.

[CIYAM]

I can't help but notice your trust issues have been resolved. Scrubbed clean of all your sins then. Good for you.

You are welcome to leave negative trust against me if you want to.

[CIYAM]

Anything to large the block capacity is a positive

Well, not "anything".

BIP101 would have seen the block capacity grow into the GB range. The 2MB bump is an ultra-conservative needed fork.

Why? Because you say so?

[labwork]

I'm sorry for the ignorance, but does this mean a hard-fork is coming soon?

This is code that has been submitted to Core for their review. A hard fork would only occur if this code were implemented and 75% mining power agreed. This would be followed by a 28-day grace period after which time older clients would not be compatible with the network.

I think this proposal will be given serious consideration. For all intents and purposes, this is the "Satoshi BIP." It's what Satoshi would have done in this situation.

Uow, I'm very excited to read that! Let's hope the Core reaches a decision soon. I'm expecting a serious price upward when it happens!

[Lauda]

Price upwards when it happens? I think it won't affect bitcoin price since most users won't feel difference after upgrade & most media won't share about that.

If Bitcoin forks (and especially with 75% vs 25% of the network) there is going to be a (negative) effect on the price. The network will essentially be damaged due to a split. Just imagine the great situation once media starts making articles with titles such as "Bitcoin split in two", "Confusion/panic in the Bitcoin community", etc.

BIP101 would have seen the block capacity grow into the GB range. The 2MB bump is an ultra-conservative needed fork.

Why? Because you say so?

Because of various assumptions based on propaganda, one of them being "Blockstream is evil". If Blockstream is evil, then Segwit must be evil too.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Price upwards when it happens? I think it won't affect bitcoin price since most users won't feel difference after upgrade & most media won't share about that.

If Bitcoin forks (and especially with 75% vs 25% of the network) there is going to be a (negative) effect on the price. The network will essentially be damaged due to a split. Just imagine the great situation once media starts making articles with titles such as "Bitcoin split in two", "Confusion/panic in the Bitcoin community", etc.

BIP101 would have seen the block capacity grow into the GB range. The 2MB bump is an ultra-conservative needed fork.

Why? Because you say so?

Because of various assumptions based on propaganda, one of them being "Blockstream is evil". If Blockstream is evil, then Segwit must be evil too.

Blockstream is a corporate entity with its own legally recognized incentives. SegWit is code. Be more logical!

[jonald_fyookball]

I'm sorry for the ignorance, but does this mean a hard-fork is coming soon?

This is code that has been submitted to Core for their review. A hard fork would only occur if this code were implemented and 75% mining power agreed. This would be followed by a 28-day grace period after which time older clients would not be compatible with the network.

I think this proposal will be given serious consideration. For all intents and purposes, this is the "Satoshi BIP." It's what Satoshi would have done in this situation.

Uow, I'm very excited to read that! Let's hope the Core reaches a decision soon. I'm expecting a serious price upward when it happens!

Price upwards when it happens? I think it won't affect bitcoin price since most users won't feel difference after upgrade & most media won't share about that.

Disagree on both.  Users will be excited the war is over and media will report on scalability.

[ATguy]

Price upwards when it happens? I think it won't affect bitcoin price since most users won't feel difference after upgrade & most media won't share about that.

If Bitcoin forks (and especially with 75% vs 25% of the network) there is going to be a (negative) effect on the price. The network will essentially be damaged due to a split. Just imagine the great situation once media starts making articles with titles such as "Bitcoin split in two", "Confusion/panic in the Bitcoin community", etc.

The only panic right now is because people realized Bitcoin Core main plan is basically stop possibility of further Bitcoin adoption, their roadplan is the evidence - 1.5 MB will be eaten very likely this year, but no futher increase possible till late 2017, thus no addoption posible.  Lets face it, with such roadmap Bitcoin gives its huge marketshare to altcoins clompletly for free - really no bad intentions have to be assumed from such minority vetoing the majority 

BIP101 would have seen the block capacity grow into the GB range. The 2MB bump is an ultra-conservative needed fork.

Why? Because you say so?

Because of various assumptions based on propaganda, one of them being "Blockstream is evil". If Blockstream is evil, then Segwit must be evil too.

Partnering with PwC and staying in Bitcoin Core lead development is much worse for Bitcoin than Mike leaving Bitcoin and helping R3

https://medium.com/@WasintMe3/everything-you-never-wanted-to-know-about-blockstream-s-new-boss-pricewaterhousecoopers-716d46d3257b#.fqfokdtvk

Hopefully still independent Bitcoin Core developers clears the watter from bad actors inside Bitcoin Core soon before media shit hits the fan, if not, we need clearly move away from Bitcoin Core so the damage for Bitcoin is minimal

[Lauda]

The only panic right now is because people realized Bitcoin Core main plan is basically stop possibility of further Bitcoin adoption, their roadplan is the evidence - 1.5 MB will be eaten very likely this year, but no futher increase possible till late 2017, thus no addoption posible.  Lets face it, with such roadmap Bitcoin gives its huge marketshare to altcoins clompletly for free - really no bad intentions have to be assumed from such minority vetoing the majority  

The majority do not want what you want, or the majority that owns a lot of coins. Look at it whatever way you want. The roadmap is better than anything you will ever see from newbies such as found in Classic. It features increases in capacity, improvements to the infrastructure, while on the other hand Classic has nothing (aside of a stoner, a developer of mediocre skill; should I go on?).

Partnering with PwC and staying in Bitcoin Core lead development is worse for Bitcoin than Mike leaving Bitcoin and helping R3
-snip-

No, this is propaganda. Everyone stated being obsessed on how Blockstream would ROI. After they start looking into ways of doing that, they're also bad. There is no rational reason for the move away from Core, none. If you are unable to get your way then the other party is bad?

[iCEBREAKER]

...people realized Bitcoin Core main plan is basically stop possibility of further Bitcoin adoption... 

You must have missed the #ScalingBitcoin conferences.

TLDR: Coffees will return, Bitcoin adoption future so bright better wear shades!   

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/43dlkp/can_anyone_explain_why_people_dont_believe_segwit/czieadu

[–]adam3us

There is also lightning which should come online pretty soon now (before IBLT & weak-blocks say).

And a number of incremental things that can be soft-forked much faster into seg-wit with it's new extensibility. Like schnorr multisigs that compact 2 of 2 or n of n multiSigs into the space of a single signature. We should be able to estimate the throughput boost from that based on the multiSig ratios that go into the 1.75-2MB estimate.

There are other things also like elidable pubkeys so miners can choose to tradeoff validation cost (from loss of batch verifiability) for more compact space. The elided public keys can be reconstructed with a small CPU cost.

Some other things are possible also.

People should just calm down and talk with developers.

All in there is a fantastic roadmap for scale and layer2 things coming online that really move the needle even for new high scale transaction use cases. Not a time to be doing ugly bandaids that actually make scale worse mid-term and risk alienating the people with the expertise to make the scale happen.

...bad intentions...   

Only the code matters.  Speculation about motivations is not code.

...worse for Bitcoin than Mike leaving...   

https://medium.com/@WasintMe3/everything-you-never-wanted-to-know-about-blockstream-s-new-boss-pricewaterhousecoopers-716d46d3257b#.fqfokdtvk

...damage for Bitcoin...

Hearn@gnome.zurich.ch leaving was great for Bitcoin (although he'll return eventually, like herpes).

Bitcoin leans into damage and emerges stronger.  That's why we call it "antifragile."

I'm happy to see how hard you are pushing the weak 'ZOMG PwC' FUD.

Scraping the bottom of the FUD barrel like that tells us the latest bout of insurgency is almost over, and we can relax until the next time contentious hard forking and governance coups are hot on Reddit.

PwC is an ideal opportunity to demonstrate the transformative power of Bitcoins and blockchains.

They will show the world what it looks like when "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."

[steeev]

classic's coinbase clunkers should implement their bloatcoin as a Bitcoin sidechain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE_elgnIw3M

[ATguy]

The only panic right now is because people realized Bitcoin Core main plan is basically stop possibility of further Bitcoin adoption, their roadplan is the evidence - 1.5 MB will be eaten very likely this year, but no futher increase possible till late 2017, thus no addoption posible.  Lets face it, with such roadmap Bitcoin gives its huge marketshare to altcoins clompletly for free - really no bad intentions have to be assumed from such minority vetoing the majority  

The majority do not want what you want, or the majority that owns a lot of coins. Look at it whatever way you want. The roadmap is better than anything you will ever see from newbies such as found in Classic. It features increases in capacity, improvements to the infrastructure, while on the other hand Classic has nothing (aside of a stoner, a developer of mediocre skill; should I go on?).

Partnering with PwC and staying in Bitcoin Core lead development is worse for Bitcoin than Mike leaving Bitcoin and helping R3
-snip-

No, this is propaganda. Everyone stated being obsessed on how Blockstream would ROI. After they start looking into ways of doing that, they're also bad. There is no rational reason for the move away from Core, none. If you are unable to get your way then the other party is bad?

Althought you can sometimes have critical thinking so your not lost case as the other well known trolls here, denial and hoping/trusting the authorities will not move you forward. I will not repeat the numerous facts you denny with obvious nonsences the other trolls using.

BTW denying majority do not want change is completly out of reallity, and they are not sockpupets, just check CMO of HaoBTC for example he is talking about real and really prominent Chinese Bitcoiners with overwhelming sentiment for real change, not just to 2 MB:

Here I am going to share with you what I saw and heard rather than my personal thoughts: I went to a Bitcoin event in Beijing last week. Some prominent Chinese Bitcoiners were also there. The sentiment was overwhelming that the ideal solution to the scaling question is implementing 2MB block size through a Core update as soon as possible. Some felt frustrated that core devs had been ignoring their demand, and this sense of frustration contributed to the conspiracy theory, which was explicitly expressed there: The Bitcoin Core team doesn't want to make a precedent because the team is controlled by Blockstream, who bet heavily on the success of Sidechains and Lightning Networks.
Some expressed the view that while SigWit has its potential, it is something never been tried before, therefore should be given more time for thorougher test; worse, some felt that it represents a development that has deviated from Satoshi's vision and eventually, led to increased complexity of the protocol to such degree that it would be forbidding to most startups.
Overall, there seems to be a sense of helplessness. Some reflected on why the Chinese had so little say in the matter and some urge that the Chinese should form their own core development team and create their own fork.

[Lauda]

..snip..
BTW denying majority do not want change is completly out of reallity, and they are not sockpupets, just check CMO of HaoBTC for example he is talking about real and really prominent Chinese Bitcoiners with overwhelming sentiment for real change, not just to 2 MB:

I didn't mean that. Quite a lot of people want to scale Bitcoin right now, they just can't agree on how to proceed. The minority however is fighting for a successful political fork.

Here I am going to share with you what I saw and heard rather than my personal thoughts: I went to a Bitcoin event in Beijing last week. Some prominent Chinese Bitcoiners were also there. The sentiment was overwhelming that the ideal solution to the scaling question is implementing 2MB block size through a Core update as soon as possible. The Bitcoin Core team doesn't want to make a precedent because the team is controlled by Blockstream, who bet heavily on the success of Sidechains and Lightning Networks.

This is what I dislike. The post is based on uncertainty and not technicalities. Sidechains are going to be a success regardless of who is developing the main Bitcoin repository. Without LN on the other hand Bitcoin will never be able to scale enough for global adoption. Blockstream will most likely gain nothing from LN. Another thing that concerns me is this 'as soon as possible' which is an subjective and undefined time period. I would say that a scheduled hard fork needs to take place a minimum of 6 months from now (that's me willing to compromise, else I'd require more time). Others however want to rush it out as fast as it is possible to gain 75% threshold (some have said within a month; I disagree with the time and threshold).

[Carlton Banks]

BTW denying majority do not want change is completly out of reallity, and they are not sockpupets, just check CMO of HaoBTC for example he is talking about real and really prominent Chinese Bitcoiners with overwhelming sentiment for real change, not just to 2 MB:

Here I am going to share with you what I saw and heard rather than my personal thoughts: I went to a Bitcoin event in Beijing last week. Some prominent Chinese Bitcoiners were also there. The sentiment was overwhelming that the ideal solution to the scaling question is implementing 2MB block size through a Core update as soon as possible. Some felt frustrated that core devs had been ignoring their demand, and this sense of frustration contributed to the conspiracy theory, which was explicitly expressed there: The Bitcoin Core team doesn't want to make a precedent because the team is controlled by Blockstream, who bet heavily on the success of Sidechains and Lightning Networks.
Some expressed the view that while SigWit has its potential, it is something never been tried before, therefore should be given more time for thorougher test; worse, some felt that it represents a development that has deviated from Satoshi's vision and eventually, led to increased complexity of the protocol to such degree that it would be forbidding to most startups.
Overall, there seems to be a sense of helplessness. Some reflected on why the Chinese had so little say in the matter and some urge that the Chinese should form their own core development team and create their own fork.

No, the veracity of the what eric@haobtc presented in that thread is easily questionable: he claims to speak for all prominent chinese miners, but the prominent chinese miners have already spoken for themselves in public. And eric's representation is not what they actually said.

[jonald_fyookball]

..snip..
BTW denying majority do not want change is completly out of reallity, and they are not sockpupets, just check CMO of HaoBTC for example he is talking about real and really prominent Chinese Bitcoiners with overwhelming sentiment for real change, not just to 2 MB:

I didn't mean that. Quite a lot of people want to scale Bitcoin right now, they just can't agree on how to proceed. The minority however is fighting for a successful political fork.

Here I am going to share with you what I saw and heard rather than my personal thoughts: I went to a Bitcoin event in Beijing last week. Some prominent Chinese Bitcoiners were also there. The sentiment was overwhelming that the ideal solution to the scaling question is implementing 2MB block size through a Core update as soon as possible. The Bitcoin Core team doesn't want to make a precedent because the team is controlled by Blockstream, who bet heavily on the success of Sidechains and Lightning Networks.

This is what I dislike. The post is based on uncertainty and not technicalities. Sidechains are going to be a success regardless of who is developing the main Bitcoin repository. Without LN on the other hand Bitcoin will never be able to scale enough for global adoption. Blockstream will most likely gain nothing from LN. Another thing that concerns me is this 'as soon as possible' which is an subjective and undefined time period. I would say that a scheduled hard fork needs to take place a minimum of 6 months from now (that's me willing to compromise, else I'd require more time). Others however want to rush it out as fast as it is possible to gain 75% threshold (some have said within a month; I disagree with the time and threshold).

Yes but I feel its really is Blockstream/Core that is creating the uncertainty through their poor communication, poor transparency, and inflexibility.  Eric hits it right on the head as far as community feeling like they are being ignored and feeling like Blockstream wants to control everything.  That's exactly my sentiment.  It's not that I think the Classic team is necessarily better than Core (although I do highly respect Gavin and Jeff Garzik), but we're frustrated.

As far as Blockstream not profiting from LN.  Ok, you can make that argument all you want but until its clear how Blockstream will profit, things are naturally suspicious.

Btw, I apologize if my yesterday my remarks about your attitude seemed like an attack.  I just think you are stuck thinking in one way about this, but we all have our biases.

[bitlost]

There is still hope for mankind if BIP 102 fails.

As bitcoin becomes inundated and infiltrated by companies like Blockstream and PWC, alternative currencies will learn from these breaches and compromises and build stronger systems to prevent Satoshi's original protocol from being perverted, co-opted, and corrupted.

I had not long ago given up entirely on Bitcoin after discovering the depths of its infection, but BIP102 has given me new-found hope. If somehow this proposal can escape the paid puppets and prevail, it will buy more time for the community to pull the pesky corporate weeds from its Core.

~~

Since there are many developers who probably think like you, I believe there are many chances bitcoin will survive!

[CIYAM]

It's not that I think the Classic team is necessarily better than Core (although I do highly respect Gavin and Jeff Garzik), but we're frustrated.

That is the really nice thing about Bitcoin - being algorithmic it doesn't care that you are frustrated (and you should perhaps go out and find someone to help relieve that problem).

[Lauda]

Yes but I feel its really is Blockstream/Core that is creating the uncertainty through their 1. poor communication, 2. poor transparency, and 3. inflexibility.

1. Communication has been greatly improved (website, twitter) in a short amount of time.
2. Transparency isn't poor. If anything they're the most transparent ones among the developers.

Meanwhile, the developers of other implementations just don't bother to tell you about their business partnerships at all. Makes me sick.

3. I could agree on this though. I would have approached this whole situation differently and there would be no forks (as in alternative implementations trying to take over) nor a block size debate.

As far as Blockstream not profiting from LN.  Ok, you can make that argument all you want but until its clear how Blockstream will profit, things are naturally suspicious.

They are just a single company. Do you care about how every other Bitcoin startup is going to profit from Bitcoin? That's not your concern unless you're directly related to them (this is where the bias is coming from).

Btw, I apologize if my yesterday my remarks about your attitude seemed like an attack.  I just think you are stuck thinking in one way about this, but we all have our biases.

I can sometimes seem aggressive and whatnot but I'm actually not. You have the wrong impression of me. I have changed my positions several time since the initial proposal from Gavin (20 MB).

It's not that I think the Classic team is necessarily better than Core (although I do highly respect Gavin and Jeff Garzik), but we're frustrated.

That is the really nice thing about Bitcoin - being algorithmic it doesn't care that you are frustrated (and you should perhaps go out and find someone to help relieve that problem).

Exactly. I don't see what an appeal to emotion has to do anything with Bitcoin? I've lost some faith in Gavin due to the 'urgent 20 MB blocks' proposal (we ended up debating if we should settle for 2 MB blocks now).
Some corrections.

[jonald_fyookball]

It's not that I think the Classic team is necessarily better than Core (although I do highly respect Gavin and Jeff Garzik), but we're frustrated.

That is the really nice thing about Bitcoin - being algorithmic it doesn't care that you are frustrated (and you should perhaps go out and find someone to help relieve that problem).

By "frustrated", I don't mean "emotionally" but rather dissatisfaction/disagreement which has led to the alternative implementations.

[jonald_fyookball]

As far as Blockstream not profiting from LN.  Ok, you can make that argument all you want but until its clear how Blockstream will profit, things are naturally suspicious.

They are just a single company. Do you care about how every other Bitcoin startup is going to profit from Bitcoin? That's not your concern unless you're directly related to them (this is where the bias is coming from).
 

Matt C, Greg M, Pieter W. 

why make me state the obvious..they are not just another company.

[CIYAM]

By "frustrated", I don't mean "emotionally" but rather dissatisfaction/disagreement which has led to the alternative implementations.

There is only one reason we have these alternative implementations - let me spell it out for you:

G
a
v
i
n

Got it?