interesting how the battle rages on between segwit and the other camp

[colinistheman]

what are your thoughts?

[franky1]

its going to take time for miners to review the code and then implement the changes into their own versions.

so dont expect it to be an overnight thing.
this is the same reason core fans say that any fork cant have a month of review followed by a couple weeks grace for the laggers.

so relax it can happen,
but too soon to start calling it a point of lowering the threshold. otherwise it makes core a hypocrite by saying that other implementations should have 16 month 'waiting' periods, but want to rush and lower the thresholds for their own implementations.

after all the code of 0.12 and code of 0.13 have massive differences/rewrites.

in short: too early to tell. be patient.

[achow101]

It is extremely unlikely that Core will lower the thresholds. They are specifically using the BIP9 soft fork standard and that specifies a 95% threshold for all soft forks, not just segwit. If anyone were to propose a lower threshold, I believe that many of the developers working on Core would fight against instituting such a change even though we all want segwit to be deployed. I myself would fight against any such change even though I want to see segwit deployed.

[yayayo]

Thank you for posting the link.

I'm pretty sure that Core won't lower the treshold for SegWit activation, simply because there will be no necessity to do so. There is overwhelming consensus that SegWit is a good thing not only because of making more efficient use of blockspace but also because of the security improvement it brings.

The actions of a single banks lickspit narcissist are to no avail. Ver might have tricked the ViaPool operator into following his self-serving motives, but individual miners are not dumb. ViaPool is already loosing hashrate. The only thing that will happen is Roger Ver and ViaPool will be viewed as egoistic obstructionists and they will be marginalized in the Bitcoin world.

ya.ya.yo!

[franky1]

im laughing

blockstream is:
funded by banks (yep they also get funds from r3) -  research hyperledger board (R3, DAH) and blockstream connections..
want 4mb (not 2mb)
slide in a change that does need consensus at coding level, but has a threshold for 'social' resemblance of needing consensus
wants to obstruct/delay real capacity
doesnt fix double spends due to adding CPFP which can be used by double spenders. its like fixing a hole and then hammering out another hole elsewhere

anyway. i hope the blockstream fanboys wake up one day to the hypocrisy of blockstream

[Velkro]

its going to take time for miners to review the code and then implement the changes into their own versions.

...

in short: too early to tell. be patient.

This, and core is very cautious about big changes. Take a look at ethereum failure, they made big decisions too fast and failed miserably, so many people lost money due to rush.

Stay calm, it will sort out by itself in time.

[franky1]

its going to take time for miners to review the code and then implement the changes into their own versions.

...

in short: too early to tell. be patient.

This, and core is very cautious about big changes. Take a look at ethereum failure, they made big decisions too fast and failed miserably, so many people lost money due to rush.

to explain
ethereum was not a consensus vote. it was an intentional split. as proven by " --oppose-dao-fork" mechanism that literally bans each side from orphaning off(consensus) each others chain,

if  --oppose-dao-fork was never used, orphans(consensus) would have taken care of the minority to leave only a majority chain

i dont think we should be using ethereums tactic as a dirct comparison to what has been proposed by any bitcoin dev. but should be used as an
example of consequence/warning of proposing such stupid split idea's (again bitcoin dev proposals are not about splits)

bitcoin wants to stick to a consensus (either code required or social pretence) to ensure there is only one chain, chosen by the majority.

lastly miners dont/wont jump the gun soon unless they see good acceptance by users.
EG knowing a payment gateway can validate the segwit transaction, so that miners/pools can spend their funds to pay for electricity and wages.

which unlike ethereum who split before even seeing if exchanges would accept the split. which has caused loses.

inshort miners wont flag their desire for segwit unless they know merchants and exchanges will accept and be able to validate segwit tx's

so as i and Velkro said. be patient its not going to happen until merchants review and accept the code. and miners see their favourite exchanges/services accepting the code to know they can spend funds.