Bitcoin Forum

I reckon that the miners can still pull of from activating Segwit and revert back to the software they were running before signalling BIP91. If the 2MB hardfork is unrealistic then what incentive do the Chinese miners have in the NYA agreement? Nothing.

https://cointelegraph.com/images/725_Ly9jb2ludGVsZWdyYXBoLmNvbS9zdG9yYWdlL3VwbG9hZHMvdmlldy8zODk3ODQ5NDc0ZTI2YTJhOTkwMzY0NDIwYzA4YTgyYS5qcGc=.jpg

Already, Segwit2x developer Jeff Garzik is marshaling the charge toward this milestone. But, Hilliard is concerned about this approach. For example, he believes Segwit2x's three-month timeline is too short to say the least.

"Three months for a hard fork is completely unrealistic," he told CoinDesk, adding:

"Even coding it and getting some level of testing on it, let alone deploying it… I mean, that's pretty difficult."

Many other developers argue that there's little chance a 2MB hard fork can be safely executed safely in three months, since it's a change that could lead users to lose bitcoin if not implemented correctly.

Read the whole article https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-unrealistic-bip-91-creator-scaling-segwit2x/

So the question in my mind is: Can we not extend that 3-month period just in case it would be seen to be too short? Of course, they should be working hard double but if there is a need for an extension why not grant it? Would there be possible repercussions if we will extend beyond that three-month time-frame?

Now, I fully realized that after August 1 we could never be out of the woods yet, so to speak, as we would be seeing a continuation of this whole drama to unfold right before our eyes. It is not over until the fat lady sings.

It's far simpler than the deployment/testing schedule, or the software design issues: Jeff Garzik is unfit to be making decisions about Bitcoin's future direction, period


Jeff Garzik left the main Bitcoin development team when his ideas for the future direction of Bitcoin were repeatedly rejected (he vaunted or supported several centralising blocksize proposals, all of which were too radical, too vague or too blatantly centralising, respectively BIP101, BIP102 and BIP100)

Jeff left, Mike Hearn style, and went on to try to subtly chip away at the stability of Bitcoin network's consensus rules as a programmer for Bitcoin Classic (and embarrassed himself yet again).

It's clear that Jeff Garzik desperately wants to be in control of Bitcoin to impose his vision of it's developmental direction no matter the cost. If his ideas are so incredible though, and demonstrably so different from the consensus on direction of the dozens of other leading Bitcoin developers, then why can't Jeff Garzik just make his own cryptocurrency? His wish will come true, he will be king of JeffCoin, and his cryptocoin will be so much better than Bitcoin that his viewpoint will be vindicated, right? Strange how he persists for literally years trying to wrest control of Bitcoin in multiple (failed) attempts.

Jeff Garzik is poison to Bitcoin, smiling and talking in positive language, but the hidden intention is all too clear now: take over, in the most weasling way possible, then change it into something that is against privacy, against freedom, against sound money and against capitalism.