Lets remove the signature part from the transactions to fix the 1MB limit issue.

[jaybny]

ive done some research spoke to some core devs in miami. so far, I have not heard any real negative of the core plans, nothing that should cause anyone to abandon bitcoin for a new alt.

please enlighten me,.

sigwit - segregated witness - sounds complex. is really simple.

• The block size limit is 1MB.
  
• sigwit - will remove the signatures from the code that calculates the size, so the older software clients will not break.
  
• for post soft-fork clients this is just an implementation detail of increasing the blocksize.
  
• so win-win - increase block size, dont fork the coin.   
  

I have not heard any real negative of the core plans, nothing that should cause anyone to abandon bitcoin for a new alt.

please enlighten me,.

[HabBear]

Are you a miner? If so, start doing it...remove the signature part from the transactions and let others follow. Whatever you do, don't just talk about solutions...do something!

[jaybny]

Are you a miner? If so, start doing it...remove the signature part from the transactions and let others follow. Whatever you do, don't just talk about solutions...do something!

no - dont do that - wait for the release of sigwit in the core. its already in testnet, this IS HAPPENING NOW.

[HabBear]

Are you a miner? If so, start doing it...remove the signature part from the transactions and let others follow. Whatever you do, don't just talk about solutions...do something!

no - dont do that - wait for the release of sigwit in the core. its already in testnet, this IS HAPPENING NOW.

Well if it's happening now, great! My only point was that there's no time to bullshit around with just ideas. If you have a good idea test it in the market, put the thoughts to action and let the market decide its fate!

[MicroGuy]

please enlighten me,.

Here's the scoop. There are 2 core devs that are basically paid lobbyists for Blockstream. In Washington, politicians make decisions based on who is contributing to their campaigns, often times not what is in the best interest of their constituents.

The same is true in Bitcoin, devs making engineering decisions that are in the best interest of Blockstream, not the wider community. 1MB blocks serve Blockstream, 2MB blocks serve the greater good of Bitcoin.

[johnyj]

The idea behind SW sounds like: In order to prevent a hard fork, we must do what ever is possible

It is the fear of a hard fork twisted the architecture of bitcoin Why don't we defeat that fear first by doing a hard fork

[jaybny]

please enlighten me,.

Here's the scoop. There are 2 core devs that are basically paid lobbyists for Blockstream. In Washington, politicians make decisions based on who is contributing to their campaigns, often times not what is in the best interest of their constituents.

The same is true in Bitcoin, devs making engineering decisions that are in the best interest of Blockstream, not the wider community. 1MB blocks serve Blockstream, 2MB blocks serve the greater good of Bitcoin.

conspiracy theory.

[mamadmankan]

I don't think that in order to prevent a hard fork, we must do what ever is possible. Hard fork is something that might actually give an important push to further inovation and break all the problems that are slowing bitcoin down.

[VeritasSapere]

Segwit by itself does not scale Bitcoin enough. An increase to two megabyte does more for scaling and is far less complex to implement. Segwit will also take to long to implement and it should not be rushed. The blocksize should be increased sooner rather then later in order to avoid the FFM event as Jeff Garzick has described and warned us about. Segwit can always just be implemented when ready and more thoroughly reviewed in the future. An increase to the blocksize can be done now, and so far it is the only real way to scale the Bitcoin blockchain directly and significantly.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html

[VeritasSapere]

I don't think that in order to prevent a hard fork, we must do what ever is possible. Hard fork is something that might actually give an important push to further inovation and break all the problems that are slowing bitcoin down.

Hard forks also serve a very important purpose in the governance mechanism of Bitcoin. Hard forks act as a check against the power of any development team. It is the ability to hard fork that ensures the continued freedom and decentralization of the protocol.

[brg444]

I don't think that in order to prevent a hard fork, we must do what ever is possible. Hard fork is something that might actually give an important push to further inovation and break all the problems that are slowing bitcoin down.

Hard forks also serve a very important purpose in the governance mechanism of Bitcoin. Hard forks act as a check against the power of any development team. It is the ability to hard fork that ensures the continued freedom and decentralization of the protocol.

Contentious hard forks support themselves only with the tyranny of the majority.

http://bitledger.info/why-a-hard-fork-should-be-fought-and-its-not-evil-to-discuss/