Looks like Bitcoin will remain as it is for life

[Kprawn]

As long as the value remains, the price continues to increase, people continue to use it as a store of value, no fatal flaws are found, I see no reason to change it.  Just leave it as is.

Other coins can become the everyday "currency" coins you use to buy coffee. 

Bitcoin works just fine as it is for storing and transferring relatively large sums of money/value.

The problem with that is.... Will mining and the status quo or even a reduction in miners fees be sustainable, if people only use Bitcoin for a

store of value? We need a significant increase in transactions to replace the Block reward in the future and that will never happen if we only use

Bitcoin to transfer large sums of money. 

[Qartada]

LAST 1000 BLOCKS :

Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 373  ( 37.3% )             
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 2  ( 0.2% )             
SegWit blocks: 275  ( 27.5% )

Conclusion: The majority of miners support bigger blocks

https://vote.bitcoin.com/arguments/block-size-limit-should-be-increased-to-8-mb-as-soon-as-possible

Conclusion: The majority of bitcoin holders supports bigger blocks

Core needs to either increase the block size, or miners (acting in their own economic interest) will start using an alternative client, and they'll become irrelevant. Its really that simple

Not at all.  Your argument is that the majority of miners support bigger blocks, but a better phrase would be that a majority of the mining hashrate supports bigger blocks.  The mining hashrate is represented by a small group of pools, and since miners typically gravitate towards their own interests they will go to whichever pool they prefer rather than, necessarily, to the one which supports a specific scaling solution as many don't care.

In fact, SegWit currently has a marginal lead over BU due to F2Pool beginning to signal for it.  What matters is how much hashrate is favouring each side, not how many blocks have been mined for each (as the number of blocks is subject to variation so you have to measure it over a longer timespan) and with the addition of F2Pool, the hashrate currently is supporting SegWit by a small margin.

The miners don't even represent the community either.  No one can reasonably claim that the miners' interests are always that of the community and a reason for supporting a cause should never be "other people support it so I do too".  It should be because the system holds weight as an idea and in code.

[BurtW]

As long as the value remains, the price continues to increase, people continue to use it as a store of value, no fatal flaws are found, I see no reason to change it.  Just leave it as is.

Other coins can become the everyday "currency" coins you use to buy coffee. 

Bitcoin works just fine as it is for storing and transferring relatively large sums of money/value.

The problem with that is.... Will mining and the status quo or even a reduction in miners fees be sustainable, if people only use Bitcoin for a

store of value? We need a significant increase in transactions to replace the Block reward in the future and that will never happen if we only use

Bitcoin to transfer large sums of money. 

But there are two ways to replace the current block fee subsidy:

1) A lot of transaction with a lower fee per transaction

OR

2) The same number of transactions (capped at 3 TPS) but with a much larger fee per transaction.

If we do not remove the transaction cap, and we want to pay for the level of security we currently have then the fees / transaction will have to go up to the point that they replace the current subsidy.

So more transactions is not the only way to accomplish this.

[Abdussamad]

Staying as it is means getting obsolete, loosing competition. It's better to fork to 2 different coins and see which one outcompetes the other. But before that it would be better to try to forget mutual insults, become less arrogant, more respectful to our opponents and find common ground after all.
I guess the problem could be that most communication in our cryptoworld is going online. For some reason, online communication is almost always much less civilized than offline. I think VIPs should arrange real world meetings much more often.

A fork wouldn't mean a competition. A fork would result in Mutually Assured Destruction.

[fathur.aza]

That's good news and hope it's true.
I hope that bitcoin prices remain high or higher

[enhu]

In 3 years when the next halving occurs we will see a burst in the price.

It appears to be true. A lot of users panic whenever a massive dump happens but it has proven to be getting back up again over and over.  They fork whenever they want but consensus still has to rule. Whatever happens to BTC, there are still hundreds of altcoins to choose from. I have to invest to the most coin that I find useful in the future.

[dwieyani]

If that happens then I am very happy to hear it, then this will be a bright future for those who join.
My expectation of bitcoin price is always stable if you can add higher up again.

[pereira4]

LAST 1000 BLOCKS :

Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 373  ( 37.3% )             
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 2  ( 0.2% )             
SegWit blocks: 275  ( 27.5% )

Conclusion: The majority of miners support bigger blocks

https://vote.bitcoin.com/arguments/block-size-limit-should-be-increased-to-8-mb-as-soon-as-possible

Conclusion: The majority of bitcoin holders supports bigger blocks

Core needs to either increase the block size, or miners (acting in their own economic interest) will start using an alternative client, and they'll become irrelevant. Its really that simple

Not at all.  Your argument is that the majority of miners support bigger blocks, but a better phrase would be that a majority of the mining hashrate supports bigger blocks.  The mining hashrate is represented by a small group of pools, and since miners typically gravitate towards their own interests they will go to whichever pool they prefer rather than, necessarily, to the one which supports a specific scaling solution as many don't care.

In fact, SegWit currently has a marginal lead over BU due to F2Pool beginning to signal for it.  What matters is how much hashrate is favouring each side, not how many blocks have been mined for each (as the number of blocks is subject to variation so you have to measure it over a longer timespan) and with the addition of F2Pool, the hashrate currently is supporting SegWit by a small margin.

The miners don't even represent the community either.  No one can reasonably claim that the miners' interests are always that of the community and a reason for supporting a cause should never be "other people support it so I do too".  It should be because the system holds weight as an idea and in code.

The so called hashrate support has become an useful tool for miners to short the market at do some massive inside trading gains. They use twitter to spread their agenda and rumors. This puts fears into investors minds, which make those miners richer every time. I don't believe for a second that Wang Chun will keep his segwit support in either BTC or LTC. He can change at any second, look at the guy's history.
Jihan keeps doing the same on LTC too.

They are obviously exploiting their power to make money by manipulating the market.

[cloverme]

Yeah, this is why it was nice to have satoshi in the early days... Now it's like hundreds of people trying to decide the toppings on a pizza. The guy running the ovens doesn't like pepperoni, the guy selling the ovens doesn't like mushrooms, the girl who makes the sauce can't have cheese, the guy who makes the pizza boxes only makes small boxes, and you just want a slice before your lunch hour is over.

I don't think any of these community driven solutions will come to pass this year because everyone is too self absorbed in their own opinions and ideas to accept the common needs. Maybe further down the line when people get tired of arguing and move on to an altcoin or something.

[Serellyn]

While segwit fixes transaction malleability which is good, the idea of sidechains such as the lightning network goes directly against the idea of decentralization as transactions will be processed by a third party in the name of saving time and resources. Regardless of how little power these 'points of authority' have, I think its a step towards centralization and therefore a step in the wrong direction.

I am also understanding that the people who came up with segwit have ties to Blockstream (a company that focuses on sidechain solutions) which is very much a conflict of interest if you ask me.

[DOGE12321]

We will need to resolve it sometime. I have a feeling we will be stuck in a deadlock for a couple of years more until some devs come to their senses and create a compromise. My advice would be to stay neutral in te forks.

[Teljkon]

We will need to resolve it sometime. I have a feeling we will be stuck in a deadlock for a couple of years more until some devs come to their senses and create a compromise. My advice would be to stay neutral in te forks.

I agree the future of block chain is distributing threw put fairly and increasing decentralization at the same time. Hopefully while creating place for smaller players, therefor playing on the systems strengths. Often when two parties disagree greatly the solution is in the middle. Ultimately the problem with this is, as it always is, that people will not easily go down a path that they think will harm them in any way. Even it represents the greater good of the community. However only threw destruction are we recreated so just as BTC nicked the old financial system. perhaps that outer fith on either side should be abandoned.