I have no idea what the devs expect, but based on the steady decline of altcoin nodes on the p2p network, I doubt the release of binaries will have much effect on anything.  There are plenty other altcoin nodes to run, which have the binaries ready for download.

Doesn't seem to be a serious attempt then.  Are the Toomins too incompetent to merge the improvements from 0.12?

I am a miner as well, and I am not going to start mining any altcoins.  I doubt you will get many miners to switch.  For a given hashrate the miners will produce exactly as much as before the fork, until the first difficulty adjustment.  No matter which fork you are on.  After that your return will increase a lot.

If everyone switches, including me, consensus have changed.  So far nothing indicates that the altcoins have more than a meager support among users, merchants, exchanges and miners.  There was a pull request on requiring 90% miner support for hardfork activation in "Classic", by request of some Chinese miners, but the dictator of the project, Oliver Janssen, closed it.  He is only aiming for the destruction and control of Bitcoin, and has no regards for the wishes of the miners, users, merchants or exchanges, or sanity.

I wonder how long it takes until a miner do a 51% attack on "Classic" using only 25% of the hashrate (after already scaling off a lot of the competition due to the fork) using the 10 minute block trick.  With 2 MB blocks, you can design a transaction which takes 10 minutes to validate.  In the mean time the malicious miner has a 10 minute head start on the next block.  Victory!  "Classic" hasn't been given much thought.  In the mean time Bitcoin solves the O(n²) problem in segwit, allowing for large transactions which don't take forever to validate.  (XT had a "solution" to this problem, by limiting transactions to 100 kB, a limit which would require another hard fork to remove in the future.  Where the other developers look for elegant, efficient and flexible solutions, Gavin prefers using a mallet.  (In his own words.))

Letting the cow die in a civil war isn't much better.

So what?  Bitcoin Core is in beta as well.  People still run it.

I hope they are going to upgrade to 0.12 before they release.  0.12 has lots of improvements, e.g. much faster IBD, data usage limiting, the long awaited RBF feature, etc.  It will be hard to convince people to downgrade.

I already showed Localbitcoins.  Perhaps the exchange with the most users in the world.

My points are: Most people don't sign petitions unless they want change.  And a petition which is supposed to be taken seriously better contain names.

You are quoting the wrong paragraph.

By the measure you are using, Bitcoin Core hasn't been released yet.  It is in beta.

Don't be silly.  Altcoin is the generic term for Bitcoin forks.  It been since the first Bitcoin forks/altcoins started to show up years ago, using alternative consensus rules.  It can easily be shown in court.

Segwit has the potential to get us much further, and scale dynamically.  Just increasing the blocksize doesn't scale at all.

Hashrate:   1,013,412,197 GH/s   

Is there any possibility, has there been any suggestion, that this could actually happen?

When the source code is out, it is released.  You don't need binaries for that.

Except the people on this issue are mostly unnamed shills, not named identifiable people.

Standard bitcoin is well defined in Satoshi's paper.  Diversion from consensus is not allowed.  Only bugfixes and more restrictions have been allowed, and Satoshi did many of those himself.

The source has been released, and this means the software has been released.  Don't fool yourself.

I do make it very clear that I sell Bitcoin and no altcoins.  I always did.  I link to bitcoin.org in my FAQ.

When Core is done with their roadmap, the SPV problem will at least be solved by the fraud proofs included in the segwit proposal.  This makes the world a bit safer for SPV wallets.  Segwit has a testnet, and works, btw.  Many wallets have it implemented already.  You are welcome to test it.  Join #segwit-dev on Freenode to discuss.

According to "ShadowOfHarbinger" it was released days ago, but he is full of crap and might be lying.

Not a lot.  There are a few who took VC money from the same people.

A much longer list than the one on the "Bitcoin Classic" site.

Or they just don't care about the drama, and will stick with standard bitcoin.

Yes.

Currently Unlimited has more support than Classic, XT has much more support than both of them, and Core dwarfs them all.  Support for larger blocksize forks have dwindled since the bitcoin developers agreed on a roadmap which scales much better than the alternatives, and avoids a hard fork.  On January 1st there were almost 750 nodes trying to fork vs 4879 nodes running Bitcoin Core.  The number of Core nodes is increasing, and the number of fork nodes is decreasing.  Looks like most people are pushing for the Core solution.

I have tried to get an answer to what I think is the biggest problem here many times, but you keep ignoring it:
SPV wallets, which most people use, will connect to a random fork and spend and receive conins on a random chain every time they connect.  Whyat do you think the users loosing coins due to this will do?  Run to buy coins from the chanfork which is mos popular this week, or get the f out of Bitcoin before it is too late?

The reason why so many fork supporters run a full node is obvious: If the fork happens, there is no other way to be sure to use the correct altcoin than by running a full node supporting the altcoin they want to use, and not even that will work if the standard bitcoin fork comes back ahead of their altchain.  Yes, the coins will become worthless.  People use bitcoin as a currency for transactions and storage of value, not for the drama.  When the coins can't be used reliably without keeping up with the drama, people are going to jump ship.

Where on Earth did you get that idea!?  The number of nodes running bit-altcoins, like "Bitcoin XT", "Bitcoin Classic", "Bitcoin Unlimited", etc, is decreasing, and less than 10% of the total.  If you see at e.g. the "Bitcoin Classic" website, the list of supporters is very short.  The vast majority still run and support standard Bitcoin. 

Some miners, and I thought most of them pulled their support after talking to Jeff?  I am a miner, and I do not support the destruction of Bitcoin.

You made that up.  By the number of nodes, it is 5509 against 541 in favor of standard Bitcoin.  Remember that supporters of different forks have a strong incentive to run an alternative implementations, since SPV clients will stop working reliably after a hard fork.

Most Bitcoin services support standard Bitcoin.  By any metric.

Again: How did you get this idea?  I have been in #bitcoin on Freenode since 2010, and the support for the current consensus is almost unison.  People are mostly making fun of this sillly forking idea.  It is harder to operate a bunch of shills and sybils on IRC than Bitcointalk and Reddit, of course. 

The forkers don't even agree on how to fork.  The current count is 380 nodes running "Bitcoin XT", 103 running "Bitcoin Classic" and 75 running "Bitcoin Classic".  We may end up with four different blockchains.

If a majority of miners do it, they will do it again just for the fun of it.  The coins will be worthless anyway.

While he is wasting his money and sue us, I'm not going to engage him or touch his posts.
Let him dig his own hole.

Economic democracy

this bitcoin coldwar is heating up and may soon escalate with all dirty tricks including ddos, hacks and mass media interviews etc

i suggest 50% bitcoin /  50% altcoins as hedge

But why is that every time we have a financial crisis gold goes up in value?

(hint - it isn't for any of the above reasons)

No it doesn't - gold isn't very useful "as money" yet it is still extremely useful as a store of value (same with other precious metals and minerals).

Bitcoin has never been as easy to use a conventional things like credit cards (and still isn't) so if your argument is about usability then Bitcoin should have already failed.

At the end of the day we don't even need Bitcoin to scale in order to have a "store of value" (do we really need to revisit the stupid "coffees" argument again?).

So there is no rush (unless you are Gavin who knows that his chance to "become dictator" again is running out rapidly).

If you are just "so impatient" to do more txs might I suggest that you try Litecoin or another alt?

The strategy of Gavin is to say "we need to change right now so give me control of the project with this simple but nasty hack" whereas the strategy of the core devs is we are building proper scalability solutions and have a plan.

I'd say that the plan is the better way forward (and I'm not even being paid for saying this - shame on me).

Okay - I will not say anything more about Gavin in terms of a personal attack then (if you think my previous posts should be deleted then please report them to a moderator who can decide).

Also Gavin still has an account on this forum so he can always defend himself if he wants to.

I did not ask anyone to trust me (and I don't expect that they should).

Additionally, you would be an excellent candidate for some mining pools to pay a salary as a developer being that you live in china, have a Chinese wife, are a proficient developer , and can help bridge the gap in understanding between the rest of core developers and Chinese miners.

Without "naming names" let me just say that the core developers do not want Gavin back (and will not work with him).

This is due to Gavin and nothing more (he is not the kind of person you seem to think he is - something that Hearn has found out the hard way and which Garzik is about to).

Stand in that corner and think about it, while other [better] children giggle.

P.S. Thought upon reading wachtwoord's post: we really should start sucking each others' dicks complimenting each other more often. In public.