+1

This I can agree with.  I have read and read as much as I can, but all I can conclude is that I don't know the right answer.

Let me try to explain it the way I see it. The problem the Chinese have with Segwit, is not so much with Segwit itself but with what will happen after Segwit. The Chinese are afraid that the side-chains the core devs are working on will take money out of their pockets by reducing the number of potential transaction fees in the future. So by blocking Segwit, they are blocking side-chains like lightning network. The Chinese want bigger blocks to collect more money in fees in the future. At least this is what I think, maybe I am wrong or maybe someone can explain it better.

even people that love core want dynamic blocksize. the only argument they can come up with though is that they would only TRUST gmaxwell to write the code for it. they are even screaming to tell the community that core never said no to a increase of the base blocksize, they just waiting for gmaxwell who proposed a dynamic blocksize LAST YEAR!

afterall the altcoin dooms day myth has been busted. all that will happen is an elevation of possible orphan rate due to how small or large the minority is (hense 95%+ acceptability to implement). making under 5% (under 250 of 5000 nodes) not sync and need to upgrade.

afterall the bloat doomsday myth has been busted. 4mb bloat is acceptable

so the solution/compromise is obvious. core tweak their segwit code to 2mb base 4mb weight.. call it 0.13.1b release it alongside 0.13.1 and let the community choose to download either 0.13.1 or 0.13.1b

atleast if everyone happily downloads 0.13.1b segwit also gets activated by default too.
if there is no desire of a jump in base block.. then no one will download 0.13.1b and it wont activate. meaning no harm either fanboys just download 0.13.1 instead

but simply preventing even letting the community have the release to even have a choice under their 'trusted' brand they wont run away from. is no longer the right course of action

then. when activated and we have more REAL capacity because the buffer has increased. that gives alot more time to code new features instead of these stupid delays

who are you referring to?

the poeple from the censored forms?
node count?
hashing power?

how can you claim to know what the majority want?

If a space on a distributed blockchain costs only $0.01 i might use it as a notepad to store my reminders. e.g. if it's free (or almost free) to spam i can't imagine mempool being empty again, regardless of the size of a block.

Yes sure why don't we introduce this HUGE attack vector into BTC? Sounds like a good plan. No one in their right mind would allow this. How big should a block be to handle Visa volumes?

I like your assumptions of the desires of "main community". I can do that too, main community wants segwit! There is a group that proposed Classic/XT/BU which was/is rejected by the main community. Now there is a proposal for segwit, yet there is a group that is blocking it. So what are the options? Main community must agree with BU minority or otherwise no one gets segwit?

holding it hostage??
um... like core not coding something so holding the other bip hostage by not even having a release available. which is far more hostile then having code released but people choose not to use it.

also are you presume bitcoin is going to jump in utility by a factor of 20, in days, weeks, months, years..?
seems your opinion is that its going to jump in days-months and so your upset that bitcoin cant cope.. yet RATIONALLY bitcoin utility will grow over YEARS and in those YEARS larger blocks would be happily relayable.

the main community is not saying jump to 20mb in weeks-months. its instead asking for a rational growth over rational time without having to beg devs "can i have some more" every couple years. by allowing the growth to be dynamic and not controlled by a team of people paid by banks.

its also worth looking at the bait and switch proposals and who actually proposed them, to then realise that it was done to scare people into loving core

by allowing the growth to be dynamic

...
Standard fallacy by misguided and/or delusional people.

---

The problem is far more complex that what you tend to show. There are currently two (primary) implemented proposals for on chain scaling:
1) Segwit via soft fork (Core).
2) Block size increase via hard fork (maximum 16 MB) (BU).

Okay, so the BU crowd wants to scale via a hard fork. But why this specific proposal? There are other, much more reasonable ones (e.g. the one with 17% yearly growth) that could work. I am in support of a hard fork post-Segwit, but I'm surely not going to support random node operators voting on these limits up to an absurdly large limit (16x higher than what is currently available).

the explanation is much easier than this: pride.

the chinese miners have been humiliated in public with the breach of the HK-2MB-agreement and now maxwell and others expect them to cooperate? it would be seen as a public bowing infront of folks that insulted and betrayed them publicly for the last 12months. i remember here especially LukeJr that said some pretty nasty things about the chinese mining operators. so even if you look at it from an western perspective you should be easily able to understand why after all this fuck-up they refuse to cooperate. and if you go one step further and are able to understand asian culture you will even more be able to understand why (after the breach of the HK-agreement and the open insults) they are basically not able to activate segwit.

pride is some strong motivation.

even in greece.  

Funny thing about walls...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1512965.msg15222331#msg15222331

This frustrating  

I know for sure that if I sell it will go up
and if I hold the price will go down

 
 

Most likely will be pulled once refueling expectations have been met.

not until I see bitcoin price up

It will but it has the time left in till september 2017 to gather confidence in what the collectivity may wish to view it as. Judging by how the industry and markets love extremes, Id make an assumption that consensus will come within the last days if not hours of the activation window. If not supported by 90 percent of miners within a 14 d timespace sometime between now and early fall 2017, then RIP.

What's happened to the OP?

Relying on folk to not be stupid doesn't sound like a great formula for success. Forces in war have continued fighting long after it was obvious to everyone they had lost - and they were staking not merely their money but their lives.

I have to admit I'm surprised most of you are still here. Nobody thinks this is the top yet? Really?

WTF is going on???