[News]WHY AGAINST SEGWIT AND CORE? Mining investor gives his answer

[Bitcoin Kan]

[ANN] BITKAN translate it from the original article in Chinese, for more details, please enter in English http://bitkan.com/news/topic/25778. Chinese http://bitkan.com/news/topic/25747
In the article Why support SegWit, COO of BTCC give his answers, Samson Mow focused on SegWit without mentioning the real problem: the post-segwit roadmap from Core. I just have to clarify something Mr.Mow is unwilling to touch.

I.The True Focus: Core’s Roadmap

Mr.Mow brags about the benefits of segwit in his article, and accuses scaling side on anti-core being political. Truth is, however, scaling side is pro segwit and LN as well. Scaling side is anti core’s roadmap, which is, from soft-forked segwit implementation to permanent limit of block size on 1 MB. This will turn the main chain into a SWIFT-like settlement network. High tx fee on the main chain will chase all the daily tx away to the LN.

Why Core’s roadmap is wrong? Simple logic: more is better than less, more options are always better than fewer ones.

 “I’m right so I will take your rights away”---this is a dangerous mindset. Just look at the history of Communism and the possible millions of deaths associated with it. A vicious fruit of a vicious mentality. Why in China’s Big Leap in the 60s we saw millions of deaths of peasants? Because they were restricted to their own land by the low level party bodies and the household registration system, preventing them from fleeing their land. There’s no option but to starve to death.

How can someone be so sure that he’s right? What if he’s wrong? How can he shoulder the responsibility of millions of lives? Can core do that? Who gave the right to Core from prevent us from using the main chain? Is core capable of shouldering the responsibility of the doom of Bitcoin?

II.Fragile LN

Secondary networks like LN can only be a supplement to the main chain, not a replacement to it. LN’s big nodes have clearly capital, efficiency and operation advantages. Looking upon them to maintain many small nodes is so childish. There will be Matthew Effect. There will be big fish devouring small fish. LN, in the end, will be dominated by big players like what we see with Alipay/Wechat Pay today. Decentralization will be a banned word.

Rumors recently mentioned “Chinese monetary authorities are looking to limit the transfer of Bitcoin from domestic exchanges to their foreign counterparts. Crypto community lived on such a joke. But can you laugh when tx are all running on giants-dominated LN?

LN operators cannot confiscate your Bitcoin, but they can, with the excuses of regulation compliance, ask you to conduct compliance checks. You want to quit then? To where? Main chain? Core had it in mind already: 1MB block size is only for big-amount LN tx settlement, the tx fee will be as high as with the SWIFT. How about 100 dollars per tx? Quit?

III.Dangerous Soft-Fork SegWit

Core is implementing segwit through softfork, that is by lying to old nodes to realize compatibility. This brings significant technical risks and hefty tech debts.
With bottom layer data structure altered, Core wants to lie to old nodes so as to fool them into believing “nothing-has-changed”. This is just as difficult as the twisted hand in the pic above. The risks and debts behind it are so self-explanatory. We can already expect tremendous difficulty in the future development that will be based on this twisted hand.

Why Core says “SegWit almost changed every line of Bitcoin’s codes?” (They wanted to brag about the workload).

Based on the HK consensus, the segwit should have been out in Apr. and online since Jul.,why is it so late in Nov. even under the pressure from consensus and miners? Because core wanted to build a twisted hand.

Systemic complexity rising echoes with a falling stability. We all have seen the price of ETH’s Turing-Completeness: four or five HFs and lots of nodes being attacked into destruction. Bitcoin, as a formally 10B level financial system: Can it pay such a high price? Can Core take that responsibility?


IV.Enough Block Size

If our network cannot take 1MB+ block size, Core’s limit can be justified. But the reality is that even the GFC-limited Chinese pools can accept an 8MB size, see the pic below (in June last year):


Compared with “who’s-your-daddy” Core, BU is not so condescending to the very least:

1)block size? Pool decides. No 50%+ pools will choose too high of a size that the network cannot take. (or they suffer from high orphanage rate).

2)tx fee? Market decides. Should the network unable to take a big block size, the limited block supply from pools will raise the tx fee to an equilibrium point on the market.

3)LN or not? Tx fee decides. If the network cannot take big size blocks, while LN is cheap and fast, why not use it under high tx fee scenarios?

I think 2) is not going to happen. I used a 56k modem back in junior high, and I use a 200M optical fiber connection today at 17 dollars per month. That’s a 4,000 times scaling. But I’m not against 3). Core, however, considers 2) as fate, so “I’m your daddy let me decide for you.” So they castrate the main chain tx and decide for you that future tx should go through the LN.

Why such a rush? Who’s the “GOD”, Core or the market? Or the reason being that Core’s daddy BS is the standard maker of LN?

V.Who is qualified to take responsibilities when it comes to Bitcoin security?

What is the consequence of Core breaking Bitcoin the big toy? Leave. That’s it. So many Internet companies are out there and a glorified ex-Bitcoin developer will surely find a new job.

Only miners, who invested millions-worth of personal wealth, the sunk cost, cannot leave like a bitcoiner, thus can be qualified as the Bitcoin’s safe guards. Mt.Gox was bearing the Bitcoin price in hope to cover up for their loss. Only miners want the Bitcoin to thrive with more users and a bullish market.

I can conclude with great confidence: SegWit will never ever be activated. It’s not about the 95% threshold. Even in 75% or 51% scenarios it will not be alive.

Why? I am a miner, a member of the mining pools. I invested millions of real wealth into the mining business.

Got an issue? Show me your money.
 

Before the non-stopping wheels of history, some people are destined to be nailed up on the pillar of humiliation.

I have translated and attached some Chinese comment on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1692577.new#new
For more News, please enter in http://bitkan.com/app and download App.
BITKAN, Bitcoin all in one.

[1714856268]

1714856268

[1714856268]

1714856268

[1714856268]

1714856268

[1714856268]

1714856268

[1714856268]

1714856268

[Lauda]

Who wrote this? You? The best that I can say about this is that it is sad. The post is full of misinformation and/or *half-truths*. FYI: Post-segwit roadmap is irrelevant to Segwit.
FYI using the word "market" in your claims is wrong. The market is currently presented with 4 options:
1) Core.
2) XT (dead)
3) Classic (dead)
4) BU
Please remind me again how many nodes and how much hashrate is in support of BU. Also, you can see a big list of Segwit supporters (different entities, not Core developers) on the Bitcoin Core website.

[yayayo]

[...]

Why Core’s roadmap is wrong? Simple logic: more is better than less, more options are always better than fewer ones.

[...]

I just leave it to this one. Complete nonsense that has nothing to do with logic. Core's roadmap is perfectly fine, it's about scaling Bitcoin without sacrificing network decentralization and increasing its security. Without network decentralization, Bitcoin has no value. The painfully dumb scheme proposed by Andresen/Hearn/Ver poses an existential threat to network decentralization. Despite cloning the Bitcoin Core repository and changing a few lines to enable unlimited blocksizes, UnlimitedCoin has no roadmap. There's zero development going on, because there are no real developers.

Ver's paid shills are posting the same disinformation over and over again. It's tiresome. There is no community support for UnlimitedCoin. The "dissent" within the community boils down to an army of trolls, who never sleep to advertise for the racketeer Roger Ver. Support for UnlimitedCoin is a hoax, spread by propaganda sites like Bitcoin.com. SegWit will activate sooner than anybody anticipates.

ya.ya.yo!

[Killerpotleaf]

will they accept the outcome of the cryptographic elections?

[AgentofCoin]

...

From my technical layperson's opinion, what is lacking from the OP is:

SegWit is an attempt at fixes and optimizations.
SegWit allows for expansions and a more secured future for Bitcoin.
If it causes issues/problems we can work with that and reverse course.
The genie is still contained and we can let him out later.

A Hardforked Blocksize Increase (HBI) is not a fix or an optimization.
A HBI is a simple answer to a complex problem that has future consequences.  
If it causes issues/problems we are stuck with them and can't reverse course.
The genie is out of the bottle and won't go back in.


This miner doesn't understand that his investments are almost always at a loss since
he is converting energy into work and creating security. And what is most important is
that if the security is compromised by premature centralization, then there is no true
value in the system. Bitcoin's value is only it's decentralized censorship resistant ability.

Bitcoin is a balancing act. We need to balance over time, not just tip one way or the other.

[Norway]

In the article Why support SegWit, COO of BTCC give his answers, Samson Mow focused on SegWit without mentioning the real problem: the post-segwit roadmap from Core. I just have to clarify something Mr.Mow is unwilling to touch.

I.The True Focus: Core’s Roadmap

Mr.Mow brags about the benefits of segwit in his article, and accuses scaling side on anti-core being political. Truth is, however, scaling side is pro segwit and LN as well. Scaling side is anti core’s roadmap, which is, from soft-forked segwit implementation to permanent limit of block size on 1 MB. This will turn the main chain into a SWIFT-like settlement network. High tx fee on the main chain will chase all the daily tx away to the LN.

Why Core’s roadmap is wrong? Simple logic: more is better than less, more options are always better than fewer ones.

 “I’m right so I will take your rights away”---this is a dangerous mindset. Just look at the history of Communism and the possible millions of deaths associated with it. A vicious fruit of a vicious mentality. Why in China’s Big Leap in the 60s we saw millions of deaths of peasants? Because they were restricted to their own land by the low level party bodies and the household registration system, preventing them from fleeing their land. There’s no option but to starve to death.

How can someone be so sure that he’s right? What if he’s wrong? How can he shoulder the responsibility of millions of lives? Can core do that? Who gave the right to Core from prevent us from using the main chain? Is core capable of shouldering the responsibility of the doom of Bitcoin?

II.Fragile LN

Secondary networks like LN can only be a supplement to the main chain, not a replacement to it. LN’s big nodes have clearly capital, efficiency and operation advantages. Looking upon them to maintain many small nodes is so childish. There will be Matthew Effect. There will be big fish devouring small fish. LN, in the end, will be dominated by big players like what we see with Alipay/Wechat Pay today. Decentralization will be a banned word.

Rumors recently mentioned “Chinese monetary authorities are looking to limit the transfer of Bitcoin from domestic exchanges to their foreign counterparts. Crypto community lived on such a joke. But can you laugh when tx are all running on giants-dominated LN?

LN operators cannot confiscate your Bitcoin, but they can, with the excuses of regulation compliance, ask you to conduct compliance checks. You want to quit then? To where? Main chain? Core had it in mind already: 1MB block size is only for big-amount LN tx settlement, the tx fee will be as high as with the SWIFT. How about 100 dollars per tx? Quit?

III.Dangerous Soft-Fork SegWit

Core is implementing segwit through softfork, that is by lying to old nodes to realize compatibility. This brings significant technical risks and hefty tech debts.
With bottom layer data structure altered, Core wants to lie to old nodes so as to fool them into believing “nothing-has-changed”. This is just as difficult as the twisted hand in the pic above. The risks and debts behind it are so self-explanatory. We can already expect tremendous difficulty in the future development that will be based on this twisted hand.

Why Core says “SegWit almost changed every line of Bitcoin’s codes?” (They wanted to brag about the workload).

Based on the HK consensus, the segwit should have been out in Apr. and online since Jul.,why is it so late in Nov. even under the pressure from consensus and miners? Because core wanted to build a twisted hand.

Systemic complexity rising echoes with a falling stability. We all have seen the price of ETH’s Turing-Completeness: four or five HFs and lots of nodes being attacked into destruction. Bitcoin, as a formally 10B level financial system: Can it pay such a high price? Can Core take that responsibility?


IV.Enough Block Size

If our network cannot take 1MB+ block size, Core’s limit can be justified. But the reality is that even the GFC-limited Chinese pools can accept an 8MB size, see the pic below (in June last year):


Compared with “who’s-your-daddy” Core, BU is not so condescending to the very least:

1)block size? Pool decides. No 50%+ pools will choose too high of a size that the network cannot take. (or they suffer from high orphanage rate).

2)tx fee? Market decides. Should the network unable to take a big block size, the limited block supply from pools will raise the tx fee to an equilibrium point on the market.

3)LN or not? Tx fee decides. If the network cannot take big size blocks, while LN is cheap and fast, why not use it under high tx fee scenarios?

I think 2) is not going to happen. I used a 56k modem back in junior high, and I use a 200M optical fiber connection today at 17 dollars per month. That’s a 4,000 times scaling. But I’m not against 3). Core, however, considers 2) as fate, so “I’m your daddy let me decide for you.” So they castrate the main chain tx and decide for you that future tx should go through the LN.

Why such a rush? Who’s the “GOD”, Core or the market? Or the reason being that Core’s daddy BS is the standard maker of LN?

V.Who is qualified to take responsibilities when it comes to Bitcoin security?

What is the consequence of Core breaking Bitcoin the big toy? Leave. That’s it. So many Internet companies are out there and a glorified ex-Bitcoin developer will surely find a new job.

Only miners, who invested millions-worth of personal wealth, the sunk cost, cannot leave like a bitcoiner, thus can be qualified as the Bitcoin’s safe guards. Mt.Gox was bearing the Bitcoin price in hope to cover up for their loss. Only miners want the Bitcoin to thrive with more users and a bullish market.

I can conclude with great confidence: SegWit will never ever be activated. It’s not about the 95% threshold. Even in 75% or 51% scenarios it will not be alive.

Why? I am a miner, a member of the mining pools. I invested millions of real wealth into the mining business.

Got an issue? Show me your money.
 

Before the non-stopping wheels of history, some people are destined to be nailed up on the pillar of humiliation.

For more News, please enter in http://bitkan.com/app and download App.
BITKAN, Bitcoin all in one.

Great to see progress among the miners. Which pool are you currently mining on?

If you want to meet some of the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited in China during the next days/weeks, go to the forum at www.bitco.in and get in touch.

[jbreher]

Systemic complexity rising echoes with a falling stability. We all have seen the price of ETH’s Turing-Completeness: four or five HFs and lots of nodes being attacked into destruction. Bitcoin, as a formally 10B level financial system: Can it pay such a high price? Can Core take that responsibility?

Thank you for stating your rationale.

One question: what is a '10B level financial system'? I am unfamiliar with this term.

[pereira4]

It's funny how all those losers appeal to "market should decide" when the market is already freely giving Core most of the support because the alternatives are amateur coders that would fuck something up real quick and ruin what has taken countless hours to built. It's all about being conservative and guaranteeing bitcoin will be alive in 50+ years and all those reddit shitposters are no good if that's the goal.

[franky1]

Who wrote this? You? The best that I can say about this is that it is sad. The post is full of misinformation and/or *half-truths*. FYI: Post-segwit roadmap is irrelevant to Segwit.
FYI using the word "market" in your claims is wrong. The market is currently presented with 4 options:
1) Core.
2) XT (dead)
3) Classic (dead)
4) BU
Please remind me again how many nodes and how much hashrate is in support of BU. Also, you can see a big list of Segwit supporters (different entities, not Core developers) on the Bitcoin Core website.

by the way, if you done some research XT was just a bait and switch for the same guys behind blockstream. R3 and blockstream have been working together for months. go checkout the names of those involved in hyperledger.

oh and before crying FUD about everything that goes against blockstream. research first.
as for segwit. you claim there is large support by mining pools..
um...
https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit    7.1%
7.1% at time of posting.

BU. also in the 7% range.
so using your "competitor" mindset.. they are neck and neck

as for you saying there are only 4 options and 2 are dead meaning you are suggesting there are only two options.
im kind of glad you didnt mention knots and bitcoinj. im hoping its because you already know they are already under the umbrella of core.

but there are other implementations too.

but anyway you are acting like its a competition to be reigned in as king. rather than thinking of the bitcoin network remaining diverse. and not having a king

BU has not been making claims that core should fork off to an altcoin. yet core have been making claims that BU should fork off to an altcoin. funny that!.
please take off your core fanboy hat and put on a unbiased bitcoin network hat and try to research what you preach

for months now the solution has been clear.
dynamic base blocksize along with dynamic weight to allow the features some love with the capacity growth we ALL want.
which would require both a node consensus followd by a pool consensus. and dont worry. nothing happens unless consensus is reached.
and if not reached nothing happens.
again if reached there is no intentional split/altcoin rhetoric. there is just a period of orphaning by the minority that have not updated where they cannot sync. again not chain splitting. just a loss of sync-ability by a low minority. and they upgrade if they want to remain full nodes.

after that drama has surpassed.
where the default at a high consensus starts at 2mb base 4mb weight, and can grow naturally without as much orphan risk and without the sync ability drama, by using the consensus of independent nodes settling their differences to an acceptable rate, . rather than dev teams setting the rules(no longer need developers to release versions just for limit changes, meaning no upgrading of nodes just for limit changes).

EG
imagine a future where
50% of nodes have 3mb base 6mb weight
30% of nodes have 2.7mb base 5.4mb weight
10% of nodes have 2.5mb base 5mb weight
6% of nodes have 2.2mb base 4.4mb weight
4% of nodes have 2mb base 4mb weight

pools can see that 100% agree to 2mb base 4mb weight. and see 96% agree with 2.2mb base 4.4mb weight.
yes those numbers are correct. because a 3mb base agreement means anything below 3mb is acceptable. its not the opposite.
so a 0.99mb block IS.. emphasis IS happily accepted by nodes with higher setting. just like (random number 0.2mb) is acceptable to 1mb limit nodes for the last 7 years

meaning pools can while making blocks anywhere between 250bytes to 2mb(when consensus shows 100% agreement to upto 2mb),.. pools can go through their own mining flagging consensus to see if 2.2mb base should go forward which will prompt the 4% laggers to dynamically change if pools reach an agreement.

all done dynamically without developer spoonfeeding.
obviously it stays at 2mb unless pools consensus reaches agreement

basically everyone gets their cake and gets to eat it.

[jbreher]

It's funny how all those losers

OP claims to control significant hashpower - millions of dollars worth. I don't know the veracity of this claim, but I have no reason to doubt it. I'd hardly characterize someone who has millions of dollars tied up in capital equipment as a 'loser'. You must really have a yuuuge schlong.

appeal to "market should decide" when the market is already freely giving Core most of the support

Well, no. The market has overwhelmingly not yet weighed in on the matter. It remains to be seen whether or not the market will adopt seg wit. If core sticks to their stated principles -- 95% declaration of adoption before activation (I note GMax is already backpedaling, laying the groundwork for simple majority) -- ViaBTC alone has enough clout to bar activation even if literally everyone else in the Bitcoin sphere adopts.

because the alternatives are amateur coders that would fuck something up

Have you seen the following?

https://medium.com/@g.andrew.stone/a-short-tour-of-bitcoin-core-4558744bf18b#.9vldpx7lq

Core has been practicing a scorched earth policy of casting aspersions at all non-core efforts for some time now. Largely to an audience that swallows anything they have to say. The reality is somewhat more ... nuanced than presented <g>.

It's all about being conservative

If it was all about being conservative, then all the independent features bundled into The SegWit Omnibus Changeset would not be be rolled out all at once. Conservatism would roll out _actual_ segregated witness by itself, unburdened by all that other cruft along for the ride. Conservatism would not incur the largest change to the protocol since inception. But by all means, cling to your obvious misundsertanding.

[twodrive01]

will they accept the outcome of the cryptographic elections?

We need a bitcoin electoral college! Problem solved

[Killerpotleaf]

will they accept the outcome of the cryptographic elections?

We need a bitcoin electoral college! Problem solved

we have that, it called minning pools.
they are expected to behave how they're contributing hashing power wants them to.

[AgentofCoin]

will they accept the outcome of the cryptographic elections?

We need a bitcoin electoral college! Problem solved

we have that, it called minning pools.
they are expected to behave how they're contributing hashing power wants them to.

The Electoral College in the US Voting system, is designed with the intent to allow even
the littlest, worthless US State, an equal vote as other more "important" States. This is
used for US Presidential Elections.

There is also the Popular Vote in the US Voting system, that is strictly based on which
candidate received the most individual votes. This is not used for Presidential Elections,
but maintained for data purposes.

Bitcoin Mining and their Pools are more like the Popular Vote, since its strictly based on
hash amount and disregards the wishes of any other minority group outside of the mining
community.

A Bitcoin Electoral College would consists of a subgroup voted representative from each
of the following subgroups:
(1) Users,
(2) Bitcoin Devs,
(3) Miners,
(4) Exchanges,
(5) Wallet & Other Devs,
(6) Others I may have forgotten.

This is what a Bitcoin Electoral College would probably look like.
I don't know if it would be a good way to go or not, just saying.

[Lauda]

by the way, if you done some research XT was just a bait and switch for the same guys behind blockstream.

No. It seems a deliberate destructive movement by Hearn, the same guy that seems to have broken R3 into *groups*.

https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit    7.1%

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools?resolution=24h ~19% according to here.

but there are other implementations too.

What other implementations are there besides Core and BU that have implemented rules that have not been activated yet (Segwit for Core vs. voting up to 16 MB maximum for BU IIRC)?

but anyway you are acting like its a competition to be reigned in as king. rather than thinking of the bitcoin network remaining diverse. and not having a king
BU has not been making claims that core should fork off to an altcoin. yet core have been making claims that BU should fork off to an altcoin. funny that!.

False. BU proponents, primarily Roger Ver and ViaBTC have been fighting for blocking scaling via Segwit and pro a fork.

please take off your core fanboy hat and put on a unbiased bitcoin network hat and try to research what you preach

I'm most certainly not a 'core fanboy' and what I preach is correct.

dynamic base blocksize along with dynamic weight to allow the features some love with the capacity growth we ALL want.

That requires more research.

which would require both a node consensus followd by a pool consensus. and dont worry. nothing happens unless consensus is reached.

While I'm pro a larger block size limit after the sighash problem is solved (making it linear), I am not in favor of node voting on the block size limit. This creates added complexity and confusion. Also, you can easily spin up a few hundred/thousand nodes in an attempt to manipulate this.
Update: Minor fix.

[jbreher]

BU proponents, ... have been fighting for [1] blocking scaling and [2] Segwit and [3] pro a fork.

Not at all.

1) BU proponents believe that scaling is best served at this juncture by putting control of maxblocksize in everyone's hand, making maxblocksize an emergent property of the network.

2) BU proponents are advocating that BU be activated and dominant on the network. Unfortunately, as core will not adopt an adaptive maxblocksize, they cannot get the improvement in which they believe by running Bitcoin Core. You might see it as blocking, but there is no alternative open to us.

3) BU proponents point out that BU is fully compliant with current consensus rules. As such, running BU does not create a fork. Indeed, the BU advocates I am familiar with deeply desire not to fork. We would be most pleased should the entire network join us in this new improved bitcoin with an adaptive maxblocksize.


<<See how that works? I advocated a BU position without making false claims about the desires of those who have a different vision (i.e., core proponents). I wonder why Lauda cannot make an argument without resorting to rhetorical fabrications>>

[Lauda]

-snip-
<<See how that works? I advocated a BU position without making false claims about the desires of those who have a different vision (i.e., core proponents). I wonder why Lauda cannot make an argument without resorting to rhetorical fabrications>>

I have not fabricated anything. I might have improperly worded it as it should be 'block scaling via Segwit' and not 'block scaling and Segwit'. Have you been reading r/btc or following Ver's comments lately? They have been literally talking about blocking Segwit for the sake of..fighting Core, Blockstream or whatever? I do not even understand their reasoning anymore.

[jbreher]

-snip-
<<See how that works? I advocated a BU position without making false claims about the desires of those who have a different vision (i.e., core proponents). I wonder why Lauda cannot make an argument without resorting to rhetorical fabrications>>

I have not fabricated anything.

Certainly appears as if you have. Where's your rationale for stating that "BU proponents, ... have been fighting for ... a fork"?

I might have improperly worded it as it should be 'block scaling via Segwit' and not 'block scaling and Segwit'. Have you been reading r/btc or following Ver's comments lately?

Well, no. I've not been following Ver's comments lately. Should I? Has he somehow come to speak for BU proponents? I don't recall a referendum on that position. AFAIK, BU has no official spokesperson. We have a secretary, but they are not chartered with any advocacy such as that of which you speak.

How about you provide a link to a quote so I can know what you're talking about?

Further, I tend to stay away from the cesspool that is Reddit, unless I find a link to it from some other venue that piques my interest.

And again, we're not for "blocking scaling and SegWit"*. We BU-ers are for implementing scaling through the emergent consensus of the entire network having control over maxblocksize. Unfortunately, at this juncture, supporting this approach to scaling precludes supporting segregated witness (let alone The SegWit Omnibus Changeset).

*Prove me wrong with a quote demonstrating this attitude even exists, let alone is predominant.

They have been literally talking about blocking Segwit for the sake of..fighting Core, Blockstream or whatever? I do not even understand their reasoning anymore.

Well, blocking SegWit in the sense that at this juncture, any node running The SegWit Omnibus Changeset (i.e., at this point core 0.13.1) is a node that cannot be running BU, and vice versa. So yes - it seems clear you do not understand our reasoning. Though it should be obvious if you think about it.

But not in a sense of a Snidely Whiplash / Boris Badenov / Dr Evil sort of obstructionism. At least the BU folk with whom I am in regular contact. Which by all accounts is the mainstream. We're just fighting for what we believe is the most beneficial approach and best path forward to a more capable Bitcoin, maximizing value to the largest possible set of users.

[Lauda]

Certainly appears as if you have. Where's your rationale for stating that "BU proponents, ... have been fighting for ... a fork"?

No. Did I claim *all* were doing this? I have not.

Well, no. I've not been following Ver's comments lately. Should I? Has he somehow come to speak for BU proponents?

He's one of the the main BU proponents (+ ViaBTC). The majority are unknown randoms with very little capital (or at least *shown* via nodes and hashrate).

How about you provide a link to a quote so I can know what you're talking about?

Roger Ver finds it "difficult to support segwit" because he is "more concerned about morals of the people who came up it", than the technology itself.

It was initially in a video, but it seems to be gone now. Here's a [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5bha5d/roger_ver_finds_it_difficult_to_support_segwit/]link.

And again, we're not for "blocking scaling and SegWit"*. We BU-ers are for implementing scaling through the emergent consensus of the entire network having control over maxblocksize.

Just implement Segwit and continue promoting/preaching what you are already doing. It causes no harm but helps move forward (at least a bit).

Which by all accounts is the mainstream. We're just fighting for what we believe is the most beneficial approach and best path forward to a more capable Bitcoin, maximizing value to the largest possible set of users.

Mainstream people should not be trying to decide technical limits though. Are there any other BU developers besides the main 3?

[Killerpotleaf]

BU proponents, ...'block scaling via Segwit'   and 'pro a fork.'

i dont want to "block scaling via segwit"
i just dont want core to block scaling via block size

I believe the miners can be trusted with blocksize limit, partly because of their incentive to keep blocks small enough to propagate fast, and also their  (  very real ) incentive to make sure users are happy with them.
a vote for segwit, feels like a vote for locking ourselves in a 1MB block size FOREVER, because once we have LN, core devs will say things like " the settlement layer must remain DECENTRALIZED, if you have a problem with the 10$ fees go learn how to use LN, you dumb users that can hardly turn on a computer!" and then the users will just go join a altcoin without this self imposed requirements.
core devs believe the LN is the will be the be all end all scaling solution, i dont, and i dont want to give them the chance to continue to block the long overdue block size incress

I am not "pro fork"
i'm just not going to pretend that a hard forks are evil

sometime cores act like users are going to lose funds because the user didnt upgrade in time.
what is more dangerous?
user wakes up, none of his TX are getting threw, he goes online and finds out there was a HF and he must upgrade
OR
user wakes up, everything APPEARS to work fine, and unknown to him a softfork has been activated.

[Lauda]

i just dont want core to block scaling via block size

You're completely dodging the argument which is fallacy.

because once we have LN, core devs will say things like " the settlement layer must remain DECENTRALIZED,

False assumption.

if you have a problem with the 10$ fees go learn how to use LN, you dumb users that can hardly turn on a computer!"

Appeal to extremes.

sometime cores act like users are going to lose funds because the user didnt upgrade in time.

I've yet to see this somewhere.

user wakes up, everything APPEARS to work fine, and unknown to him a softfork has been activated.

Yet everything continues to work just fine even after a soft fork. This is a moot point.