Bitcoin Forum

For months now, we have seen a verbal battle raging between Bitcoin Core and BU teams and supporters. We have seen personal attacks on people that were at one stage, crucial to the growth of Bitcoin. Some of these people made some big sacrifices to strengthen this experiment. < both in time & money >

~ How can we come together and find some common goal to resolve these issues?
~ Can we leave our personal vendettas behind and move forward?
~ Can we forget about greed and personal interest and put this experiment first again?
~ What would be the white flag moment for both parties to this fight?

Yes, Bitcoin was developed in such a way to make room for these kinds of battles, but things are getting out of hand and personal attacks are quite common these days. We are not civil anymore and most debates are getting very personal and heated.

A lot of power and money are at stake, but let's be civil about this and see if we can appreciate each others opinion without having to resort to "dirty" tactics to destroy the other person or team.

Be the first person to shake the other persons hand and you will see what will happen. ^smile^

Edit : Please DO NOT turn this into another scaling debate, but rather focus on ways to come together to solve these ugly battles.

The common goal is to scale.  Unfortunately, some people don't even recognise that the other side is scaling Bitcoin too, thinking that it's impractical/doesn't count as scaling.
Some of us can.  If anyone lets their guard down though, they feel attacked, and then they put it up again which is the main problem I'd say.
Probably not.  Too much money involved.
There isn't really one, both sides and, even more so, development teams are stubborn as hell.

The only way to end the war and move on is by getting one of the proposals activated. Even though, I doubt people will use Bitcoin Unlimited with all the scandals that appeared in the last a few weeks. As for the personal attacks, I believe that Jihan, Roger ver and others are getting them just because of they trying to achieve some personal interest which you mentioned.

We need consensus on improving the chain to improve BTC. The alternate coins like ETH are catching up because the current block times are slow, and confirmations take forever. We need to scale.

My personal hope is that the imminent activation of Segwit in Litecoin could bring pressure to the miners for a compromise on a scaling solution (at least for a malleability fix). I don't think the original Segwit proposal has actually a chance to get 95%, but it seems that at least >50% are possible as currently the adoption rate is going up, and then it's perhaps a question of negotiating again some kind of compromise like Segwit2MB.

I agree with the OP that the mutual allegations and personal attacks should cool down a bit. How to do it? Well, at least the Asicboost controversy has a solution: deploy an UASF to disable covert usage. As Asicboost has only marginally something to do with the scaling debate, this could bring more honesty into the debate - because if there is no hashrate change after the UASF activation the accusations to Bitmain are probably simply false and the accusations should end, but if there is a change then the BU supporters should be able to distance themselves from Bitmain.

We should also agree that there are multiple ways to scale, and try to be exact in what we write - e.g. not confuse "Segwit" with "LN" and not "BU" with "big blockers" or even "Bitmain".

You guys are all delusional, none of our opinions matter and nobody gives a penny to our thoughts, who do we think we are princes and princesses?
You all talk like everyone are saints with the best hearts, no people from the start were different and that's how a world with intelligent being given the free will works just get used to it, we're talking about millions and billions of dollars, there are people easily killing as many other people just for $1000 a head.
People can't even make peace with their God knowing He exist because they want whatever in front of them they want to have everything in this world dude being friends and shaking hands means sacrificing, putting aside differences, doing good without expecting anything in return.
But look how the world works are we all doing those things? don't we have nuclear bombs (antbleed)?
Don't we have terrorists (spammers/ attackers/ hackers)?

Only hash power matters and hash power shall speak for itself.

In my humble opinion,
 ->Fuck Roger Ver'
 ->Fuck Jihan
 ->Fuck Bitcoin Unlimited
 Why are we even letting a few fuck-heads decide the future of bitcoin ? Give  control back to the  developers,let them do what's best.Also I'm tired of waiting forever for the transactions to confirm.

Out of all the comments posted above,you only think my comment instigates things ? I don't think so.
This is merely a discussion/argument.I didn't even hate your idols (if you worship the members mentioned above).All I tried to portray is we should stop bragging about it and find the solution by 'actually coding things' over 'endless arguments'.I'm out.

I think that discussion about improvements should always happen.  There will always be diagreements about the future of Bitcoin, especially between the miners and the users.
I do think that there should be a voting system, where the mining hashpower counts as a vote in a certain time period.  The side that wins in that time period wins, the other side loses.

Right now it seems ongoing and never ending, it is like an election that waits until the results change before counting the votes.  As son as BU has enough votes, we fork, but until then the election goes on!

They'll end eventually.

When no-one give 2 shits about BTC anymore.

That's what's happening right now. Every other ALT coin in town is going super nova as the king flounders and splutters.

I think there is a misconception that this war CAN end, when it will just drag on.. and on..

What happens the next time we want to upgrade something ? Like the Scripting language.. sheesh.. 

Another war ? No thanks..

The idea that HASH power can solve all our issues, is starting to ring hollow. Look at the current situation. Stuck. in a rut.

Miners can't change shit : Is my take-away from this cluster f**k.

Maybe it is up to the EASILY LARGEST group, the 'Users', to sort this out.. Don't know how.. :P .. (UASF is ... La La Land..)

The solution is very easy. Wu needs to stop being malicious and accept segwit like he did with litecoin. Enable Segwit and make bitcoin great again. Any other solution including a BU HF ain't a solution.

My theory is that these "wars" are nothing else but the immutability dynamics of bitcoin at work, that protects the protocol from being changed, because so many antagonists cannot come to an agreement over change, in the same way that so many antagonists cannot agree over a re-writing of the block chain, rewinding all their spendings, but none of their receipts, and hence keep the block chain immutable.

Scariest thing about this whole situation.. One twat gets to decide the fate of Bitcoin !?.. That's not cool.

This illustrates the de facto centralisation of these things.  When this single guy could decide on LTC to go from "no segwit possible" to "segwit next week" all by himself (or a small "board of governors meeting") you know how late it is, and why the wars over "the possible future centralization" are ridiculous.  That said, even before, there were only a few people deciding on the fate of bitcoin.  In the early days, it was Satoshi himself, and later, it were the Core guys.

That's how it is since those ASIC mining companies popped up sadly. It wasn't like this when there was a competition though. Companies like KNC couldn't compete with the Chinese. If you think a bit you'll get that if you are into mining business it only makes sense to buy the most efficient unit available. So there can't be a competition, naturally. I mean who would buy a less powerful miner while there is a more powerful one?

When the most powerful miners being manufactured by a single company, that company practically owns bitcoin.

Indeed, and that is why PoW is doomed, always, to lead to such a centralization.  There are PoW coins out there still resisting ASICS, because their algorithms make it difficult.  But from a certain block reward onward, ASIC-like implementations will most probably become profitable.  So PoW coins can only remain decentralized if their market cap / block reward doesn't rise sufficiently for asics to become economically interesting with sufficient margin.

This problem was seen early-on.  This is in fact why LTC was invented, because scrypt was thought to be asic resistant.  It fell, rather quickly.  I think that DASH X11 and monero's cryptonight are still resisting as well as ethereum's ethash, the question is, how long ?

These coins have on top of that the nice property of having regular "hard forks".  On one hand, that means that the devs are the central authority where the coin is centralized.  On the other hand, they can change the PoW function "on the fly", which would entirely kill all asic investment (but not, say, GPU investment that can run the new algo).

i think the better question to ask would be who "doesn't" want these bitcoin scaling wars to end? debate is a good thing in my opinion, it comes from difference of opinions and it will lead to everyone trying to better their "solution" (hopefully).
but when debate is turned into war that is the problem.
and meanwhile certain groups of people are benefiting. the most obvious one that we can see comments in this topic too, are the altcoin pumpers who have used this opportunity to spread more FUD about bitcoin and pump their coins.

https://www.nxter.org/bitcoin-wars-miner-problems-scaling-issues-ardor/

Ah... the same kind of people i see in the real world. For example. And this is not me. This below is an example of sheep in our society.

In my humble opinion,
 ->Fuck honest rich people
 ->Fuck honest entrepreneurs
 ->Fuck any who doesn't share my ideology.
Why are we even letting a few fuck-heads "decide" the future of our country? Give control back to the politicians, let them do what's best. Also I'm tired of waiting forever for my ideology to be imposed on everyone else.

Concur.

He accepted SegWit with Litecoin because the Litecoin devs promised to support on-chain scaling as well in the future.
Something which Core doesn't seem to want to do which is another reason why BU exists in the first place.

Irrational. No miners own Bitcoin. The miners could change the protocols but if the users don't agree then the miners will lose. The point of Bitcoin is that the miners can only benefit if they are honest.

ASIC came about because of the buyers. The buyers paid $2,000 ish for a unit. Waiting times on average 6 to 9 months. It never occurred to the buyers that the units were used by the manufacturers to mine BTC, before sending it off to the buyers. The vast profit means manufacturers were able to produced units for themselves for free. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I didn't buy a single mining unit. I just used my existing GPU and mined altcoins to convert to BTC. I didn't play the game of greed in trying out-race my competitors because it doesn't work when competitors can buy too. It is no good blaming the chinese.

We need to accept that both solutions are not good enough. Bitcoin Unlimited is too risky and unpredictable, SegWit might be only a short term temporary solution.
It is easy to say for me, but the ideal solution would be to think about something totally new -  compromise, mix the best fragments of both worlds.
At this point is is apparent that SegWit won't reach 95% support, nothing will - it is impossible to reach near perfect unanimous consensus.

Exactly what many users on here are saying.

Would you be happy with the 1mb blocksize going up to 2mb then 3mb, 4mb?

Scariest thing for me is that there is so much hatred and ignorance about this whole situation. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is

for good men to do nothing. OP, has not kept quite about the "evil" that infiltrated this community. People are turned against each other, where

before this.... there were one common goal ---> " Bitcoin to the moon "  .... What a sad part of history this is.  :(

This thread should have been thought deeper before being done.
Will this really be the way to make peace or it will just make it worse?
Will this just be another thread to where they could throw their madness or they will now undrrstand each other.
As you said money and time had been wasted, so will they get down from their thrones just to give way and make peace.
Money is real evil.

I don't think that simple Block size increase is enough of a solution for BTC scaling problem.
We have problem with spam transactions, this is part of the reason why BTC is 'slow' - 2 MB block can be spammed as well.

Maybe we don't need a hard update of protocol at all? Maybe we need to focus on off-chain infrastructure instead?

The problem is everyone thinking that they're above the idea of respect.  No one could really respect Jihan Wu or Roger Ver, but soundbites on a thread about unification (this thread) are really pointless, and we've got at least two already.  Whenever someone decides to throw in the towel, the fighters just keep beating each other up.

And one of these days, an alt might surpass bitcoin's dominance.

We all want this raging scaling war to soon end by solving the problem head-on so the same thing will not come back years from now. However, this is not an easy task for now as there remains to be no clear consensus on the kind of solution that should be adopted. Anyway, I am sure that a time is coming when the Bitcoin community can finally laid this problem to rest. I have a high regards to this community as it has weathered all the storms in the fast with flying colors.

Why they simply can't make blocks to come faster or raise block size???

As this irritates others it irritates me as well as when I want to send/recieve money.

"People control bitcoin" - yeah right.... there are devs with these miners THEY control it we are just a users.... we need fast solution. I don't think that it would be hard to raise block size just that which will result in a temporary solution for few years.

To me there are two fundamental goals.
1. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Not Gold 2.0.
2. Decentralise.

Both will lead "Bitcoin to the moon."

As for spam - dealing with it should be a priority. It doesn't matter what solution to capacity or scaling anyone does, spam will exist until the ability to spam is blocked.

Simple 2 step plan to ending scaling controversy.

Step #1: calculate how many (real time) transactions per second a larger blocksize will yield.

Step #2: weigh pros vs cons to decide if larger blocks provide a significant improvement.

I think bitcoin transactions will be extremely slow, even with a larger block size.

Bigger blocks are like obamacare: "promise everything, deliver nothing".

2MB blocks won't make a difference.

Supposedly, 2MB blocks will require each node to process much more data, and each incremental step above that requires an exponentially higher time to compute.

I'm pretty sure if modern technology is able to handle this, it would be a great change to the network. We could nearly double the transaction throughout, reducing the high fees that miners currently require.

With every possible block size, btc transaction speed will never be faster than its DDoS rate of spam.

The network will always be vulnerable to spam transactions.

Adjusting block size won't change that.

Blocks could be 20 GB in size & spammed transactions would still be much faster and difficult to get rid of.

I can accept everyone's opinion about everything regarding the war and the split between bitcoin enthusiast about what to be and what not to be but still i could not believe that an alt could surpass bitcoins dominance ,it is not possible as bitcoin is the true digital currency and the rest are just copying bitcoin.

I haven't been back for long but I'm already getting the same feeling, this is getting really repetitive and nothing is going anywhere.
Based on the arguments being provided by both sides, there will not be anywhere close to an end of the debate for a long while, and I would not be surprised at all to see this continue until the day that there is a solution implemented, and even after that it will likely still retain one side complaining about how it should have been.
Coming together to solve this issue apparently requires miners to want to be on the same level as users. Otherwise, as they make money, we get screwed by their fees.

If Bitcoin does split, one of the branches will still be an alt.
And which branch will ultimately enjoy the support of everybody, it is difficult to predict.

Good post.  Some folks here already couldn't resist to try to debate in this thread.

At least you have some kind of urgency that we need to scale... I feel that is an important part of the solution.  I honestly feel the core devs have no urgency and don't really give a shit if Bitcoin stagnates while alts grow.  To me that's unacceptable and should be unacceptable to every investor and hodler.

seems the best solution would be segwit followed by a guaranteed block size increase to 8mb, would that make most people happy?

And then you bring up the core devs to blame for stagnation, trying to bait someone to come on and say that its the miners not the devs that are blocking progress  ::)

I'm not arguing here for a specific solution.  just saying shouldn't we have some urgency like the op

you should tell all that to miners, they are the one refusing to scale correctly, and they are the most greedy here, they only care about profit, and i can understand this, because when i mine altcoin, i also only care about the revenue

but i would choose the optimal and fastest way to solve a problem, and since we have no other choice now, segwit is the way to go, many other altcoin have already activate it

i'm still open for new solution, what about that block extention possibility that was brought not long time ago? it's seems already forgotten

The fall out from this scaling *war* is the accelerated ascendancy of the Alts. Eth particularly shows how strong dev can make up for a litany of sins including the DAO roll back . The promise going forward that there will be room for dev to progress appears to be a major factor of value in a blockchain.

BTC maybe an exemplar of how the first mover effect can be squandered.

Ultimately it may be a function of how mining has panned out in the division of power.

I *feel* that pos and pos like is a better solution to some extent with correctly incentivized nodes, (this can be quite a task to get right of course).

On this note has any pos chain ever been double spent, forked or attacked?

I think we all want the scaling/block size debate/war to come to an end. It's frustrating & it's holding bitcoin back, stopping bitcoin from reaching its potential which in turn is costing all of us money.

Goal may be common but method to achieve is different and thats where all difference begins
I think it is where moderation should come into play.Any stary from a healthy discussion should be dealt strongly
Agreed.Not possible

I want it to end, but I can understand why it goes on (personal interest). As it was pointed out, both sides idea is worth to consider, the goal is good too, but the implementation is important and too different. Now, there are good arguments on both sides.  There should be an independent moderator group and an "official" platform to put the arguments into use.

Pointless? Why would it be pointless? Who will be the asshole or the bully in a scenario where someone give the opposition the white flag and

then gets beaten down for it? All of us will leave a legacy behind and you will be remembered for something you have done. People like Jihan Wu

and Roger Ver will be remembered for what? The good or the bad things they have done?

BTC Dominance drop to a new low of 61% today.

We need to end this scaling war with a sense of urgently please.

if you support Core, please ask the core devs if they have urgency on this.

please

I dont want this "war" to end. Bitcoin works great as a digital gold and this difficulty to do changes means that is really decentralised and no one is in control.
In the other hand i like to troll guys like Ver or Jihan. This guys are a pure source of laughing  ;D Especially with Ver i cant stop laugh with him. Every day and a new surprise from him :P

if bitcoin dominance keeps decreasing, what do you think will eventually happen to the price? 

When price starts declining, what do you think will happen to the miner revenue?

What miner revenue declines, what do you think will happen to the network hashrate?

When network hashrate drops, I wonder if you will still think "Bitcoin works great as digital gold".

miners act against their profits for months now. For the rest of us means cheap bitcoins and everyone want this.

$1,316.81 (http://www.coindesk.com/price) (at time of posting) doesn't seem cheap to me.

Regardless of whether you want small blocks or big blocks, declining bitcoin dominance isn't good.   The war isn't good.
You seem to be the only one in this thread that doesn't agree.

Now the price is close to $1350. Soon this might even go higher and higher than the price expected. Miners are the one who concern much about the bitcoin scaling issues to get a conclusion. Because only based on that​ miners can make necessary changes with the investment plans.

if you only see in front you then yeah bitcoin is super expensive but the same answer i gave to you (and people saying bitcoin is not cheap) last year i will give you again: all these prices are super cheap when you compare it with a price in a couple of years.

you guys call bitcoin expensive when it is $200 then it goes to $600 then you still call it expensive then it passes $1000 then the same story.and you will continue saying the same thing in 6 months when price is $1800

For any newbie entering bitcoin the price will always be a problem if they are looking to earn through it as the risk factor while investing is really huge as you really do not know what the long term future of bitcoin or any alt coin will be and since the risk involved are higher people do hesitate to invest their bank roll and those who dare to invest are making a good profit.
@Kakmakr it is really difficult to get to a consensus simply because there are parties that invested millions and then there are purist who likes bitcoin for the simplicity and it is difficult to get a consensus between them.

fee are still cheap and will be still cheap if bitcoin price will double. This is a fact. And dont say anyone that 0.50$-2$ fee is a high price to transfer money around the world without the needing of the banking system and in many cases completely anonymous.
Is up to miners and to bitcoin ecosystem if they want to keep bitcoin as it is or if they want to do more innovation. And i dont think so that is a good strategy for miners to be against bitcoin developers and bitcoin community.

In most cases it are the faucet farmers that are being the loudest when it comes to complaining about the fees. In order to generate a dozen K's of satoshi's, they probably spend a whole day farming their way through every possible faucet. In order to use their 'dust' they have to include a fee that is double or even tripple in amount, just to move these coins. :D It's actually very simple, complaining doesn't work, which directly pops up three options for people - 1) to include proper fees according to the network situation. 2) to remain stingy where you have to swallow all the hours of waiting time. 3) choose another coin for sending and receiving transactions. Just QUIT complaining!!

And one of these days, an alt might surpass bitcoin's dominance.
[/quote]

Same thought here.
It's just a matter of time to happen.
Yes others are just copies but there are other alts that have improvements.
Before the time that there's no bitcoin, what is bitcoin? Altmoney?

A better and new, can surpass the old.

https://twitter.com/CharlieShrem/status/858776536035536896

the most can happen is this new system to be replaced by something better than bitcoin. And the reason is simple. Bitcoin works great as it is now and it has a real use in real economy. For that reason has and full block. But imo as and the tweet says from Charlie Shrem the biggest strength of bitcoin is this decentralisation. Everyone must know that if a system is more decentralised then is more difficult to happen changes.
If anyone not like this then there always the banking system or paypal or ethereum to use. In all of them there is a leader and a central organisation that control them.

The problem is that some people are only here to try to earn something, so decentralization doesn't mean anything for them until they can earn, pump the coin... I agree with you, if it was so easy to put BU or SegWit it will just show that we are centralized in a way.

Of course conflicts in different views are great cuz if they go in the right direction they can lead to even better solution. The problem here is that neither of BU and SegWit supporters are ready to talk clear about the problem and to see that they have same goal - to make bitcoin transactions faster. But they rather continue to insult each other like they are some children and both want to show that their solution is better and smarter, they don't show us that they are adults... that is the most reason why this situation is just irritating me.

As it goes bitcoin network can live without both for sometime, but eventually something has to be done, hopefully it will at end.

Cheap (adjective):
depreciated in value (as by currency inflation) (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheap)

Current bitcoin price in USD, at time of posting: $1,403.78 (http://www.coindesk.com/price)

Nope, still doesn't look cheap to me.

I would love to see the scaling wars end, perhaps it would reduce the miner’s fee and give Bitcoin a bit of a pump.

Of course that would require each side to agree on something or one side to win, which I don't see either happening soon :(.

It's such a difficult prospect now.  Obviously the fact that this hasn't been resolved yet means there isn't a simple answer to the problem.  There seemingly isn't a way to get a super-majority to agree, as positions only seem to become more entrenched and absolute as time rolls on.  A consensus mechanism working in tandem with aligned incentives seemed perfect, but evidently has its pitfalls.  The question now isn't merely "how do we break this impasse?", but "how do we break every future impasse?", because I sadly doubt this is a singular event.  Almost everyone says they don't want a split, but at the same time, don't want to compromise on their vision of how to go forward.  It's almost amusing that neither of the two leading proposals are technically incompatible with each other, but the idea of doing both is clearly unpalatable to almost everyone.  Those who want to implement SegWit generally don't want to increase the blocksize until later; those who want to increase the blocksize generally don't want to implement SegWit.

I'm still here hoping for SegWit plus a dynamic or adaptive blocksize, but that just seems to present yet more opportunities for everyone to disagree about everything.  I still think it's the right way to go, though.  At this stage I'd settle for tiny adjustments if that's what it takes for people to take the proposal seriously.  Since people are now more focused on the behaviour of miners than ever before, they have been removed from the equation and it is now purely an algorithmic proposal, which can both increase and decrease the blocksize:


(credit to Upal Chakraborty for their original concept)

So in plain English, a tiny, 0.01MB, adjustment to the blocksize can occur each difficulty period, but only if:

• SegWit is implemented
• Either there are sufficiently full blocks to justify an increase to the blocksize, or sufficiently empty to reduce it
• There are more fees generated in the last difficulty period than the previous one to permit an increase, but the blocksize can be reduced regardless of fees, which will deter gaming the system

No gigabyte blocks by midnight bloat and no sudden, sharp drop in fee pressure.  A gradual and sophisticated alleviation to the strain, not a rash and crude hack.  

This proposal is now so moderate that even if there was enough pressure to increase at every single difficulty adjustment (which is beyond unlikely), the maximum blocksize would still only be ~1.25MB after a whole year.

Did I kill the thread?  Apologies if a bit of pseudocode is too boring because there aren't enough accusations, witch hunts and personal attacks involved.  Seems that's the only way threads get any attention these days.  Would it help if I called someone a shill?  That always seems to go down well.

We all want the wars to stop, but there is so much at stake that is impossible for the wars to stop, both sides have different visions about what bitcoin should be and the only way I see them compromise is if they have too, and with bitcoin getting more adoption and the price so high, that is not going to happen.

I agree. I support this proposal.

It makes full sense to fix the bugs in the current system, e.g., transaction malleability, and optimize block space usage — which SegWit does — before making changes to block size limits. To do it in reverse, i.e., increasing the block size before fixing bugs and optimizing block space usage, would essentially mean:

• bugs in the current system would amplified in presence and in impact, and
• the ratio of wasted block space to useful block space would be preserved, therefore increasing the amount of resources wasted in propagating and storing these larger, but more wasteful, blocks. In contrast, optimizing block space usage before increasing block size would reduce wasted block space in proportion to useful block space, therefore reducing the amount of resources wasted in propagating and storing these blocks, since there would be less wasteful space to store and propagate.

Furthermore, adapting the block size according to a pre-defined interval's supply and demand is, in my opinion, a much safer method than what is proposed by Emergent Consensus. Emergent Consensus has the potential to unleash chaos on the Bitcoin network in that different pockets of the network may end up mining different blockchains because these different pockets came to different consensus regarding the appropriate block size to use, all before the Bitcoin network as a whole managed to wrangle itself into a universally-accepted block size. Frequent hard forks and chain reorganizations may become the new norm in such a scenario, undermining the integrity of the Bitcoin blockchain.

Indeed.  Emergent consensus is one of those things that sounds marvellous in theory, but the practicalities of making it work in the wild just result in some sort of chaotic free-for-all.  But at the same time, a static limit feels like an opposite extreme in that there's no flexibility at all.  My hope is that if the blocksize has to move, more people can get behind something that's almost as predictable as Bitcoin's algorithmic circulation and supply.  It's the fairest compromise I can possibly think of.

It may need tweaking to include adjustments to the witness space too.  SegWit upon activation with have a 1/4 base - 3/4 witness ratio, so if the 1mb base is being adjusted by +/- .01, then perhaps the witness space should also be adjusted by +/- .03 so that the ratio remains balanced.  Any feedback on that aspect is appreciated.

Bitcoin scaling drama is not a real problem yet for the network but I strongly think altcoins could help trying new solutions and compare which one is the best related to Bitcoin itself.
Maybe after test of time, some tech will arise from others and BTC can adopt those said techs to upgrade its "limits".

Altcoins can not do that. All altcoins are created for personal use, some people create it for profit, others want to create new products that replace old ones. Personal destination. So, altcoins can not help bitcoin. The bitcoin war constantly happens because of bitcoin freedom, and they want to master it, but they never reach their ambition.

Maybe you're right, the bitcoin fight happened because of the greed of some people. But the altcoin can support bitcoin, or at least, we can take advantage of the altcoins to earn more bitcoin. Actually, people do not really love altcoin, they look to altcoins to make a profit with bitcoin, which is a trader's job.

I really don't see a point in farming faucets (at least not anymore in today's market). You probably make the same amount in a week from faucets as you do doing unskilled labor for an hour.  If the faucet users really insist on still using faucets, try a LTC faucet or something.

I think technology wise, altcoin can be used as testing ground.  And segwit movement to LTC is quite a good idea to test segwit capability.  They may say that LTC block may not be full and does not need segwit but they can try a spam attack on LTC network and see how segwit  can solve it.

I think it would be great if we could wait for Litecoin and if everything is working fine. If everything is working, there is no reason for not implementing Segwit in my opinion - except politics of course.

As you know I support your proposal. You maybe should start a separate thread about it - perhaps with a poll - as until now we're discussing it in different threads and so we can't canalize the support. As a goal, there should be the elaboration of a concrete BIP proposal.

Maybe you could add the idea from the "2MB+Segwit" thread to include a hard-coded security block size limit (e.g. 2 MB for the first years and then moving up gradually, it would be best to find a formula to avoid future hard forks).

Technically it wouldn't be a great deal different to the existing BIP 106 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0106.mediawiki).  All I've done is tweak that fundamental concept.  

As for the hardcoded limit, with the formula as it stands in the most recent post, it's pretty much guaranteed not to break 2 MB in the first 4 years.  Mathematically, assuming an average block time of ~10 minutes, there are a maximum of 104 difficulty adjustments over a 4 year period, so even if there was a .01 MB increase at every difficulty re-target (the chances of which are infinitesimally small, IMO), the blocksize would still only be ~2.04 MB after 4 years.

If anything, I'm expecting people to tell me it's too conservative now, heh.  A new thread does sound necessary, though.  That way people can argue whether it should be more flexible or not, plus tell me if the proposal needs to include adjustments to the witness size as well as the base to maintain a consistent ratio.

//EDIT:  New Thread Here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1911288.0).

Digital politics is the only reason the SegWit is not activated already, right? I don’t think anything else is  stopping it.