Bitcoin Forum

lol
original source?

anything beyond the reddit ??

i dont think its real

where exactly is original source for any news? because I know reddit is known to be the main source for a lot of news in the world.
unless somewhere else you have in mind?

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2F8btc.com%2Fthread-35645-1-1.html (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2F8btc.com%2Fthread-35645-1-1.html)


Expansion of the dispute "Terminator Plan" proposal [Copy link] 38 3397 2016-6-30 11:36:38 Water no soul | vice captain | look landlord Posts by water, no soul in 2016-6-30 11:38 edit
Prerequisites:

1, core version 0.13.1 released in July, including the miners activated segwit (isolation witness) are available;

2, classic releases new version is based on core 0.13.1 version, including for miners active segwit (isolation witness) and 2M hard bifurcation;

3, core violation of the Hong Kong expansion consensus agreement, not in August 1, 2016 release includes new versions of 2M hard bifurcation.


Making process:

1, over 75% of the mine pool owners and operators of power miners Optional Optional day expansion of convening the meeting;

2, the meeting reached a consensus: all participants ore miners in pools or expansion route choice will work hand in hand;

3, select a pool of mine as "Terminator";

4, released "Terminator Plan" content.


Program content:

1. Participating mineral pool, miners reach consensus on expansion: 90% or more operators to activate 2M force bifurcation hard to count more than 95% of the force activation segwit (isolation witness);

2. Participating mineral pool, miners to achieve consensus on the expansion, will be unified planning, unified action, act in unison;

3, select XX meeting mine pool to "Terminator";

4, in addition to the "Terminator", the participants all mineral pools, within 30 days the miners core program switches to the latest version of the classic, complete 2M hard bifurcation, segwit (isolation witness) Operator support force;

5, if and only if more than 75% of the operator support 2M hard on finalizing the diverging after "Terminator" complete support for 2M hard bifurcation as soon as possible to ensure that there are more than 90% of the force operator support 2M hard bifurcation;

6, when the 2M hard fork is activated, the 28-day grace period, the pool of participants ore miners will do everything possible to inform all the miners, exchanges, wallet developer / company, core wallet users, other start-up companies and other completed core switching procedures to ensure the smooth progress of the bifurcation hard, to avoid unnecessary losses generated;

7, activate segwit (isolation witness).


Description proposal:

1. The proposed plan is valid only after three preconditions occur;

2, which is a majority of the miners to mine the main pool of the proposal, there are different opinions may ignore this proposal, will be idle, bored when I was nonsense;

3, expansion of the dispute has been debated for too long, both parties after a long discussion over, except for a few extreme person, most people agree that the following points:

(1) We need to 2M hard bifurcation, but requires enough force to support the operator to ensure that Bitcoin will not be split;
(2) We need to isolate the witness, in order to achieve Bitcoin kernel better scalability and compatibility;
(3) We need lightning network, in order to achieve Bitcoin-second transfer capability.

4. Select the Always use classic classic does not mean that later, if the core in a subsequent compatible version adds support for the classic, the miners can then select the core;

5, core and classic are open source projects, developers fate is freedom, when the miners selected classic, I believe there will be many core developers turn to classic provides code;

6, the battle line expansion, isolation witness, 2M hard bifurcation debate lightning network has been trouble for too long, please do not argue with me here their advantages and disadvantages, and I do not want to waste time on these topics and the energy;

7, one of the core design of bitcoin miner is considered the future direction of the force decided to Bitcoin, "talk harm the country", the expansion of the dispute has been debated for too long, continue to argue it is empty. "Hard work and prosperous," better than a perfect plan executed powerful miners was time to act to end this dispute it!

Just for context

http://8btc.com/thread-35645-1-1.html (http://8btc.com/thread-35645-1-1.html)

Not the best translation in the world.

What a load of shit. Must try harder young shill.

What a load of shit. Must try harder young shill.

Utter bilge. Who is the person posting this and why haven't we seen a sudden uptake of Classic? I can't believe this tale has taken off on the basis of one post by some nobody.

Utter bilge. Who is the person posting this and why haven't we seen a sudden uptake of Classic? I can't believe this tale has taken off on the basis of one post by some nobody.

Yes, Mr. Chop. But he himself hasn't commented or tweeted about this ergo it's still piffle.

It looks like the Chinese mining cartel are now trying pull the strings.  

Urge all miners to unite to support the Terminator Plan - ( i think it implies to terminate Core's 0.13.1 which doesn't honor HK consensus).

It is very likely a decent amount of Devs will walk off if they do this.

I would not be surprised if this turns out to be true.

The Chinese operators
...do not understand the simplest things.
...they are total dumbshits.
..,even understand that simple thing?

I would not be surprised if this turns out to be true.
The Chinese operators of these mining pools do not understand the simplest things.
They may be able to buy and/or build more mining units to increase their hashing capacity
and out compete all others, but when it comes to anything else Bitcoin, they are total dumbshits.

If the Chinese Miners want to switch to Classic or anything other, they should be prepared to
take over and be singularly responsible for all future programming for that fork.
It is very likely a decent amount of Devs will walk off if they do this.

If they start setting up and attempt this fork, they better have a better plan then what is proposed.

It is contingent that the Core team stays and works on Classic, even though Classic is controlled
and maintained by totally different Devs. Do the Chinese Miners even understand that simple thing?

I agree. Or becomes true.


I disagree. What makes you so superior over the Chinese miners?

https://i.imgur.com/UxrfOqo.png

1MB4EVA KeccakCoin or Good Ol' BTC with greater throughput... hrm, tough choice.

Here you are, scratching out a few satoshis by shilling shit gambling sites in your signature and avatar (what's it like, whoring yourself out for chump change?), and you got the nerve to call someone else a shill ::)

Unless you have something more than your eye-raping ads & feeble ad hominems to add to the thread, please refrain from posting in the future.

He is a hero with over 600 activity, your a newbie with 14. Just by looking at his activity and rank, you can tell he contributed a lot more to the forum than you. You need to get out.

Also, 777 coin pays pretty damn well to their hero members.

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4q3ztw/a_call_for_core_developers_to_clarify_their/d4q6ryh?context=3

I didn't say I was superior, I just said they are dumb shits and don't understand simple things.

First, take your signature spamming elsewhere, you are doing the same shit the other signature whore was reprehended for: Contributing nothing of substance and whoring a sig. Spamming your sig all over the forum is not contributing, it's pretty much the opposite of contributing.

You are a newbie who has done nothing be insult people for no reason.

Someone with common sense posted a reply, and you went off topic talking about his signature.

Your arguing that the fact that they can make that vote a reality, that it transforms to the right choice?

That is total dumb shit thinking.
If majority of people vote to destroy the moon, then it's a good decision by your reasoning.

Great thinking there. Bright future ahead.  ::)

Ok, but your superior to dumb shits that don't understand simple things, or not?
Just saying.

Are you arguing that the Miners are superior to the Devs here?

My forum rank is irrelevant. You and your alt may have been spamming up this forum for years, scratching out penny shavings (which you turn around and lose to the same gambling sites you pimp), but this don't turn your shit into Shinola.

Please stay on topic, or better still, delete your post and spam some other sub.

*You're

I simply posted satoshi's description of Bitcoin's consensus mechanism. You're the one who equated Bitcoin with higher throughput akin to "destroying the moon".

Miners will face the consequence or reward of their decision via the exchange rate. As the price shot up near $40 upon hearing this rumor... the market may disagree with your sentiment.

If you disagree with miner consensus, you will remain completely free to dump your coins or move to an altcoin more in line with your philosophy.  :)

Your forum rank is very much relevant. You are brand new this forum and your insulting people who have been here for years.

Superior to which devs, Core or Classic? Do you not see how the Miners' interests may be different from Blockstream's Core devs?

Superiority is irreverent. I can call someone a moron and not claim to be superior to them.
It is possible I am a dumbshit as to things that I am unaware of, but the miners know of.
Does that make them superior to me now?

I think what the Chinese Miners are rumored to have agreed to in secret is a major dumbshit move.

Are you arguing that the Miners are superior to the Devs here?

Do you not see that the Miner's future is contingent on the Core Devs continuing to work on Bitcoin into the future?

You seriously think the Classic devs will be able to handle it all on their own?

Do you really care about the future of Bitcoin, or do you just care about winning your sides argument?

I don't really see how you can call someone a moron, without the implication you are better than a moron. = superior.
So the miners "know of" now? I thought you said they do not understand the simplest things.
In my opinion, they probably are superior to you on this issue.
I was just saying. Just my opinion. obviously we wont agree here.

Ok, dumb shit "move" iyo. (not quite the same as "dumb shit Chinese miners, is it?)
I accept your opinion on that, even though my opinion is opposite.
It was so secret, I could predict it.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410211.0

"Are you arguing that the Miners are superior to the Devs here?"
Oh well, I wasn't. Are you arguing the opposite?

It is. If they keep trusting Core devs to do what they promised, they're gonna lose a shitload of money. And that's why this is happening right now.

Can't do much worse.

Do you have guarantees that Core Devs will continue to participate after such move?

It is. If they keep trusting Core devs to do what they promised, they're gonna lose a shitload of money. And that's why this is happening right now.
Can't do much worse.
Questions like this that are less than constructive. Why are you asking me this? How would my answering in the positive or negative alter the facts?

You have proven to be a dumbshit, as well it seems.

I'm arguing not to tell someone how to do their job.
Chinese Miner's are telling the Core Devs that they don't know what they are doing.

I didn't equate "higher throughput" to "destroying the moon".

I provided an example to my prior statement: "Your arguing that the fact that they
can make that vote a reality, that it transforms to the right choice?"

So what you are saying I said is pretty out of context. I'm not against "higher throughput", and never said to be.

If the miner's do this, I will and sure others will buy into an altcoin that is in line with the original Bitcoin philosophy.  :)

You have proven to be a dumbshit, as well it seems.

Maybe the miners should stick to mining, is my point.

Wrong. The people who attended the HK meeting have done nothing that violates their "agreement" yet. It was well known that the people were acting as individuals and could in no way guarantee that the presented HF (not yet) would be merged into Core.

Classic developers are like high school programmers in comparison to the people working on Core.

I disagree. Oh, I get it now, that is why you call myself and the Chinese miners dumb shits.
Your superior to myself and the Chinese miners.


Phew, why didn't you just say.

They rejected the validity of the agreement outright.

Try to do better than "my dad's smarter than your dad," or don't bother.

I have not seen a single line of your code, so your opinion is a bit suspect.

You did it via an (somewhat inept) analogy. I didn't make the analogy, you did.

*You're
It's simply how Bitcoin works at the protocol level, succinctly described by satoshi in the white paper. The protocol, by itself, doesn't decide right or wrong, its participants do, and they vote with their CPU's (or influence those that do by buying or selling on the market.)

The miners are trying to achieve higher throughput, so your flailing about over this seems to indicate otherwise.

And I will buy more BTC as they are solving an important issue that has been repeatedly stalled and blocked by Core technicians. To free minds, and free markets!  :)

Maybe the miners should stick to mining, is my point.

It's simply how Bitcoin works at the protocol level, succinctly described by satoshi in the white paper. The protocol, by itself, doesn't decide right or wrong, its participants do, and they vote with their CPU's (or influence those that do by buying or selling on the market.)

It was not an analogy with throughput, I was making a different point on voting, but that doesn't seem to matter to you.
Nothing seems to matter to you other than the markets it seems.
Hopefully Bitcoin has reached to point that it will be able to withstand the assault that is going to come about from this move.

Sure, but your missing the fact the miners have right to choose what client and what changes to activate. They can merge the code they like or use any clone of Bitcoin repository or whatever. Most devs are miners as well, or at least were at one point in time. Bitcoin and all voting is based on proof of work, not on github/bitcoin - but miners are free to use and run code from this place if they choose to, but it is not required.



Nice to see someone understand how Bitcoin works.

Are you referring to the recent statement by Luke-Jr? Do you know that someone had already broken the agreement (was it F2Pool? I can't remember correctly).

False analogy. That's an opinion due to subjective bias which is not the case here. This is an objective observation based on what I've seen so far.

So because you haven't seen 'my code', my opinion is invalidated (or 'suspect')? That is horrible logic, as it would invalidate your own opinion and the opinions of "users" who share your 'view' as well.

I already understand all this.
I am arguing that they do not. I argue they don't know anything about how any of that works.

Get a grip boy.

Your argument is pretty thin.

Well that's where the problem is, a misunderstanding.
No, the miners aren't telling the devs "that they don't know what they are doing." What they're telling them is they're not doing what they *promised to do*.
The interests of the miners are not the same as the interests of Core devs, see?

I'll give you an analogy, show you what I mean:
Let's say Core devs are building a railroad, and drawing pay from Mayor Mccheese.
The railroad can go through the plains, which will take it right through Hamburglar's Town, or it can go over the mountains, which would take it right through The city of Mccheese.

Now, many would argue that it makes more sense to build the railroad on the plains, because no need to blast. And many will tell you just the opposite, that the mountain route is better, because shorter.
Both are not wrong. But guess which way the railroad's gonna go tho?
See where this is going?

These bandits have the ability to stop the train, kill all the riders and destroy the train.

Yes, Luke-jr. No, I didn't know about F2Pool. Link?

Regardless, the agreement is either valid and binding, or it's not. If it's not, the miners are free to do whatever they wish, and this whole debate is pointless.

If you don't code, your "objective observation" re. coding abilities of others is what's called an "uneducated opinion," and, as such, ain't worth much more than my cat's. My cat don't code.

As far as "bias" goes, your bias on this issue is well-known.

I would value an opinion of a surgeon much higher than that of a garbage collector, if the topic is surgery. Vice-versa if the topic is collecting garbage.

What if in your analogy there are bandits and blockades in the plains.
These bandits have the ability to stop the train, kill all the riders and destroy the train.
Do you still go through the plains knowing that?

Cross post from /r/bitcoin.

According to the Chinese translation, summary:

Core defaulted on HK consensus and doesn't honor 2M increase.

Chinese miners to unite to implement Classic which supports 2M increase and SegWit.

Urge all miners to unite to support the Terminator Plan - ( i think it implies to terminate Core's 0.13.1 which doesn't honor HK consensus).

This is truly a war by miners against CORE.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4qk7et/wow_chinese_miners_revolt_and_announce_terminator/?

It looks like the Chinese mining cartel are now trying pull the strings.  

My point is they think that the Core Devs are currently incorrect.

They are rumored of agreeing to a proposal to switch to Classic.
Those are separate devs (from Core) with a fundamentally different ideologically view point on what makes Bitcoin/BTC valuable.

Are you sure the miner's understand that? Their proposal seems to think that core devs just shuffle over to classic.

What I'm saying is: Do the Chinese Miner's fully understand the situation and the potential future outcome?
I am arguing that they do not. I argue they don't know anything about how any of that works.
They only know what they know about mining. Their move to classic could neuter their future profits.

I'm only telling you that the train is more likely to go through the mountains if Mccheese is paying the surveyors.
I'm probably not making myself clear, so here's what I'm really trying to say:
You think that there is a right way and a wrong way to build a railroad.
I'm telling you that there are *many* right ways to do it, and different people would profit depending on *which* right way is picked.
So it's not a question of "who is smarter, Core devs or miners, Mayor Mccheese or Hamburglar. It's a question of who would profit most from what route.

As I'm sure you are aware, you have been answering me under different usernames,
so either you are using multiple accounts or you guys keep answering and talking for each other (unlikely).
Either way, I do not really care since that is not important to the larger issue here. I'm just pointing that out.

I understand what you are saying in your analogy.
I think there is a right and wrong way, since the only right way is the way that protects the network from possible attacks.
Bitcoin is only valuable if it can resist or entirely prevent all possible forms of attacks or exploits.
The recent Ethereum situation is a perfect example. They and their community have chosen the plains, IMO.
There will be many more problems with Ethereum in the future because it was designed the wrong way.

I think there are right ways and wrong ways. Not all roads lead to the same place. Some have dead ends.

I think they broke it a day later mining a Classic block. I'll update the post if I find the link.

It matters. People who attack Luke-jr for 'trying' to create a proposal are heavily biased if it was already broken.

So you can draw a conclusion of my 'coding abilities' based on not-seeing any of my code? Interesting story.

No it is not. What nonsense are you talking about? I have no connection to any developer regardless of whether Core or Classic/other.

For someone/for anybody, if the "dead end" is millions of cash, it's VERY good. who cares what's happening with an e-currency(it does not matter the name; it could be Bitcoin) if I make millions NOW ?

"Someone" takes the money and never look back to any shit Bitcoin Core or Classic :)  Your talking about principles in a world without them .  ;D

If Luke's argument was "you already broke the agreement," you'd have a point. His argument is that there's no agreement to be broken, the signatories did not represent core, so haha. that sort of thing. Tipikal Luke jr. shit.

No. I'm going to assume your coding abilities are nonexistent until I see your code.

I also wouldn't let a random bro do cardio surgery on me.

Are you telling me you're an expert coder? GitHub link?

You have been toeing the core party line as long as I remember. You're on Teymos' payroll, you deleted threads that mentioned Classic, per this forum's official policy. Unbiased ::)

As I'm sure you are aware, you have been answering me under different usernames,
so either you are using multiple accounts or you guys keep answering and talking for each other (unlikely).
Either way, I do not really care since that is not important to the larger issue here. I'm just pointing that out.

I understand what you are saying in your analogy.
I think there is a right and wrong way, since the only right way is the way that protects the network from possible attacks.

I'll give you an analogy, show you what I mean:
Let's say Core devs are building a railroad, and drawing pay from Mayor Mccheese.
The railroad can go through the plains, which will take it right through Hamburglar's Town, or it can go over the mountains, which would take it right through The city of Mccheese.

He's right. The individuals have never represented Core and they aren't able to do so easily anyways. It was clear that they can't promise a merge as this proposal would require evaluation and consensus like any other proposal.

I may or may not be. I have claimed neither.

So because I have a different opinion than you (e.g. I support Core and you support Classic) I'm biased? I most certainly am not on a "payroll" and I most certainly have not deleted such threads (I don't moderate these sections). Another failed attempt at undermining my persona.

/thread? what are we talking about?
No agreement, miners can do whatever they want, miners are doing whatever they want. Which is telling core devs to fuck off.
Which is cool, because that's how Bitcoin was designed to work: Everyone pursues his own best interests, whatever those may be, and, Math willing, shit should work out for the best.
Baloons.gif.
:)
Now tell me I'm a fool to discount your opinion, when you don't even want to *tell* me you're a decent coder.
Imagine going under the knife, and the guy doing the surgery won't even tell you if he's really a surgeon or not?
False analogy my ass :D

No agreement, miners can do whatever they want, miners are doing whatever they want. Which is telling core devs to fuck off.

Now tell me I'm a fool to discount your opinion, when you don't even want to *tell* me you're a decent coder.

Imagine going under the knife, and the guy doing the surgery won't even tell you if he's really a surgeon or not?

1. You most certainly are on the payroll, Teymos pays you for being a mod on this forum.

2. You may claim that you are not biased, just as a prison guard on the warden's payroll or a Communist apparatchik on the Party payroll could: feel free to, but I ain't buying.

For someone/for anybody, if the "dead end" is millions of cash, it's VERY good. who cares what's happening with an e-currency(it does not matter the name; it could be Bitcoin) if I make millions NOW ?

Look, I don't know how to make it any simpler, but I'll try.
1. There are many right ways to build a railroad from NY to SanFran.
2. If you live in EastDmbfuck, WY, te right way *for you* is if that RR goes through EastDmbfuck, WY. Because then you wouldn't be EastDmbfuck, WY. anymore, you'd be Metropolis WY.
3. Routing RR through Armpit, KS, is not wrong, but it's wrong for EastDmbfuck, WY.
4. All of these routes could be made perfectly safe, that's not what this is abut.
5. Both Armpit, KS & EastDmbfuck, WY will give you a zillion reasons why their way is the best. It's in their enlightened self-interest to lie to you.

Back to Mayor Mccheese: City of Mccheese will shrivel up and die if RR don't go through it. It's banking on it. It bought all the properties that are in the right of way. It's desperate. But that's a tale for a later date.

P.S. Yes, I'm using multiple accounts. It serves MY enlightened self-interest.

better analogy
public railroad engineers for 7 years had a railroad with a single track that tunnelled through a mountain to get to the town
everyone had to get on a train that only allowed 2500adults and 2000children onboard per train every 10 minutes
but the town wanted to expand
trying to change it so that the trains departed every 2 or 5 minutes was impossible and would break the rail road completely. no one would do that ever..for good reason

so the HARD option is to excavate the tunnel to allow a reinforced track that could cope with larger trains to allow 5000adults and 4000 children per train every 10 minutes
or the Soft option. to make a second track that goes around the mountain.
but to do this the trains needed to change to ensure it didnt damage the track.

the private company called secondrail wanted the soft option because later they could use the soft track to divert to other towns like lightnington or sidechaina
however this soft track only works with the adults getting on the main track and the children have to get on the new soft track. and would only see an overall capacity increase if the adults made a decision to separate from their children.

the private company called secondrail funded some of the public railroad engineers for the design, labour and construction of the soft track, adding a non-compete clause.
a couple public railroad engineers didnt sign and done other things one resigned and one set up his own track company that had plans for the Hard option
the private company called secondrail made some passenger concessions such as "children can have a free ticket" so the adults see a cost reduction. hoping it would please the passengers to agree
the private company called secondrail made some threats that if the soft track was not accepted by the town they would demolish the tunnel. to scare the town into agreeing

...

I'm certain that it is likely that most of them would abandon their 'public' work for Bitcoin. Would you not do the same if you got 'stabbed in the back' after this much time?

I dont think life is fair anyway. What about Satoshi and his vision for Bitcoin to become world number one currency and continuously scaling up to a point only the dataceners could handle the load, not individual home PCs. Who stabbed in the back his vision, do we appreciate he started Bitcoin at all? Should not Bitcoin follow his vision, and some altcoin try a different, artifically limited bloksizes perfectly suitable for home PCs bought around year 2005, now and forever.

...

It would be ridicious if gaming industry followed current core devs vision to make the games compatible with 10+ year old computers. Maybe good for few ones, but most would not be happy.

It is a nice example, but there are too many issues from my view point.

First, there can not be multiple right ways. Only one way will lead to success and many will lead to extinction.
When railroads were created across the USA, they did not build multiple paths, there was one and it led to success.

Second, it is true that different towns will lie to me and want me to choose them, but then who do I choose?
I could choose the one that seems to favor my security and survive-ability.

I would have to choose the lesser of two potential evils. So which is less evil?
One side declares mass riders and carry shit tons of gold and the other says slow and steady and security.
I don't want to ride a train that will be blow off the rails by bandits and killed, I want security.
I do not believe you can have both within the same train or path.

Three, I understand that the Mayor bought all this land and wants the train to go through theirs,
but if the mayor is correct as to security and other important issues, compared to other Mayors who
don't worry about security and other issues, why is owning all that land a problem?

What land are you referring IRL? (since the only land that exists in Bitcoin is hodling bitcoins).

This is a lot to absorb.
But my question is, when did they threaten to demolish the tunnel?

Wouldn't it be more correct that they said widening the tunnel will cause a collapse and destroy the security of the rail?
So a soft rail needs to be created to protect the first rail from such a failure.

I may or may not be. I have claimed neither.

Whoever I've asked previously (as I don't do C++ myself) said that the complexity is overblown by a 'certain group'.

You are still missing the point. There is no one railroad that lead to "success." The towns that got passed by died, railroad towns bloomed.

Most miners are mercenary. They don't give a rat's ass about Bitcoin's "success" if, in the process of succeeding, it impoverishes them.
They want to make money, which is well and good. But miners making money is not synonymous with Bitcoin being successful. The would like Bitcoin to succeed only as long as it makes them money.

The rest of your arguments -- you not wanting to ride unsafe trains, etc., are neither here nor there. If the miners make more money when BTC crashes and burns (hypothetical, but I can offer actual scenarios), that's what they will choose. It may not be a good thing for you as a BTC hodler, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

Again, miners are not in it to help us build a Bitcoin utopia -- they're businessmen, doing it to make money. They are free to (and will) do what they feel maximizes their profits. They might make mistakes, but they are a big, moneyed motherfucking thing. Huge money!
They got creditors watching over them and expensive advisors on their staff, so don't go Dunning-Krugering by thinking you know what's best for them.

Yes there is an agreement. Those said individuals are to deliver a HF proposal as long as the other party doesn't violate their end. There was no talk about merging code.

So your own opinion and the opinion of your 'buddies' is also worthless. Good to know.

Classic Core developers are like high school programmers in comparison to the people working on Core Classic.

People want it pushed into datacenters now, when Satoshi said hold out as long as possible.

I may be naive, but isn't this sort of reckless all for an extra 1MB?

+/** The maximum allowed size for a serialized block, in bytes (only for buffer size limits) */
+static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SERIALIZED_SIZE = 4000000;
+/** The maximum allowed cost for a block, see BIP 141 (network rule) */
+static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_COST = 4000000;
+/** The maximum allowed size for a block excluding witness data, in bytes (network rule) */
+static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 1000000;

[]

Ok, well we disagree.

If Miner's do not care about future use, but only the now, then they wouldn't investment more money into hashing.
That increase in hash is a vote of confidence of the future.

If Miner's only believe in the now, they better jump ship now before they default and go bankrupt.

I dont think life is fair anyway. What about Satoshi and his vision for Bitcoin to become world number one currency and continuously scaling up to a point only the dataceners could handle the load, not individual home PCs. Who stabbed in the back his vision, do we appreciate he started Bitcoin at all? Should not Bitcoin follow his vision, and some altcoin try a different, artifically limited bloksizes perfectly suitable for home PCs bought around year 2005, now and forever.

If someone cannot afford 2 year old computer and normal 5Mbps connection, why should he have right to run Bitcoin full node - and why someone needs to run the full node on 10+ year old computer is out of my mind.

First proposal was 20MB, core didn't like it, then got down to 8MB, core still didn't like it, then went to 2MB and core still don't want it. People have been extremely patient but when things only go one side with censorship on top at some point people can't take it anymore.

Oh please. Tell me the miners believed they were signing an agreement with "individuals," tell me the press, this forum, r/bitcoin etc., celebrated the miners signing an agreement with "individuals." Show me how good you are at lying when it serves you.

-snip-
Yeah, my opinion wouldn't be worth dick. If I did that, anyone with a shred of sanity and/or common sense would be absolutely obligated to point fingers and laugh at me.

I may be naive, but isn't this sort of reckless all for an extra 1MB?

What if I told you that 20 MB blocks, 8 MB blocks and 2 MB blocks can break Bitcoin due to O(n^2) validation time? Is that censorship?  ::)

I would not be the first person to state this. You'd know this if you weren't spending time trying to disrupt the system.

Don't blame me if you're too dumb to comprehend something properly. ::)

some people cannot simply accept that the miners like other individuals or companies are after pure profit and they don't care if BTC burn or not. this is a business and nothing more.

Of course, the miners are investing because they earn tons of money DAILY. they invest in hardware because a better hardware = more money/cash(not shit on walls) DAILY.

Is BTC going down/no more profit? OK! They earned ALOT and they will find other businesses where to "invest" :)

So you're telling me that if I don't upgrade my hardware every 2 years that I should have no right to run a full wallet? In other words you're telling me that I have to lose my 'sovereignty' as in be unable to validate the blocks and transactions? I think that anyone should be able to participate with decent hardware (not necessarily cheap, but not that expensive either).

What if I told you that 20 MB blocks, 8 MB blocks and 2 MB blocks can break Bitcoin due to O(n^2) validation time? Is that censorship?  ::)

In the hypothetical event this wasn't just a Twatter rumour started by Jihan Wu and 75% of the hash actually up and went to Classic, what recourse would the rest of us have? Aside from just dumping I mean.

https://67.media.tumblr.com/e3d1eb33aacf543e6fd0b7385a63be7e/tumblr_inline_o7grogYpRR1shfepe_540.jpg

jk. Why would you need to seek recourse? Got your heart set on Sturm und Drang Lightning network?

In the hypothetical event this wasn't just a Twatter rumour started by Jihan Wu and 75% of the hash actually up and went to Classic, what recourse would the rest of us have? Aside from just dumping I mean.

In the hypothetical event this wasn't just a Twatter rumour started by Jihan Wu and 75% of the hash actually up and went to Classic, what recourse would the rest of us have? Aside from just dumping I mean.

you will where the sheep are going. to "coreshit" or to miners shit :)   there will be NO difference

But yeah, as a hodler, you could... I don't know. You could run a full node... ...nah, that wouldn't make any difference. I know, you could probably fly to Shanghai Hong Kong and lie like a rug.

In the hypothetical event this wasn't just a Twatter rumour started by Jihan Wu and 75% of the hash actually up and went to Classic, what recourse would the rest of us have? Aside from just dumping I mean.

The difference would be the contentious hard frok stuck in the middle.

Not seriously worried. Just curious. :)

There is nothing you could do. Nothing.
But it's also not a pressing problem. Much like sending small sums of money, cheaply and quickly, to unbaked Bolivian pygmies has never really been a problem for me. Not until I learned how good bitcoin is at solving it.

Drugs, capital flight, remittances to/from/between the pygmies.

These are all pressing concerns. This is an important project.

Fine, Core has surgeons and Classic has garbage collectors. I get it.

Drugs is a good one.
Remittance is junk, because familia want folding money, not bits. Most pygmies not next to $tarbux, no free WiFi.
Remittance costs on the ground, not in the wire.
Pygmies a non-starter for Bitcoin, because just too expensive :( https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4qjqcd/costs_me_4_premium_to_pay_with_bitcoin_rather/

But seriously, including DNMs but excluding the other stuff I mentioned (also, don't include online gambling, if you're into that), how many times have you used BTC in, what, you were here for 3-4 years?

So you're telling me that if I don't upgrade my hardware every 2 years that I should have no right to run a full wallet?

What if I told you that 20 MB blocks, 8 MB blocks and 2 MB blocks can break Bitcoin due to O(n^2) validation time? Is that censorship?  ::)

In the hypothetical event this wasn't just a Twatter rumour started by Jihan Wu and 75% of the hash actually up and went to Classic, what recourse would the rest of us have? Aside from just dumping I mean.

Interestingly, garbage collection is one of the more intricate problems in many computing systems.
XD

Cross post from /r/bitcoin.

According to the Chinese translation, summary:

Core defaulted on HK consensus and doesn't honor 2M increase.

Chinese miners to unite to implement Classic which supports 2M increase and SegWit.

Urge all miners to unite to support the Terminator Plan - ( i think it implies to terminate Core's 0.13.1 which doesn't honor HK consensus).

This is truly a war by miners against CORE.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4qk7et/wow_chinese_miners_revolt_and_announce_terminator/?

It looks like the Chinese mining cartel are now trying pull the strings. 

I hope that it is real, but I'll wait for more evidence.

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/with_replies

You could fork to a different Proof-Of-Whatever. That'd be other than dumping.

Gavin used limitations to resolve the O(n^2) validation time problem. Namely limiting maximum signature operations to 1.2 GB per block. As a benefit it would not be possible to O(n^2) attack even current 1 MB blocksize anymore with up to 10 minutes CPU validation in some cases - even segwit dont solve this possible O(n^2) attack on 1 MB blocksize. So the breaking of Bitcoin due to O(n^2) is not censorship, but FUD because your avare of this Gavin solution to my knowledge.

Well, this is bizarre. Assuming this is true--which is a lot to assume--this would seem to indicate that the miners don't understand the way their power works. Say they switch off to mining Classic_ and trigger the activation; give it a month or whatever, and they start popping out their 2MB blocks, which are then rejected by all non-Classic_ nodes on the network. Unless they convince the rest of the system to switch to an implementation compatible with their consensus rule change, no one else will accept their blocks as valid; all they'll have accomplished is that they've forked themselves onto an altcoin.

Not sure why mining pools would even really care all that much about 2MB... What do they think it would do for them? Make their operating costs a bit higher? If they're hoping to see increased adoption cause a price boost, capacity (especially in small amounts) seems like the wrong approach--it's not like 2MB blocks make Bitcoin easier to use, increase its privacy, increase merchant acceptance, or make it possible to buy milk at the grocery store without waiting 10 minutes for a confirmation :-\

But hopefully this is just some bullshit scare and doesn't have any credibility. I'd like to hope that miners are smart enough to not bite the hand that feeds them in an absurd attempt to completely sink themselves.

Segwit solves the "2+ minute troll block validation" problem by enabling Schnorr (and resultant tree) signatures.

*takes off pedant hat*

Good. Now there's room for a different hat on your head.

SegWit doesn't solve the "2+ minute troll block validation" problem through Schnorr sigs either. Some future feature that is post- SegWit may. Or may not.

^
:P

Pedant, my ass.

SegWit is necessary, but not sufficient, for the log scaling validation time sigops enabled by Schnorr.

May we agree I look really good in this pedant hat?   :P

...
May we agree I look really good in this pedant hat?   :P

The proposal was made by a random person and has no weight (at the moment).

This is way too risky for a change that only ups the throughput from ~3 TPS to 6 TPS.

This is all just FUD unless and until we see numbers of Classic nodes (https://coin.dance/nodes) increasing dramatically.

Well, this is bizarre. Assuming this is true--which is a lot to assume--this would seem to indicate that the miners don't understand the way their power works. Say they switch off to mining Classic_ and trigger the activation; give it a month or whatever, and they start popping out their 2MB blocks, which are then rejected by all non-Classic_ nodes on the network.

Unless they convince the rest of the system to switch to an implementation compatible with their consensus rule change, no one else will accept their blocks as valid; all they'll have accomplished is that they've forked themselves onto an altcoin.

Not sure why mining pools would even really care all that much about 2MB... What do they think it would do for them? Make their operating costs a bit higher?

The people who attended the HK meeting [...] It was well known that the people were acting as individuals and could in no way guarantee that the presented HF (not yet) would be merged into Core.

No it is not. What nonsense are you talking about? I have no connection to any developer regardless of whether Core or Classic/other.

Fine, Core has surgeons and Classic has garbage collectors. I get it.

If 2MB could break bitcoin, the biggest miners  would have never supported it. Basic common sense. Don't lie when you run out of argument please

In that case, your opinion is not really your opinion, you're just parroting shit that others said, without attributing or having the capacity to verify its veracity?

What you said about being "too dumb to comprehend something properly" tho? Should probably redirect it at the whole fucking Bitcoin community.
Won't be wrong, either.

2 years old hardware is very cheap one to my standard, thats why I put this example, but if your unable to upgrade once in a while then you should not expect your today computer is going to be able catch up with Bitcoin blockchain in the future, thats pretty reasonable - you should not expect to play future games on your today computer eighter. You will be able to inport private keys to any SVP client anyway if you cannot afford to upgrade your home computer anymore, and continue to play only older and older games as time goes if your gamer.

You know Gavin used limitations to resolve the O(n^2) validation time problem. Namely limiting maximum signature operations to 1.2 GB per block. As a benefit it would not be possible to O(n^2) attack even current 1 MB blocksize anymore with up to 10 minutes CPU validation in some cases - even segwit dont solve this possible O(n^2) attack on 1 MB blocksize. So the breaking of Bitcoin due to O(n^2) is not censorship, but FUD because your avare of this Gavin solution to my knowledge.

Segwit's design addressed the issue in two ways: One is that the extra capacity in segwit is for witness data, which is not hashed by the signature hasher. Because of this even with no fix, the worst case possible is much less significant than a plain 2MB block.

Interestingly, garbage collection is one of the more intricate problems in many computing systems. XD

I think your bias is fairly clear by your below statement.

It is only cuter that you think the language (presumably the runtime environment? let's explore what you mean here) is the only context in which garbage collection is relevant to the entire 'Bitcoin stack'.

Yeah definitely biased because I don't have the same opinion than some of you. Give me a break

and go scam someone else.

Just a friendly reminder of who's really in charge:

bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground (http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground)

There is nothing wrong with having a different opinion.

There is also nothing wrong with not having an open mind, which I don't think you have.

Please refrain from the immature ad-hominem attacks (that are not even true). They only damage your credibility :D

Just a friendly reminder of who's really in charge:

bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground (http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground)

I highly doubt that more than 1% of users know what we may be talking about (e.g. a language). ::)

Just a friendly reminder of who's really in charge:

bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground (http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground)

Just a friendly reminder of who's really in charge:

bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground (http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground)

Another Classic move: dismiss the opinions of large stakeholders because they are few in number.

Another Classic move: dismiss the opinions of large stakeholders because they are few in number. After all, they're only a few people, and may just be a single really rich person, so what possible influence could they have? It's not like having an actual stake in the issue gives their opinions any extra merit. ::)

Just a friendly reminder of who's really in charge:

bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground (http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground)

Just a friendly reminder of who's really in charge:

bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground (https://bitcointalk.org/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground)

Probably. Would only take a couple of tweets from major pool operators to dispel all these rumors.

I think it's confirmed

Any links?

Antpool has never engaged with the guy behind that 8btc OP privately, or reached any agreement with that guy. I am also unaware of any other pools are working with that guy. China 8btc forum is running without censorship when people wants to discuss different scaling plans.

However, we cannot call it a hoax to which the responding showed 90% of no objection, and written in a very formal Chinese. This "Terminator" plan somehow got attention for its wisdom to unify the difference between 75% and 90% number. We also should not call out "hoax" to any proposals we don't agree with or just did not know/agree with it in advance.

So what then?
Is Bitcoin becoming a big fat large corporations where who has a big stash commands and who does not is not even heard?

I supposed bitcoin was different.

Like, what, my word wasn't good enough for you?

Considering the 1 MB blocks are often full most reasonable folks see the need for a bump to 2 MB and pretty soon. The Chinese miners understand quite well the power they possess, are tired of waiting for larger blocks and seem pissed off. Classic activates 28 days after 750 of the last 1,000 blocks are found by miners running Classic instead of Core. At that point you would have a minority of miners still running Core. We might have two chains existing at the same time for a short period of time but everyone would move to the winning chain. The minority still mining Core would switch or die. It does appear that SegWit would have to be merged into Classic for it to be acceptable to the Chinese coalition. The point is it appears the Chinese may have the power to force a change from Core to Classic. They have been loyal to Core but can only wait so long.

Huh, looks like it's still happening.
Bitcoin Miners to Hardfork According to Circulating Rumors (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4qrbli/bitcoin_miners_to_hardfork_according_to/)

the miners and the big exchangers are forming a gang. so, BTC belongs to them.

"Gang" is such a loaded word. The miners are free to cooperate with each other and with exchange owners. No racketeering laws in Bitcoin, that's outmoded statist thinking.
If cooperation serves the miner's rational self-interest (maximizes their monetary profit$), that's what they should do.

cartels(biz gang) means monopoly and price manipulation. this is what is happening. all the BTC trades are manipulated. if you are good with this then it's without ...words :)

so any real source?? or just circle jerking

here (http://8btc.com/thread-35645-1-1.html) is the link to the original thread proposing that the Chinese miners,

It appears that the OP of that thread has merely proposed this plan, but none of the Chinese miner have actually agreed to this plan

no thats crapmedia i said the real source.. IE if its talking about pools colluding then it has to be a document from the pools

exactly.. its not any news about what pools will do. just some outsider making fake news trying to circle jerk it until he hopes it will come true

so im guessing no pool has invented this "terminator" pool. and thus this whole topic is meaningless

Wrong. The people who attended the HK meeting have done nothing that violates their "agreement" yet. It was well known that the people were acting as individuals and could in no way guarantee that the presented HF (not yet) would be merged into Core.

This is turning out to be a poker game, with Core acting like they've got a royal flush, let's see if they get called.

Can someone with more brains than I have explain how an extra 1MB/10MB/20MB would make a lick of difference re: scaling?

Can someone with more brains than I have explain how an extra 1MB/10MB/20MB would make a lick of difference re: scaling?

Can someone with more brains than I have explain how an extra 1MB/10MB/20MB would make a lick of difference re: scaling?

Again, another mistake. 'Core' as a group is hard to represent, and does not have anything to do with this. The people who signed the agreement are the ones who are going to lose their reputation/respect if they fail to deliver a HF proposal.

As far as scalability is concerned, it almost does nothing to improve it. Moving from a 1 MB block size limit to a 2 MB block size limit would increase the average throughput from 3 TPS to 6 TPS. That's about it. Segwit does so much more and will deliver only slightly less throughput (on average) once adopted.

Stolfi's right about one thing: this Chinese mining cartel is a problem. >:(

Well, I'll leave your opener alone...

I agree that the miners made a mistake. Basically, if Gregory Maxwell wasn't at the agreement, you don't have an agreement. 

If doubling the throughput of the network does almost nothing for scalability... then segwit does less than almost nothing for scalability with its 3MB per block max increase to data requirements and its 0.8MB gain in effective throughput.

If for example, we were to increase the maximum block size to say 10MB, (which I believe to be safe currently), then blocks on average would probably be about 10-11% full or so. If transaction growth were to grow at say 30% per year (which would be huge, and probably higher then what is realistic), then after about 8 years then the maximum block size would need to be increased again when the demand for transactions would create the need for blocks to be about 90% full.

I disagree. He's smart enough not to participate in closed-door meetings which are counter-intuitive to Bitcoin.

Just so.

But beyond that, this weird fantasy that I am some uniquely important person in Bitcoin is just completely without basis.  It's a narative spun by Mike Hearn in an effort to bring down regulatory hellfire on me to drive me out-- since for years I (and most other people actually doing the work of supporting the system) was very careful to keep a low profile, it didn't work.

Having my support on something doesn't magically make it a success. The fact that efforts I support are often a success is much more because I have nearly a lifetime of relevant experience that lets me identify initiatives which are likely to be successful and I prefer to spend my time working on those... than it is because I or anyone else has some kind of magical influence. ... regardless of what stories some people find advantageous to tell.

[...] It's a narative spun by Mike Hearn in an effort to bring down regulatory hellfire on me [...]

But beyond that, this weird fantasy that I am some uniquely important person in Bitcoin is just completely without basis.  

hard fork is about to begin :)

Or a reminder of who's "all talk" as they say.

so when Luke JR makes a revision where he changes segwits
MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 1000000;
to
MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000;
will you support it. or will to decline it

This question is important because my belief has always been that if something else wins out, core will adjust and may again become the best client, however, what the best developers do is far more important than what core does.  So as a developer with "nearly a lifetime of relevant experience" that helps to "identify initiatives which are likely to be successful" I'm interested in whether he would jump ship if he had to (supporting classic or unlimited, for instance) and also in whether or not he would believe he had to (vs expecting the ~75%/+ longer fork to die off without confidence in the ~25%/- fork concurrently being so shaken that there is no longer a "successful initiative" on either "side").

Presumably anyone okay with that path would already be supporting Bitcoin "Classic", but clearly none are (https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4mb6f8/classics_developers_are_almost_completely/d3u3on3).

I disagree. He's smart enough not to participate in closed-door meetings which are counter-intuitive to Bitcoin.

It does nothing and comes with a risk. Wake me up again when the Classic developers coded up something useful, just don't come to me with trash like header-first-mining. ::)

Just so.

But beyond that, this weird fantasy that I am some uniquely important person in Bitcoin is just completely without basis.  It's a narative spun by Mike Hearn in an effort to bring down regulatory hellfire on me to drive me out-- since for years I (and most other people actually doing the work of supporting the system) was very careful to keep a low profile, it didn't work.

Having my support on something doesn't magically make it a success. The fact that efforts I support are often a success is much more because I have nearly a lifetime of relevant experience that lets me identify initiatives which are likely to be successful and I prefer to spend my time working on those... than it is because I or anyone else has some kind of magical influence. ... regardless of what stories some people find advantageous to tell.

Many of the people pushing for hardfork size increases are pushing a vision of Bitcoin that will almost certainly become highly centralized-- See for example the comments on Reddit today with people arguing that it's possible to handle 8GB blocks using computing systems at quasi-youtube scale-- some don't consider this a problem; from my perspective such a system would be completely uninteresting (and a detriment to mankind, if it survived at all).

No one _has_ to support anything here they don't want to; and I'm surely not going to support something that puts us on that route and I doubt practically any of the active development community would.  Presumably anyone okay with that path would already be supporting Bitcoin "Classic", but clearly none are (https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4mb6f8/classics_developers_are_almost_completely/d3u3on3).

Many of the people pushing for hardfork size increases are pushing a vision of Bitcoin that will almost certainly become highly centralized-- See for example the comments on Reddit today with people arguing that it's possible to handle 8GB blocks using computing systems at quasi-youtube scale-- some don't consider this a problem; from my perspective such a system would be completely uninteresting

hard fork is about to begin :)

He’s also cunning enough to wait several months before vociferously denouncing it, calling the participants, including the president of his company, well-meaning dipshits.

Please explain the danger of header first mining, for the network, not for the miners that could potentially mine a block that nodes consider invalid.

blocks mined in the last 24 hours were in BIP-9 (old version without SW)
whereas typically half of the blocks mined were BIP 68 112 113 (new versions including SW)

Anyone can visit Coin.Dance and see Classic is holding steady at about 11% of total nodes.

about 11% of total nodes

blocks mined in the last 24 hours were in BIP-9 (old version without SW)
whereas typically half of the blocks mined were BIP 68 112 113 (new versions including SW)
coincident?

Yes, they are miners -- for the updated nodes/wallets/users.
The legacy nodes/wallets/users won't have any miners, and thus become subject to savage rapings by any kid with a couple of vidya cards.
Bonus points: no tx confirmations forever because outrageous difficulty/hashpower ratio, no diff. adjustment forever, because see aforementioned.
That's how hard forks work, always assumed it was understood.

Anyone can visit Coin.Dance and see Classic is holding steady at about 11% of total nodes. No worries unless that number starts to increase (by a lot.)

I'm still trying to unpack all this^ Were you both right?

Will this affect the halving in anyway  ??? I imagine it will.

Number of nodes means very little as you cant distinguish between real and fake ones.

What happens if the miners use hashpower as coercion as the network is that their blocks get invalidated and the coins that are being mined are worthless.

Unless, of course, the economic majority accepts the new rules. In which case the stubborn few stragglers find themselves on a fork unsupported by the security of massive hashpower.

That's not how a HF supported by consensus works.

I'm talking about a scenario in which the miners suddenly decide to 'change the rules' which would be the case with this ridiculous plan that was proposed. There's no way that businesses that are running on less-than-optimally maintained versions and some unusual ones (e.g. Bitcoin ruby) could upgrade very quickly (testing and deploying takes time IMO). Besides, once you give in to such coercion the chances that someone will attempt to do this with even less preferable "changes" become higher. If the HF was 'driven by' consensus, then the economic majority would most likely accept the new rules.

Why dont core just implement the hard fork themselves instead of messing about with segwit, Sometimes its better just to accept defeat and admit your wrong. There seems to be a lot of support from older members of the community who openly support a blocksize increase. If core where to implement this then surely it would be the best scenario?

I am not quite sure if block limit increasing to 2mb is good..
Look:
http://www.coindesk.com/1mb-block-size-today-bitcoin/

I am not quite sure if block limit increasing to 2mb is good..
Look:
http://www.coindesk.com/1mb-block-size-today-bitcoin/

The "ridiculous plan" (or some derivative thereof) is supported (https://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf) by ~the entire Bitcoin economy (note that the Chinese exchanges also support larger blocks based on the stances of the Chinese pools that are owned by the same entities).

It is only the blockstream core devs, who work for a company who can only possibly turn a profit if transaction fees skyrocket, as well as the one person who can effectively control the public conversation about the block size, preventing many "normal" people from being well informed (although this really does not matter because most normal people's opinions are not going to matter in terms if the economy accepts a fork or not).

Classic developers are trash, so are all the rest of hard forking attempts compared to Core developer team. It's suicide to switch to any other team so when it's all said and done they will not do it.

However, segwit encourages pretend decentralization (if you don't have the witness data, you aren't protecting the network's data) and things like lightning require gatekeepers that are even more centralized still. 

I'm not saying centralizing microtransactions off-chain is a problem, but the argument that decentralization is so important that we should centralize stuff is not a very good one. 

Definitely a biased article.  

Segwit was merged into Core already. There will be a point release after 0.13 which enables it. You can read about the plan for segwit deployment here:
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/06/24/segwit-next-steps/
The HK "consensus" was a farce signed by only a few developers. Nobody that wasn't there has any intention of following through on it.

I know of no hard fork proposal that could achieve consensus on that timeframe, no.
Maybe a magical fix-everything solution will be invented tomorrow (it's possible), but even that would require 6+ months of effort to get it in Core, and another full year or more to deploy, since we're talking about a hard fork. So the timeline doesn't make sense even if one assumed there was an acceptable solution (there isn't).
EDIT: The devs that signed the HK document aren't liers. They promised code availability 3 months after, which is when I would start the timeline I described above.