[2017-04-14] SW with 2MB blocks (SegWit2MB)

[bbc.reporter]

What do you think of this as a compromise? I have been reading all the debate threads in the forum and I do not think the Unlimited supporters will like it. They all want the miners to control the size of the blocks. But what kind of problems would bitcoin encounter if they had that kind of control?



This crypto currency’s block size war rages and can only end due to sheer tiredness. Alternative coins rallied which indicates the long years of arguments about scaling Bitcoin have reached a point. The results are quite clear now.

Mr. Lerner bared his proposal in the mailing list of Bitcoin through this overture: This proposal’s main objective is to bring back together the Bitcoin community thus avoiding a crypto currency split.  SegWit-2MB may not turn out as most viable technical solution to address technical limitations o this virtual currency. This is not a new solution but more of least common denominator.

The proposal is quite simple, to implement both main scaling solutions:

“SegWit2MB merges SegWit as today in Bitcoin 0.14+ with 2MB block size hard-fork activated only if SegWit activates (95 percent of miners) but at a fixed date in the future.”

Read everything here https://www.crypto-news.net/segwit2mb/

[notthematrix]

I think they only way out a a compromise.
Litecoin is now activating segwit.
http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php
This will be activated.
Putting bitcoin in a different position because segwit will be active on a main coin network and tested.
It will just take time to realize that , Miners want to be sure of a job , but users dont want miner dominance.
Dominace of any group is what we dont want  in bitcoin.
Its also not true that a s9 == btcU , because you can choose the pool you mine.
Is asicboost a problem? well it should be overt , and the question now it is discovered.
if you need to mine empty  blocks is not a good thing , not allowing mining empty blocks on a full network, should also be a feature.