcard.io
Cubits
Vaultoro
Coinify
Bitso
Bitnet
BitOasis
Lamassu
BlockCypher
BitQuick.co
itBit
BitAccess
Coinfinity
Chronos Crypto

Can you come up with a list that shows support for Core from miners and businesses so we can objectively compare? Or do you have anything else to back up your claims?

When we mention Blockstream then the talk about hidden agendas comes into play, but when we mention Toomin then the forkers stay quiet. It is obvious why he did that.  ::)
ATM (almost) everyone on that list in addition to the remaining industry.

https://i.imgur.com/5LHnQA8.jpg

---

---

I couldn't resist.

You have nothing. That's what I though.

http://s13.postimg.org/p3ng3uv5j/wrongtwi.png

---

---

I couldn't resist. (let me get down on your level)

Not sure what he means "everyone on that list". 
The companies supporting Classic also support Core?
Cause that doesn't make much sense.

You can either support 1 or the other,support both, or support none (as an individual and as a business). You can run both implementations so technically you support both with a node; there's no limit right? Example:

Well, true..but I don't think those companies expressed that as A.A. did.   If they made a statement supporting Classic specifically, then I think that's whatcha go by.

Came across this on reddit, is this true? That's pretty fucked up if it is.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43tyfk/blockstream_is_selling_the_lightning_networking/

It is not. The routing problem is not really a 'huge concern'; someone is going to figure out how to solve it in a decentralized way eventually. Someone who's familiar with programming or even better the process of engineering would know this. Depending on the work style, solution come while/after working (not before). He just fell for the usual Reddit troll (don't read it as a source of technical information). There's a specific kind of people in our community that will look very hard and very deep to find a flaw in anything that you do and try to use it against you.

---

---

If the majority only understood the challenges, there would be less toxicity.

Maybe but maybe not. Relying on vaporware at this point is not a very smart approach.

Agreed.

LN doesn't 'need' a decentralized routing solution to work. Someone is going to figure it out eventually, that's not the challange. LN is still a work in project. This is not what you'd call vaporware (if you weren't biased):
Lightning Network (https://github.com/LightningNetwork/lnd/)
Elements Project - Lightning (https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning)

Two independent implementations (there are probably more, but these are the most advanced ones yet) of the same idea, but they're working together (plan to agree on protocol level). I've already stated this in the past: Anyone could code up LN if they had the skills to do so.


Their simplistic thinking and bias is what is causing problems these days (toxicity towards people trying to improve the infrastructure). They don't even know that the most simple concepts are quite hard in CS (I could give examples of cache/paging calculations). I can't find a good reason for which people would think that the development of previously undeveloped software/features is easy?

What's the latest in the Classic fight for supremacy? I haven't seen as many shills declaring victory for a while? Are we any closer to some kind of consensus or what?

Any noise from Core?

Is it safe to stick my head back in the sand & ignore all the FUD & trolling & assume there's still a long way to go until anything changes?

Yes. Core is working on Segwit and preparing to release 0.12 version with libsecp256k1. Classic has created a BIP and set 75% as the consensus threshold. There has not been any 'real movement' at any side. You just have to wait longer and ignore FUD and shills from both sides. This is currently the best approach if you want to stay out of it.

Thanks Lauda. Good advice. My personal preference would be to continue with Core implementing Segwit.


Thanks again.

in the end no matter what they, do, because they are basically doing the same thing, as long as the capacity is increae every solution is fine, but it should not add uselesses crap like xt

still i'm more curious about what will happen for the next increase, principally for core, because you can not use the magical "segwit" two times

Guys stop with this DIVIDE & CONQUER crap, bitcoiners should stay united.

some would argue you should not be using it (as a proxy for blocksize increase) 1 time ;)

Good advise but cannot be possible. If the team is divided it is inevitable that this division be reflected even at the followers of bitcoin. More the two teams will go on their already chosen way, more division will be and more hard is to be verified and see again together all the followers and supporters of bitcoin. These days are very bad days for this product which is unique and the firs of its kind. I don't think that this can and must be the destiny of it. The developers team must have been much more responsible and must have been way much less selfish. They was not at the level in which must be a person with this kind of responsibility. If they were not so what can be waited by the "people" who supposed to not have their level?

yeah, as i see it seg wit, would be good when you actually can not increase anymore the capacity directly, so it is something that i would do at the end of the cycle(when you have near fully adoption and you need the final increase) not at the beginning

personally i would simply go with the 2mb change, if segwit add other interesting things, they can be simply added later or separately, so there is no excuse in saying "segwit it's not just the increase capacity but much more blabla", everything can be added as a stand alone if needed

Classic kool-aid. Veritas where is the majority that you keep talking about?

That was the point of XT, BU and now Classic. I wonder if we are going to see more forks one this one fails.

I wouldn't be so sure it's gonna fail this time. Past behavior of hardfork attemptives is not a secure way to predict future behavior. There are many factores and it could just be the right time for a fork now.

You are confused about the timeline of and causality/inferential flow between the actual events.

We spent months telling the Gavinistas XT would get #rekt like Stannis on the Blackwater, and that's exactly what happened.

We correctly predicted the behavior of past hardfork attempts (ie their utter failure).  These failures confirmed our predictive power.

That analytical framework is still valid, thus we may safely predict future forks attempts will fail for (more or less) the same reasons past ones did.

Your logic is 'floorless' (or rather, baseless)! :)

Bitcoin is still going strong and the DEVS will find a solution

where's dev? where roadmap? are we on fork?! :o

for anyone that likes a laugh - (dunno if i like the graphs or the pie charts more)...

http://xtnodes.com/

That's mean picking on the little kids! ;)

I agree. These different hard fork ideas keep coming though don't they. If Classic fails I'll feel quite embarrassed if Gavin etc try another strategy :D

I do believe that sometimes it takes a while for certain businesses to get going. Who knows if they'll succeed? It's a tough call at the moment. I'm not saying I want them to succeed. I'm not saying I don't. I'm just saying we do not know what is to come.

Why? Segwit is what scalability is about -- optimization, making throughput more efficient so that increased capacity doesn't mean increased load on the system. Why do you have to make it so political, implying that it is a "proxy" for anything? Segwit is the best of both worlds. Buying time is the idea here....with weak blocks and IBLT down the road, block size will be less of an issue as bandwidth pressures taper off. You guys act like bitcoin has no limitations.

If we're achieving roughly the same capacity, what's the obsession with hard forking right now? What is the urgency -- particularly when most devs and much of the community doesn't support it?

We should be concerned first and foremost with retaining bitcoin's decentralized and therefore censorship-free qualities. That means that increased capacity requires optimization (like Segwit), as bandwidth is the primary pressure on node operators....not simply bloating blocks as large as adoption will allow.

ELY5:
The "obsession" is because the blocks are hitting max_block_size. Similar to obsessing with not_dying when your car' careening towards a cliff.

All devs knew, for years, that this was going to happen; because obvious to a house cat. Some devs spoke of this problem and proposed solutions. These devs were driven out of core, no longer Core_devs.

Most of the community supports raising max_block_size.

also you forgot to add that the pretend increase of capacity by segwit is a bait and switch that will be filled with "confidential transactions" which re-bloat up the transactions, causing not an increase of capacity. but a decrease.

thats why we need 2mb... or even 2mb+segwit, so that everyone gets what is needed

Better would be if all transactions had to fit in 2 MB, including any SegWit signatures. This way any further onchain scalling is much beter controlled than current SF SegWit proposal.

You say that. I dont see it

Does anyone know here how bitcoin works or all of you act like a blind zerg? SegWit solve and other problems especially for fast transmitting big block. Bitcoin as it is now can't handle even a block increase to 2mb.

Most of them apparently don't, and some are just posting because of their signatures. 2 MB blocks are susceptible to a new attack vector; Gavin's proposal (IIRC) avoids this with a workaround that limits certain types of transactions ("censorship-free" system).

Out of curiosity, how would you expect to see it? What criteria would you look for/consider valid?


Apparently.

and what criteria you use and you say that most of the community support that increase now. Bitcoin is not a democratic system we change the core after a public vote. Bitcoin system is 100% consensus in bitcoin ecosystem.
Something else i like to add is that everyone think that miner are the most powerful part in bitcoin ecosystem. Not. Miners cant pass alone a fork. They need and consensus from full nodes. Full nodes can easy block all the transactions that came from that miners. Full nodes are more powerfull in bitcoin ecosystem than miners.

I'm going by miners (hashpower), the voting mechanism satoshi suggested and felt was sufficient.
Yourself?
Who suggested a public vote? And WTF do you mean by "Bitcoin is not a democratic system"? Avoid sloganism if you expect to be taken seriously.
Nonsense.
More nonsense. Miners don't need consensus from full nodes, that's pure ignorance/misinformation. There are XT nodes; Unlimited nodes; Classic nodes; I can throw up a Blunderer node. I assure you the Blunderer node is not going to be a part of your consensus, so WTF are you trying to say?

Integrity. What's it good for really?

^Absolutely nothing, say it again y'all

but this node that you say is a small part in bitcoin ecosystem. BitcoinXt nodes have 7% now and Classic have about 1% of all the nodes. If you know anything about how bitcoin workds you cant go anywhere with that node numbers....

Classic has been released yesterday, and already has 6% (https://bitcointalk.org/nodes) (not 1%), though explain to me how this matters? Do you know how Bitcoin works?
Please understand that I can throw up as many nodes as I wish, without owning a single BTC or performing a single hash.

Yes i know. The problem is that it seems that you dont know how it works and that you blindly follow the zerg. You can read how the node system works here. Is a good start

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node

Nah, I can google myself. How 'bout YOU explain to me why non-mining node "consensus" matters :)
Bonus points: explain the relationship between full nodes & "economic majority."

Edit: Looooool at the ridiculous wiki "Some are incentivizing it.

Bitnodes is incentivizing full node operators "until the end of 2015 or until 10,000 nodes are running."[2] For rules and how to join the incentives program, visit Bitnodes Incentive Program. :D :D

because of this


and of course this

You're confused. The node can mark a block as "invalid" for its fork. If I throw up a bunch of Blunderer nodes, which reject every block, do you think I'll break Bitcoin? Duh!

That means absolutely nothing. Structurally equivalent: Miners can do bad stuffs, but because (undefined, trust me on this), they can't.

P.S. See edit above ...oh, fuckit, i'll paste :D
Edit: Looooool at the ridiculous wiki "Some are incentivizing it.

Bitnodes is incentivizing full node operators "until the end of 2015 or until 10,000 nodes are running."[2] For rules and how to join the incentives program, visit Bitnodes Incentive Program. Cheesy Cheesy

Tell me about "economic majority" again? :D

---

* The whole "full node" bit is something that's constantly glossed over, mainly because it's an embarrassing bit of nonsense & doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Let me explain one scenario. 75% of the miners change the consensus rules and create a new bitcoin fork. Unfortunately the nodes dint follow them and block this nodes as invalid. the scenario is that in the old node system the mining decrease dramatically and the remain miners take all the bitcoins.
In the other poart of the fork the miners act alone, increase their mining share but has few nodes to relay their blocks.
I cant explain more. To troll the other only for trolling is not a loyal act. You act like a small part of the zerg not even the mastermind :P

The miners run their own nodes. Overlooking, for the time being, that they could spend 1/10,000th of the money they have invested in mining  gear & throw up a sufficient number of "their" nodes a la Bitnodes stunt (for giggles, what percentage of total do you suppose that should that be?), explain how the remaining nodes matter?
???

Do explain, because what you have written thus far is nonsense.

How does being that clueless and paranoid feel?

There are a series of standard "anti-blocksize increase" arguments. They have all been answered.

You're currently using the 'increased pressure on nodes leads to centralisation' argument, which always invites the standard 'segwit pushes the same if not more data than blockchain' response.

Segwit works around the blocksize limit, it doesn't *not* increase resource utilisation in a like for like comparison.

You said segwit 'buys time', implicit in that statement is an acknowledgement that something needs to be done. Hence I think you already know the answer to your own question "What's the Urgency?"

No. The current argument is Segwit vs 2 MB blocks where Segwit is far superior in any aspect (aside of the complexity). You could also argue between Core and Classic but it is obvious which the better implementation is.

I review this thread and reddit posts to make that decision. If reddit says to do something, it is usually a good sign you should do the exact opposite of that.  ::)

"No, segwit is far superior in every way (expect a really important one), change subject to something emotive then state some undefined thing is obvious."

That's your best argument?

• Classic fixes full blocks by changing a parameter to allow for bigger blocks.
  

This change is simpler (various objective measures: LOC,amount of functionality added, amount of exiting functionality modified (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/984587ac5d3e5593737605a89b442cf0a439a79a...bitcoinclassic:ed7ae15cdebbc37eba118435daccee4ea8f14af6)) and directly addresses full blocks. It works around the sighash problem with another temporary cap. It introduces a bunch of trigger code. It increases resource utilisation on nodes.

• Segwit works around full blocks by changing the way in which bitcoin blocks are built, and moving some of the data into a new data structure.
  

This change introduces more complexity than the blocksize update (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7404/files) and fundamentally changes the way in which bitcoin works. It also affects some economic incentives around transaction size and miner fees, these directly benefit LN at the expense of miners and non mininig-nodes. It has several benefits with regards malleability, sighash and p2sh. In doing so it increases the effective block size without changing the blocksize limit itself. It too also increases resource utilisation on nodes.


There are pros and cons to both methods (the above is not exhaustive). It is not clear that one is objectively better than the other.

Yet you are stating that Segwit is far superior. How can you possibly know?

You draw a comparison to the "Core vs Classic" debate. The implication here is either that you think Core is far superior to classic, or that you think that its obvious that Segwit is better than a blocksize increase. Its one of those opinions presented as fact things. It also serves to further polarise opinion on the topic.

This is a fact:

• It's not obvious which solution is better.

This is, on balance, most likely:

• Core is not far superior to Classic.
• Classic is not far superior to Core.

(This is because they are largely the same code base, and the respective changes to each have their pros and cons.)

This is another fact:

• Segwit and Blocksize increase are not mutually exclusive.
  

Just to add some data to the discussion, this is a current chart of miners by percentage of blocks they are mining in the bitcoin network.

http://oi67.tinypic.com/2mqor47.jpg

Almost any combination of 3 of the top 5 miners (any combination that does not include BW and BCCC together) would constitute a majority of the hash power.

The total mining power of every group outside of the top 5 miners is 11%.

I'll add this, here is the breakdown of pool by country:

http://oi67.tinypic.com/v3ezbb.jpg

Entities in China control 70% of the hashing power in the network.

Not sure what you're saying. Yeah, many combinations of 3 would net a majority, but the magic number we're looking for is 75% (3/4). So think combos of 4 or 5.
If you're suggesting that mining is highly centralized, it sure is.

The Chinese miners should collude to work on pre-mining next blocks so they can get rid of BitFury and the Other category and control 100% of the hashing network as a group.

Would [arguably] not be in their best interest (because would be obvious/would kill trust in BTC/they're suddenly mining 100% of worthless coins, instead of only 75% of coins worth money. 75% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Or something like that. Or nothing like that.).

You would never know about the collusion, they could simply pre-mine 80% of the time. This only has relevance to the Core discussion because the miners controlling the hash power are likely the most powerful cohesive group in the bitcoin ecosystem since the development group appears fractured. Outside of general consensus, they will likely be the group that really decides which fork in the road everyone will travel.

I think the OP is still yet to actually show or tell us how Core is REKT

Suggesting that Bitfury/KNC are chumps/wouldn't notice?
Sure, there's devious shit that may/probably does happen. At the end of the day, 'long as the implicit interests of BTC holders and BTC miners align, I (as a non-miner) couldn't care less.

If the interests don't align, we got a much bigger problem than a bunch of Chinese miners colluding to cheat non-Chinese miners :D

No matter how many walls of text you write, Segwit remains better than a 2 MB block size. Tell me exactly what problems get solved by the 2 MB block size? As always: none. Does it fix malleability, does it enable simpler script upgrades? Of course it doesn't. Again Segwit is more complex, but people are falling back on personal incredulity in this case.

He can't, because it isn't.

"Wall" of text. lol. The exact question you asked is addressed in the part you snipped!

Core is hard forking in April when CT is ready. Big blocks for everyone. Please return to your homes and places of business.

Isn't it?

What I've read has unfortunately wasted my time. Again, aside of the increase in TPS 2 MB blocks bring nothing new to the table. HF's should be used to fix long overdue bugs, but people have stopped being objective and technical and have succumbed to the 'power grab' attempts and 'Bitcoin will die if blocks are full' nonsense.

No.

No as in no there will be no hard fork? No as in it won't happen in April? No as in you don't like my face? No Wat?

they will hard fork in the end, segwit is not  afinal solution, so matter what they are thinking an d hard fork is needed, and i don't see the issue

there were in the past at elast two hard fork, and everything went right, so what's all the fuss now?

No, as in no HF in April. That's not enough time to upgrade everything. If you've paying attention, Core would most likely present a 90/95% consensus threshold with a longer grace period.

Only 90%? :o Too low! That ain't no consensus, that's a minority. Can only hope you'll staunchly oppose it, Citizen!

Sincerely,

The Violated 9.9% Majority.

Core is REKT because Blockstream owns Maxwell and he has managed to create a kind of VETO power which prevents the masses from adopting large blocks.  Core is now controlled by a minority who want small blocks to enable their private company interests.  REKT!  Core is the alt.  SegWit is the alt. 

Satoshi anticipated blocks large than 1MB.  He didn't anticipate SegWit and side chain bullshit. 

Be careful lad, you don't want to be perma-limited to 'altcoin discussion', do you?

Shhhhh.  The emperor wears no clothes.

Still waiting...

https://i.imgur.com/0HrDpzD.png

...surely OP will deliver.    :-\