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

[Hyena]

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.

....someone is getting desperate... 

I'm not saying AA is necessarily corrupt. I don't judge people by what they say but what they do instead. He gives really good lectures, this for example. However, there is no way for me to know the absolute truth about AA. I just cannot blindly follow him. For that reason I have done my own research about SegWit and the block size issue and I have come to a conclusion that SegWit must not be accepted as a package of many features all at once. Instead, those features should be judged one by one by the community. So I reject SegWit, I hope it never gets accepted in its current form and I will do everything I see rational to prevent it from happening.

Ideally, the Core team would discard SegWit and deliver a fix to TX malleability in an elegant hard-fork style. Nothing else. Just that. One by one they should offer the enhancements to the community. I would like to have TX malleability fixed, then a large TX DOS attack vector (signature verification CPU consumption), followed by the block size increase. Hard fork is totally OK and there will be consensus when the bug fixes are offered one by one.

There is nothing wrong about fixing TX malleability and signature verification DOS vulnerability. I don't think anyone would oppose them. So let the Core team deliver a fix to these two as a proper hard fork. After that we can start thinking of ways to increase the block size. There is absolutely nothing to be afraid of regarding hard forks if they are activated only after super consensus is reached. Detection of super consensus is rather trivial anyway.

So, all in all, I just see through the bullshit regarding SegWit and I oppose it. My vote is against it because I do what I see best serving the Bitcoin network. I don't take this debate personally. I do what I see best fit for Bitcoin and you feel free to do what you think is the best for Bitcoin. In the end we "count the votes", see whose opinion was amongst the majority and we move on with our lives, hoping that the majority made the right decision.

[Searing]

Well my xmas wish is an announcement of block size debate consensus....right about NOW would be nice...that would make all this moot as seg witness would be next
on the list of chores along with such consensus

Then again the whole block size debate has me confused and the supposed hostage taking of seg witness....that 'probably' imho the only way you'd get consenus from
anyone in BTC world is to basically make people hardfork all the time

(its like hearding cats)

[tripwirearmpit]

Bitcoin wont grow huge just because of segwit. But it will because its proven to be trustworthy.

btc to the moon soon.

[Taki]

Bitcoin wont grow huge just because of segwit. But it will because its proven to be trustworthy.

btc to the moon soon.

I doubt that bitcoin "to the moon soon". Bitcoin will ridge higher that is for sure, but the price can't be huge, government will just not allow it to happen. The maximal price that I can't predict about bitcoin is 2000$, but that's only after next halving after 4 years.

[azguard]

This is matter of opinions i believe, first both sides telling that they are good and other are bad. This is not good at any point of future mining.

From what i have read it 50-50 maybe little more on BU rather then Segwit but if this continues this wont be good for anyone or any side. At the end it will be dark for both of them if they continue to do this.

[Oasisman]

Even if we have some idiots still don't understanding we need segwit, the price is still rising and we are soon going to pass 778. If we had segwit activating faster, this would be more fuel for our rocket and we would reach moon 10 times faster. But the upraise cannot be stopped no matter what. ATH in new year guaranteed.

If the bock size is increased to 2MB or higher, the segwit will be activated sooner.

[lumeire]

This is matter of opinions i believe, first both sides telling that they are good and other are bad. This is not good at any point of future mining.

From what i have read it 50-50 maybe little more on BU rather then Segwit but if this continues this wont be good for anyone or any side. At the end it will be dark for both of them if they continue to do this.

Sooner or later they're gonna have to make a decision and commit to it, and I hope that this would be done constructively.

[katrimans]

This is matter of opinions i believe, first both sides telling that they are good and other are bad. This is not good at any point of future mining.

From what i have read it 50-50 maybe little more on BU rather then Segwit but if this continues this wont be good for anyone or any side. At the end it will be dark for both of them if they continue to do this.

Sooner or later they're gonna have to make a decision and commit to it, and I hope that this would be done constructively.

True and that is the realistic. When the consenus is working for a better system no one could be stopping it for their own benefits. The demands will make them getting throw out of business when they are not ready to adopt the demands of future. So, there would be some delay which is inevitable but it is going to happen for sure.

[Viscore]

The OP should buy some miners and vote for the SegWit.

[molecular]

Even if we have some idiots still don't understanding we need segwit, the price is still rising and we are soon going to pass 778. If we had segwit activating faster, this would be more fuel for our rocket and we would reach moon 10 times faster. But the upraise cannot be stopped no matter what. ATH in new year guaranteed.

If we had activated classic or xt 1 year ago, we'd be seeing $5000 already now.

[maku]

This is matter of opinions i believe, first both sides telling that they are good and other are bad. This is not good at any point of future mining.

From what i have read it 50-50 maybe little more on BU rather then Segwit but if this continues this wont be good for anyone or any side. At the end it will be dark for both of them if they continue to do this.

Sooner or later they're gonna have to make a decision and commit to it, and I hope that this would be done constructively.

Time is  ticking; if Segregated Witness is not supported by majority of hash power by November 15, 2017 the whole project will be ruined.
I suppose if SegWit was introduced only by Bitcoin Core developers and not Blockstream we would have different discussion now.

[molecular]

Time is  ticking; if Segregated Witness is not supported by majority of hash power by November 15, 2017 the whole project will be ruined.

bs

I suppose if SegWit was introduced only by Bitcoin Core developers and not Blockstream we would have different discussion now.

They wouldn't have introduced it. We would have bigger blocks and maybe even some kind of *real* on-chain scaling solution.

[azguard]

This is matter of opinions i believe, first both sides telling that they are good and other are bad. This is not good at any point of future mining.

From what i have read it 50-50 maybe little more on BU rather then Segwit but if this continues this wont be good for anyone or any side. At the end it will be dark for both of them if they continue to do this.

Sooner or later they're gonna have to make a decision and commit to it, and I hope that this would be done constructively.

True and that is the realistic. When the consenus is working for a better system no one could be stopping it for their own benefits. The demands will make them getting throw out of business when they are not ready to adopt the demands of future. So, there would be some delay which is inevitable but it is going to happen for sure.

Yes that is true one will prevail over other no question about it, think here is also divided some are for Segwit other for BU so this will be very hard battle and i just hope for best out come for bitcoin community in global. Dont think that if they argue who is better/worst will solve problem it will only create new ones, maybe it best for them to find some mutual arrangement in this matter for us all.

[thejaytiesto]

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.

....someone is getting desperate... 

I'm not saying AA is necessarily corrupt. I don't judge people by what they say but what they do instead. He gives really good lectures, this for example. However, there is no way for me to know the absolute truth about AA. I just cannot blindly follow him. For that reason I have done my own research about SegWit and the block size issue and I have come to a conclusion that SegWit must not be accepted as a package of many features all at once. Instead, those features should be judged one by one by the community. So I reject SegWit, I hope it never gets accepted in its current form and I will do everything I see rational to prevent it from happening.

Ideally, the Core team would discard SegWit and deliver a fix to TX malleability in an elegant hard-fork style. Nothing else. Just that. One by one they should offer the enhancements to the community. I would like to have TX malleability fixed, then a large TX DOS attack vector (signature verification CPU consumption), followed by the block size increase. Hard fork is totally OK and there will be consensus when the bug fixes are offered one by one.

There is nothing wrong about fixing TX malleability and signature verification DOS vulnerability. I don't think anyone would oppose them. So let the Core team deliver a fix to these two as a proper hard fork. After that we can start thinking of ways to increase the block size. There is absolutely nothing to be afraid of regarding hard forks if they are activated only after super consensus is reached. Detection of super consensus is rather trivial anyway.

So, all in all, I just see through the bullshit regarding SegWit and I oppose it. My vote is against it because I do what I see best serving the Bitcoin network. I don't take this debate personally. I do what I see best fit for Bitcoin and you feel free to do what you think is the best for Bitcoin. In the end we "count the votes", see whose opinion was amongst the majority and we move on with our lives, hoping that the majority made the right decision.

The elegant solution is segwit precisely because it doesn't require a hard fork. There's nothing cool about a hard fork, it's the opposite of elegant. Also you are asking for things that don't make sense technically. Segwit is everything that's needed to fix transaction malleability and so on, and it will make the LN better and allow us to have Schnorr sigs and other cool stuff that anyone that isn't a troll or stupid would agree to add at a protocol level.

[Bobsurplus]

Forget Segwit, Swgwit dont move markets, marketmakers too.

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

This is your 9 day left reminder, and things are just about to get very interesting. #2016bitcoinmoon

[Hyena]

The elegant solution is segwit precisely because it doesn't require a hard fork. There's nothing cool about a hard fork, it's the opposite of elegant. Also you are asking for things that don't make sense technically. Segwit is everything that's needed to fix transaction malleability and so on, and it will make the LN better and allow us to have Schnorr sigs and other cool stuff that anyone that isn't a troll or stupid would agree to add at a protocol level.

Clearly you know nothing about software development. Hard forks are always times more clean and elegant than soft forks. The only problem with hard forks is that nodes which fail to update are going to be left behind for sure. SegWit's soft fork is no better than a hard fork because old nodes won't understand segwit transactions and they will just ignore them. For that reason SegWit is even worse than a proper hard fork.

SegWit won't activate unless there is strong consensus reached. Guess what? An elegant hard fork can also be made in a way that it won't activate unless a strong consensus is reached. Then why we have a soft fork hack called SegWit in the first place? There is no good reason for that. It's just dumb. They propagate this "soft fork" idea as if it was any better than a hard fork just to find more acceptance. It's a clever marketing. Why do the Core devs need sneaky marketing? So many questions, I'd say they are doing foul play. My own writings have now made me realize that I hate SegWit even more than before.

[leopard2]

Even if we have some idiots still don't understanding we need segwit, the price is still rising and we are soon going to pass 778. If we had segwit activating faster, this would be more fuel for our rocket and we would reach moon 10 times faster. But the upraise cannot be stopped no matter what. ATH in new year guaranteed.

Good point. Trouble is transaction times are so nasty now, they become a true nuisance. 2 years ago the block size was fine, but not anymore. 

[jubalix]

segwit does seem to be prima facie complex arguably make bugs more likely.

On on had you want dev, on the other is it being done right?

BU seems apealing as it allows a market rate.

Some blocksize seems reasonable as a way to allow the volume of transactions become more attractive for btc rewards. This seems to build on itself as the individual transaction can bare a fraction say 1/4 of the cost but the miner could take 2x btc if blocks get 8x bigger.

[Bobsurplus]

Forget Segwit, Swgwit dont move markets, marketmakers too.

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

This is your 9 day left reminder, and things are just about to get very interesting. #2016bitcoinmoon

Still looking interesting with 2 days left.

[CoinCidental]

The elegant solution is segwit precisely because it doesn't require a hard fork. There's nothing cool about a hard fork, it's the opposite of elegant. Also you are asking for things that don't make sense technically. Segwit is everything that's needed to fix transaction malleability and so on, and it will make the LN better and allow us to have Schnorr sigs and other cool stuff that anyone that isn't a troll or stupid would agree to add at a protocol level.

Clearly you know nothing about software development. Hard forks are always times more clean and elegant than soft forks. The only problem with hard forks is that nodes which fail to update are going to be left behind for sure. SegWit's soft fork is no better than a hard fork because old nodes won't understand segwit transactions and they will just ignore them. For that reason SegWit is even worse than a proper hard fork.

SegWit won't activate unless there is strong consensus reached. Guess what? An elegant hard fork can also be made in a way that it won't activate unless a strong consensus is reached. Then why we have a soft fork hack called SegWit in the first place? There is no good reason for that. It's just dumb. They propagate this "soft fork" idea as if it was any better than a hard fork just to find more acceptance. It's a clever marketing. Why do the Core devs need sneaky marketing? So many questions, I'd say they are doing foul play. My own writings have now made me realize that I hate SegWit even more than before.

I agree with this

I think segwit introduces more complexity to the system than its fixing and reversal will be  too difficult and dangerous to take the chance....

Thankfully there are other scaling offers on the table we can consider, including bu's gradual scaling approach  and the new solution from lead devs called "teechan"  definitely is worth considering before we do anything hasty like segwit