Valid outputs need to originate from valid coinbase transaction in valid block. Non-upgraded nodes will never confirm blocks containing tx that spend non-existent outputs ..... for the same reason they won't confirm blocks containing a 21million coin spend. Those transactions--and if mined, those blocks--are simply invalid, ignored, by old nodes. Miners don't even matter in this context. If they keep building on such a block, their chain will be forked off the network.

Unless, of course, node operators en masse uninstalled their node software and reinstalled software that recognized these outputs as valid. i.e. a hard fork.....

That isn't true. A long time ago they were done with hashrate thresholds that low and it was problematic. More recent ones have been 95% hashrate.

That is also not true. You could create some kind of colored coin and try to convince people to accept it as "bitcoin" even without any soft-fork, but no soft-fork can increase the supply of actual Bitcoins.

I said "If you're referring to LN" because you referred to "Blockstream's business solution" without any mention of what that is, except that "it is a pegged alt-coin and pre-paid card model."

So again, what is Blockstream's business solution, which you referred to?

If you are going to insult someone and suggest their understanding is insufficient, go ahead and prove it. You only make yourself look fucking retarded for suggesting it, when it's quite clear that you have no idea about the shit you talk about...

Facts? They sound like meaningless opinions. Point to the sources and explain exactly what "Blockstream's business solution" is. If you're referring to LN (which Blockstream has no ownership of)...explain how LN = "pegged alt-coin and pre-paid card model" when its premise is bitcoin payment channels that are enforceable with smart contracts, where the state of any payment channel can be committed to the blockchain at any time when a participant seeks to close it, contract timelock, etc.

Rational =/= safe. Businesses act rationally; they go bankrupt all the time. And that's giving some leeway as to what constitutes "rational."

Please go ahead and describe exactly how this model works. Since it sounds so absurd, the burden is on you to explain it.

Yeah, you have no valid arguments then you try to reduce things to nonsense. Quite obvious.

Of course we should stick with Bitcoin Core, if something other than Core is winning this nonsense battle, then these battles will happen over and over again in the future.

Look for example at countries in the middle east. When a dictator is forced out, people are happy for a while, but then they will force the new dictator/president out once again. Why? Because they can. Nothing stops them.

That's why it is very important to show support for the current Core client. Blocks will get bigger, just have some patience. People shouldn't let shills and fud trolls cause the community to split up in various groups. We are 1 community.

Only if the network is reduced to your 100-economically important node model. I.e. Complete centralization

Oh no! Someone call Gavin! Lines of code too scary for the Bitco.in crowd! Must stick to "solutions" that don't even attempt to scale the network!

Cool story. So you ignored all the developers quoted above explaining how it is not overly complex, and how easy it is to implement, and respond with that? Why don't you begin by explaining how he is wrong rather than using your unfounded opinion to claim that Segwit is overly complex?

LOL. "Open source" means throw all caution to the wind, eh? Fair enough--that's Gavin's position. "It's just an experiment, who cares if we break it?" Which works for Gavin because he said all along he thinks Bitcoin is a payment channel, not a store of value, so he doesn't hold much if any.

It's always obvious who has invested real money into Bitcoin, and who hasn't, in these conversations. Well don't expect the rest of us to agree with your reckless proposals on the basis that you don't care whether it survives.

Ermagherd!!!! Segwit is just too complex!!!!

Bitcoin -- like any engineering project -- requires very careful planning and execution.

It is possible. You get to control the main implementation (currently Core); i.e. you try to make your own implementation the main one. There are only a handful of people who have Bitcoin Core commit keys right now.

For me it comes down to trust in this regard and not to the technical advantage both of these implementations have. Less than a year ago, Gavin and Mike Hearn pitched up here and dropped XT on us.

They had ulterior motives then, and it was quickly picked up by the more technically incline people here... Mike threw a temper tantrum and left to go work for the competition and Gavin were left with a

empty bag. His only option was to distance himself from XT and to submit a new implementation that would get better support. So he quickly put 2 and 2 together and saw a lot of people were asking

for bigger block sizes. He then jumped in with a implementation to address that. {Because he knew a lot more people will support that} ... On the other hand... The Core developers had a full deck of

cards from the start, and came in with a whole set of solutions for a lot of our problems. { SegWit / Side chains ..... } I will go with the people with a long term vision.... not just a short term solution to

regain control over the development.. a so called power grab.  

prepare for the delirious Lauda to spout his classic doomsdays to try defending why blockstream should win peoples blind faith.

hint. if he tells you classic data bloat of 2mb(4000tx potential) will be too much for the network, tell him his dream of 1mbmaxblocksize+segwit+confidential payment codes = 2.85mb for 3800 transaction potential.

hint. if he tells you it will reduce full node count. tell him his dream of people who usually download core are now prefering pruned mode, and soon no witness mode, will be by far more of a risk to the dilution of true full nodes

hint. if he tells you onchain transactions cannot compete against visa's authorization network. tell him bitcoin has 2.5mill users not 900mill(visa quotes). so does not need to be exactly like visa in the next couple years. also the stats about visa's tx/s is based on a lab test of selective 'authorization' equipment in a mock lab test. and then the results multiplied in a flawed manner to the amount of systems they have dotted around the world. also worth highlighting i said it a few times.. the stats are on the AUTHORIZATION network. not the settlement network. so it should not be used in relation to blocks.

hint if he tells you that classic is headed up by a corporations. tell him that core is too (blockstream, ergo PwC, ergo many financial firms, banks)

hint if he tells you that only a couple people are employed by blockstream. tell him to explain the finances of how the $55million is to be spend by supposedly only 2-3 people

hint. if he tells you that its just a shill game and he tries to speak latin. tell him he fails latin. jst like he fails C++, by thinking bitcoin core writes its code in java if he read the code he would know its not java. he is simply guessing and needing to be spoonfed info

Bitcoin has already risen, several times. Governments can't tax it. Any more questions, Johny?

Please, don't you understand yet that 1000 nodes run by random people spread all over the world in different places under Tor, is way more secure and decentralized than 100000 nodes run by a couple corporations on their super fast internet perfectly located datacenter buildings? Please just stop it.

Arrest them for what, exactly? The latter doesn't change anything -- if hash rate drops, miners elsewhere will pick up the slack, assuming it is profitable. If hash rate drops extremely quickly, we can release an update that causes the difficulty algorithm to update faster.

How so? They can issue bans, but they can't disable anything.

What does being regulated have to do with bandwidth limitations? Those are infrastructural limits, nothing to do with the prospect of government prohibition.