If we didnt had idiots blocking segwit we would be sittting on 4 figures by now

[RyNinDaCleM]

Just do the right thing and REJECT SEGWIT. It is a secret bankster takeover.

I have switched from Core to Bitcoin Unlimited because BU allows me to define my own maximum block size limit that my full node is going to accept. SegWit is an ugly hack that will scare away new contributors from the project. Just look at this video about segwit. It explains perfectly why it should be discarded. SegWit is a trojan horse.

I'm against SegWit because I know how this goes. You can't throw a frog right into boiling water because it immediately jumps out from the water. But if you slowly warm up the water until it start boiling the frog won't notice and will boil to death. Same with Bitcoin. SegWit is the beginning of a slow temperature rise. It will gradually get worse and worse until at some point the code is an absolute mess and the only party who knows how to decode it are the Core/Blockstream guys. At that point they are the owners of Bitcoin. Then, Core team is to Bitcoin what Ethereum Foundation is to Ethereum. They start slipping in bailouts, they start reversing transactions and who knows what other evil shit.

The United States imposed income taxes briefly during the Civil War and the 1890s, and on a permanent basis from 1913. As you can see, income tax is a rather young tax and if I'm not wrong then in the very beginning it was only something around 1%.

The opponents of the income tax were extremely hostile towards it and their main argument was that next year it is going to be 2%, then 5%, then 10% and so on. And that's why income tax should not be allowed at all. And the opponents were right but the people didn't believe them. So the cat got out of the bag and the income tax became immorally large rather quickly.

You have to look farther into the future with these things. SegWit itself might not be THAT bad but it is a step in the completely wrong and unwanted direction. If we allow SegWit to go through then you can be sure it won't be their last ugly hack. And with each such "enhancement" the power over the Bitcoin protocol gets more and more centralized around Blockstream. Who knows, they might even want to change the license of Bitcoin from open-source to proprietary. They can't do it right now but after delivering hundreds of changes to the code it becomes plausible.

But the worst thing about SegWit is the fact that it is totally unnecessary. Just make it possible for each node to configure their own maximum block size limit and we'd have a small and elegant fix to the whole scaling problem.

If you don't buy that then try to follow this line of logic:
1. SegWit adds enormous complexity to the Bitcoin software.
2. The more complex code the bigger the risk of introducing a critical vulnerability.
3. I have a lot of bitcoins which I don't want to risk in the hands of the Core team.
4. Especially if the risk is not justified (a simple and elegant alternative exists)

I'm promoting BU because it is currently the only alternative to Core. Ideally full node devs would also be decentralized so that no team has more power than others over the Bitcoin protocol. If BU support starts nearing 50% then I'd prefer to use a third alternative and so on.

SegWit is like a deceptive box of bad apples. It is filled with rotten fruits but on the top there are some nice fruits. I would like have those good apples without the rotten ones. Whenever I see tactics like that it's a BIG RED FLAG for me. Banksters and corrupt politicians are infamous for these methods. They "smuggle in" the vile laws with a bunch of righteous ones. Why did they make such a bundle? That's why I don't support it. Core devs should offer the features one by one and let the public decide which ones they like and which ones not. The fact that they attempt to smuggle in their foul code in a bundle of all kinds of features is dirty playing.

So yes, SegWit has all the marks of a sinister agenda. If it looks like a bankster takeover then it probably is. Better safe than sorry. And more decentralization (regarding full node devs) wouldn't hurt Bitcoin anyway.

I have never been against blocksize increase. I feel a better alternative is to let the network scale proportionally with txs, having a small cushion above what is required to keep coins moving, but not to just outright jump to 8MB blocks. Perhaps something similar to difficulty retargets, but based on transactions larger than dust. Anyway, I agree fully with all your arguments against SegWit. It introduces thousands of lines of code to an already complex system, and NO code is 100% bug free out of the box. This is an unnecessary risk that will require a lot of heavy modifications and maintenance. I do still use core, but only out of habit and trust of the guys with the most experience in working on Bitcoin.

[Bobsurplus]

Forget Segwit, Swgwit dont move markets, marketmakers too.

[i m g]https://i.imgflip.com/1fp0j1.jpg[/img]via Imgflip Meme Generator

that was obviously because of halving hype. the second block reward halving happened in July (2016-07-09 to be exact) and before that there were a long period of FUD to keep price down around $450 and accumulate and then the big pump came, if we want to see that again we need something as big as halving and if not the price will continue rising slowly as before.

You are misguided son. Never dismiss the power of the marketmaker aiming for new highs. The force is strong and very hard to fight. Let's see what happens in 20 days from now.

/u/RemindMe! 20 days

Almost 5 days in. 15 days to go. 

[elux]

The Great Debate | Lombroso/Petrov/Potter/Ver hosted by Whalepool.io

51:16 | "Roger (...) do you think we should activate SegWit now?"
51:22 | Roger Ver: "As I said earlier, I'm a bit agnostic on the whole thing."
54:12 | Roger Ver: "And sorry, I still kinda got sidetracked from SegWit, uhm, again I'm kind of agnostic on the whole SegWit thing,
I'm not, I don't even have enough hashpower to block SegWit if I wanted to. And I certainly won't be the lone holdout."
55:11 | Phil Potter: "Are you willing to endorse SegWit? And if not, why not?"
Roger Ver: "I'm certainly willing to consider endorsing SegWit."

https://soundcloud.com/elux-2/the-great-stakehodler-debate-lombroso-petrov-potter-ver

[thejaytiesto]

Just do the right thing and REJECT SEGWIT. It is a secret bankster takeover.

I have switched from Core to Bitcoin Unlimited because BU allows me to define my own maximum block size limit that my full node is going to accept. SegWit is an ugly hack that will scare away new contributors from the project. Just look at this video about segwit. It explains perfectly why it should be discarded. SegWit is a trojan horse.

I'm against SegWit because I know how this goes. You can't throw a frog right into boiling water because it immediately jumps out from the water. But if you slowly warm up the water until it start boiling the frog won't notice and will boil to death. Same with Bitcoin. SegWit is the beginning of a slow temperature rise. It will gradually get worse and worse until at some point the code is an absolute mess and the only party who knows how to decode it are the Core/Blockstream guys. At that point they are the owners of Bitcoin. Then, Core team is to Bitcoin what Ethereum Foundation is to Ethereum. They start slipping in bailouts, they start reversing transactions and who knows what other evil shit.

The United States imposed income taxes briefly during the Civil War and the 1890s, and on a permanent basis from 1913. As you can see, income tax is a rather young tax and if I'm not wrong then in the very beginning it was only something around 1%.

The opponents of the income tax were extremely hostile towards it and their main argument was that next year it is going to be 2%, then 5%, then 10% and so on. And that's why income tax should not be allowed at all. And the opponents were right but the people didn't believe them. So the cat got out of the bag and the income tax became immorally large rather quickly.

You have to look farther into the future with these things. SegWit itself might not be THAT bad but it is a step in the completely wrong and unwanted direction. If we allow SegWit to go through then you can be sure it won't be their last ugly hack. And with each such "enhancement" the power over the Bitcoin protocol gets more and more centralized around Blockstream. Who knows, they might even want to change the license of Bitcoin from open-source to proprietary. They can't do it right now but after delivering hundreds of changes to the code it becomes plausible.

But the worst thing about SegWit is the fact that it is totally unnecessary. Just make it possible for each node to configure their own maximum block size limit and we'd have a small and elegant fix to the whole scaling problem.

If you don't buy that then try to follow this line of logic:
1. SegWit adds enormous complexity to the Bitcoin software.
2. The more complex code the bigger the risk of introducing a critical vulnerability.
3. I have a lot of bitcoins which I don't want to risk in the hands of the Core team.
4. Especially if the risk is not justified (a simple and elegant alternative exists)

I'm promoting BU because it is currently the only alternative to Core. Ideally full node devs would also be decentralized so that no team has more power than others over the Bitcoin protocol. If BU support starts nearing 50% then I'd prefer to use a third alternative and so on.

SegWit is like a deceptive box of bad apples. It is filled with rotten fruits but on the top there are some nice fruits. I would like have those good apples without the rotten ones. Whenever I see tactics like that it's a BIG RED FLAG for me. Banksters and corrupt politicians are infamous for these methods. They "smuggle in" the vile laws with a bunch of righteous ones. Why did they make such a bundle? That's why I don't support it. Core devs should offer the features one by one and let the public decide which ones they like and which ones not. The fact that they attempt to smuggle in their foul code in a bundle of all kinds of features is dirty playing.

So yes, SegWit has all the marks of a sinister agenda. If it looks like a bankster takeover then it probably is. Better safe than sorry. And more decentralization (regarding full node devs) wouldn't hurt Bitcoin anyway.

So Andreas Antonopoulos is supporting the banksters too?

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/733702311306887168

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no one that knows how Bitcoin works is supporting BU, which is funny that is often brought up as the solution for the "segwit complexity" when BU only adds more complexity to the protocol when they find problems.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5h70s3/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_the_developers_have_realized/

BU has already been debunked as unstable piece of shit. Nobody with a brain is supporting it, that's how it is. I hope that you are at least getting paid to shill BUllshit. It's funny that you take this narrative of Core being pro bankster when Core has the real crypto anarchist legends like Adam Back on board while the rest have total nobodies and some guy that got lucky and bought a Lamborghini with Bitcoin and calls himself "Bitcoin Jesus" while not knowing shit about Bitcoin.

[Hyena]

So Andreas Antonopoulos is supporting the banksters too?

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/733702311306887168

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no one that knows how Bitcoin works is supporting BU, which is funny that is often brought up as the solution for the "segwit complexity" when BU only adds more complexity to the protocol when they find problems.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5h70s3/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_the_developers_have_realized/

BU has already been debunked as unstable piece of shit. Nobody with a brain is supporting it, that's how it is. I hope that you are at least getting paid to shill BUllshit. It's funny that you take this narrative of Core being pro bankster when Core has the real crypto anarchist legends like Adam Back on board while the rest have total nobodies and some guy that got lucky and bought a Lamborghini with Bitcoin and calls himself "Bitcoin Jesus" while not knowing shit about Bitcoin.

Sorry to burst your bubble but that's a really pathetic reply. I hope you at least get paid for your bullshit you little core pawn.

[Dafar]

So Andreas Antonopoulos is supporting the banksters too?

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/733702311306887168

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no one that knows how Bitcoin works is supporting BU, which is funny that is often brought up as the solution for the "segwit complexity" when BU only adds more complexity to the protocol when they find problems.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5h70s3/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_the_developers_have_realized/

BU has already been debunked as unstable piece of shit. Nobody with a brain is supporting it, that's how it is. I hope that you are at least getting paid to shill BUllshit. It's funny that you take this narrative of Core being pro bankster when Core has the real crypto anarchist legends like Adam Back on board while the rest have total nobodies and some guy that got lucky and bought a Lamborghini with Bitcoin and calls himself "Bitcoin Jesus" while not knowing shit about Bitcoin.

Sorry to burst your bubble but that's a really pathetic reply. I hope you at least get paid for your bullshit you little core pawn.

Actually this reply was pretty pathetic lmao, he actually posted a reply

[Hyena]

Actually this reply was pretty pathetic lmao, he actually posted a reply

DAFAR ROFL more like JAFFAR  go back to your den

[thejaytiesto]

Actually this reply was pretty pathetic lmao, he actually posted a reply

DAFAR ROFL more like JAFFAR   go back to your den

You keep ignoring how Andreas Antonopoulos is on our side. Answer: Are you going to call Andreas Antonopoulos a bankster? A Core shill? A blockstreamer? What are you call him now that Andreas agrees with Core's roadmap? Or you will keep ignoring the fact that the best experts on the field are all supporting Core's roadmap? What's your call on this? Is Roger Ver better than all of them you say?

[Hyena]

Actually this reply was pretty pathetic lmao, he actually posted a reply

DAFAR ROFL more like JAFFAR   go back to your den

You keep ignoring how Andreas Antonopoulos is on our side. Answer: Are you going to call Andreas Antonopoulos a bankster? A Core shill? A blockstreamer? What are you call him now that Andreas agrees with Core's roadmap? Or you will keep ignoring the fact that the best experts on the field are all supporting Core's roadmap? What's your call on this? Is Roger Ver better than all of them you say?

Let me put this really simple for you.

I am against SegWit, not necessarily pro Bitcoin Unlimited. It just happens that BU has taken philosophically the correct approach to the problem.

The core should separate their enhancements into small packages and present each one to the community separately not in a foul umbrella package known as SegWit. Also I am against ugly hacks. The scaling fix should be simple and elegant aka just increasing the maximum block size.

[azguard]

This is becoming more interesting from day to day, opinions are divided and what will be with some alt that are in segwit are they gonna increase price get more support i mean on litecoin and viacoin. Will segwit be activate sooner on some altcoin more then on bitcoin, and most important is it good thing at the end?

[CoinCidental]

Actually this reply was pretty pathetic lmao, he actually posted a reply

DAFAR ROFL more like JAFFAR   go back to your den

You keep ignoring how Andreas Antonopoulos is on our side. Answer: Are you going to call Andreas Antonopoulos a bankster? A Core shill? A blockstreamer? What are you call him now that Andreas agrees with Core's roadmap? Or you will keep ignoring the fact that the best experts on the field are all supporting Core's roadmap? What's your call on this? Is Roger Ver better than all of them you say?

Let me put this really simple for you.

I am against SegWit, not necessarily pro Bitcoin Unlimited. It just happens that BU has taken philosophically the correct approach to the problem.

The core should separate their enhancements into small packages and present each one to the community separately not in a foul umbrella package known as SegWit. Also I am against ugly hacks. The scaling fix should be simple and elegant aka just increasing the maximum block size.

This!

[Paashaas]

It just happens that BU has taken philosophically the correct approach to the problem.

I agree but BU is not better than Segwit.

[CoinCidental]

It just happens that BU has taken philosophically the correct approach to the problem.

I agree but BU is not better than Segwit.

BU can be capped at any size by miners and nodes
Segwit is ugly and would cripple range protocol forever

[thejaytiesto]

Actually this reply was pretty pathetic lmao, he actually posted a reply

DAFAR ROFL more like JAFFAR   go back to your den

You keep ignoring how Andreas Antonopoulos is on our side. Answer: Are you going to call Andreas Antonopoulos a bankster? A Core shill? A blockstreamer? What are you call him now that Andreas agrees with Core's roadmap? Or you will keep ignoring the fact that the best experts on the field are all supporting Core's roadmap? What's your call on this? Is Roger Ver better than all of them you say?

Let me put this really simple for you.

I am against SegWit, not necessarily pro Bitcoin Unlimited. It just happens that BU has taken philosophically the correct approach to the problem.

The core should separate their enhancements into small packages and present each one to the community separately not in a foul umbrella package known as SegWit. Also I am against ugly hacks. The scaling fix should be simple and elegant aka just increasing the maximum block size.

Okay so let me get this right. What you are saying is, we should go against the opinion of experts such as Andreas Antonopoulos, which tell us how stupid it is to raise the blocksize before activating segwit, and instead listen to your opinion, or Roger Ver's opinion, because you somehow know better? Is this a fucking joke?
Nobody with a brain and invested money in Bitcoin is going to value some no nobodies opinion above Andreas and Core dev's. Get real.

[Paashaas]

It just happens that BU has taken philosophically the correct approach to the problem.

I agree but BU is not better than Segwit.

BU can be capped at any size by miners and nodes
Segwit is ugly and would cripple range protocol forever

BU cannot make Bitcoin mainstream with just bigger blocks, you cannot hardfork from 1mb to 1 gig   The internet cannot even handle 1 gig blocks, so BU dev aint skilled enough for that, BU is just a short-term fix.

Claiming Segwitt is ugly and woud cripple is false it fits for BU better.

Bitcoin needs extra layers to make it mainstream, Segwit will fulfill that job.

[Hyena]

Okay so let me get this right. What you are saying is, we should go against the opinion of experts such as Andreas Antonopoulos, which tell us how stupid it is to raise the blocksize before activating segwit, and instead listen to your opinion, or Roger Ver's opinion, because you somehow know better? Is this a fucking joke?
Nobody with a brain and invested money in Bitcoin is going to value some no nobodies opinion above Andreas and Core dev's. Get real.

Listen to the "authority". Obey your master. They are THE EXPERTS THEY KNOW BETTER. Get real, you're so oblivious. I'm educated enough to make my own decisions and apparently I have chosen to vote against SegWit in its current form. AA is blowing bubbles out of his mouth when he says how stupid it is to raise the blocksize before activating segwit. Only uneducated people buy his reasoning. So what was the main argument here? That bigger blocks would allow DOS attacks on full nodes because then TXs could somehow have more signatures that need to be checked? Okey then! Let's have a fix JUST FOR THAT AND NOTHING ELSE. That I would welcome very much. But why oh why don't they offer just this one fix without their complete and utter mess aka SegWit? Because SegWit is evil. AA could be talking what he is told to, we don't know. That's why one should not just listen to any "expert" and take what they are saying as the ultimate truth. BTW nodes could just drop the blocks that take too much time to verify. If I can think of a fix to the alleged DOS vulnerability regarding bigger blocks then those experts should be able to come up with a solution without any question. I think AA is fudding the shit out of the technically inept bitcoiners to promote SegWit trojan horse.

[cpfreeplz]

Forget Segwit, Swgwit dont move markets, marketmakers too.

[i m g]https://i.imgflip.com/1fp0j1.jpg[/img]via Imgflip Meme Generator

that was obviously because of halving hype. the second block reward halving happened in July (2016-07-09 to be exact) and before that there were a long period of FUD to keep price down around $450 and accumulate and then the big pump came, if we want to see that again we need something as big as halving and if not the price will continue rising slowly as before.

You are misguided son. Never dismiss the power of the marketmaker aiming for new highs. The force is strong and very hard to fight. Let's see what happens in 20 days from now.

/u/RemindMe! 20 days

Almost 5 days in. 15 days to go. 

Ya but 1000 isn't going to happen this month. Look at the huge resistance from the tiny raise we had these past few days! I wouldn't count on it until segwit is in full force.

[notme]

Actually this reply was pretty pathetic lmao, he actually posted a reply

DAFAR ROFL more like JAFFAR   go back to your den

You keep ignoring how Andreas Antonopoulos is on our side. Answer: Are you going to call Andreas Antonopoulos a bankster? A Core shill? A blockstreamer? What are you call him now that Andreas agrees with Core's roadmap? Or you will keep ignoring the fact that the best experts on the field are all supporting Core's roadmap? What's your call on this? Is Roger Ver better than all of them you say?

Let me put this really simple for you.

I am against SegWit, not necessarily pro Bitcoin Unlimited. It just happens that BU has taken philosophically the correct approach to the problem.

The core should separate their enhancements into small packages and present each one to the community separately not in a foul umbrella package known as SegWit. Also I am against ugly hacks. The scaling fix should be simple and elegant aka just increasing the maximum block size.

Okay so let me get this right. What you are saying is, we should go against the opinion of experts such as Andreas Antonopoulos, which tell us how stupid it is to raise the blocksize before activating segwit, and instead listen to your opinion, or Roger Ver's opinion, because you somehow know better? Is this a fucking joke?
Nobody with a brain and invested money in Bitcoin is going to value some no nobodies opinion above Andreas and Core dev's. Get real.

I think he is asking you to engage your brain, understand the situation, and make a decision for yourself instead of making an appeal to authority.  But I suppose that might be difficult if you don't have a strong background in CS, economics and game theory.

Adding a 1mb transaction size limit would fix the only legitimate issue I have heard about and would allow blocks to scale.  Segwit is too big of a change to take lightly.  It should be deployed on an alt coin first to allow testing.  When it does come to bitcoin, it should be done as a hard fork so as not to leave nodes on the network who think they are fully validating when they are actually not.  Or, the software could be changed to allow you to delete just the witness data as an alternative to pruning entire blocks, which is already supported.  There is no reason you couldn't store the transaction chain without the witness data today.  The only thing you gain with segwit is the ability to check block hashes after you delete witness data.

[thejaytiesto]

Okay so let me get this right. What you are saying is, we should go against the opinion of experts such as Andreas Antonopoulos, which tell us how stupid it is to raise the blocksize before activating segwit, and instead listen to your opinion, or Roger Ver's opinion, because you somehow know better? Is this a fucking joke?
Nobody with a brain and invested money in Bitcoin is going to value some no nobodies opinion above Andreas and Core dev's. Get real.

AA could be talking what he is told to, we don't know.

Lmao this is the ultimate reasoning that /r/btc nutjobs can reach. And then when they claim blockstream and segwit is a "bankster trojan horse" then that's perfectly fine to say and it's not conspiracy theory nonsense. Always the same fucking bullshit. When /r/btc says something like that it's legitimate and not a conspiracy.

Get real, the fact people that know better than you all agree on segwit needing to be activated before a blocksize increase doesn't mean that they are all together against you and are all bought by "the banks". In fact, if someone is working for banks, then that's Roger Ver and the rest of people wanting to raise the block size to make the network less decentralized by making running nodes way difficult for common people, and by not activating segwit which would give us endless possibilities to make bitcoin more anonymous. But you keep thinking you are a smartass and AA and the rest are all compromised by the banks lmao.

[bitebits]

[...]

Get real, the fact people that know better than you all agree on segwit needing to be activated before a blocksize increase doesn't mean that they are all together against you and are all bought by "the banks". [...]

Luckily the market will decide itself. No central authority for Bitcoin to appeal to. No need to generalize people or make ad hominem insults.

The current status is the market voting against Segwit and a HF block size increase. When the need is really there the deadlock will be resolved.