Out of the 26 periods 4 have already expired and it doesn't look like it will go through the 5th either. The support for it stagnates at 24.4%, and it doesnt look like it will grow any time soon.

Looks like nodes either dont care, or outright reject segwit, which means that the devs should already look into alternatives if the network rejects segwit.

They should not scramble at the last minute, but instead be prepared with alternative solutions instead of segwit.


What now? Maybe block size increase? I used to be against it, but looking at it now, there is really no other option. Besides the TX fee costs are already outrageous, and it's only going to get worse:

https://bitcoinfees.21.co


Fees used to be 80% cheaper just 6 months ago, and if this goes on like this then we might end up with 1-10$ size fees just like banks. What will be the point then of BTC when the fees will be just as high as of banks? Or higher?

Of coarse it will  . There's no other sensible solution.
Let me remind you, that the other option HARDFORK Unlimited promoted by three rascals Mile Hearn, Gavin Andressen, And Roger Ver, intend to harm and ruin Bitcoin forever. They've already made 2 attemps - XT and Classic and failed. Now their final overture we must be vigilant.

Do you remember Andressen assertion that Craig is Satoshi Nakamoto. And you want to believe this man?

He is not supporting the solution he is MAIN CREATOR AND PROMOTER of this solution. And he is completely MAD or CORRUPT...
How are we to trust this lunatic???

On the Bitcoin Unlimited forum and Slack chat, it's hardly to see both Gavin Andressen or Roger Ver.
Again, you can't find them anywhere by nearly a year.

All the devs of Bitcoin Unlimited (or Bitcoin Classic) are working on their own, Gavin Andresen and Roger Ver could even disappear from the earth tomorrow and nothing will change on the Bitcoin Unlimited developing cicle.

This, just to help you to be in better contact with the reality

But still they're enemies of BITCOIN and decentralization and they promote this solution. I don't want bitcoin to die, so fuck Roger Ver and his HARDFORK

Current data: Mining Pool Support by Proposal - Bitcoin Unlimited is supported by 17.30% of miners, SegWit by 16.67 and 8 MB Blocks Increase by 9.30%
As we can see Bitcoin Unlimited is winning with SegWit, we can forget about 95% consensus. Roger Ver was very happy when he tweeted that:

"Bitcoin Unlimited now has more support from bitcoin miners (and likely users for a while now) than SegWit in the last 24 hours."

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/821802321860444160

segwit nodes 1601 (28.64%)
unlimited 398 (7.12%)

as best as unbiased as i can be..
here are some options.

---

1. if segwit truly was 'backward compatible'. core could make some segwit transactions now and relay them directly to BTCC or Slush..(the two pools in support) get the Tx's added to the block and see if any orphans occur when that block is relayed to the network.
if no orphan occurs, then its backward compatible and that raises the confidence level.

core cough blockstream cough have $90m so they can happily pay BTCC $15k (price exceeding more than a blockreward) as a safeguard to btcc if the block orphans.
cheap 'test' in reality.

however it does not solve the second bit of confidence/risk that the majority of pools are not happy jumping forward at.. (lack of node full validation count)

---

2. doing it as a full community consensus. getting the community to have a consensus, rather than just the pools.
this is a consensus (hard)fork.. not an intentional split. .. consensus. there is a difference.

and if pools see a high majority of nodes able to fully validate these new blocks, then pools will gain confidence to vote for it and make them.

however it then means the community gain power to veto aswell as show devotion for (yep core dont want decentralised free choice).

---

3. so knowing they would need 95% community acceptance they would need to give the community something the community really want.
real true onchain transaction scaling thats not just a one time boost and also not having to let the devs decide what nodes should or shouldnt do.

so by also including dynamic blocks as a core release. nodes regain the independant diverse decentralised power. and it grows only when nodes show they can cope with.

then its just a 2 birds 1 stone election event where everyone gets what they want. and all different (10 different implementations) can be diversely accepting and consenting to the same things on an even playing field, rather than a one brand dominance/control event

Actually I find Monero pretty crappy, because after years of being online ,they cant even put out a GUI lightweight wallet.

And besides that the blockchain is pretty bloated and has a big size. Some people say that the cryptonote technology is not good and not safe.

Perhaps DASH is better, because at least it's price is going up now.

---

But on the bitcoin side. I would support a hardfork now.

And a BTC hardfork would not split the network in 2 because BTC has a 2 week retarget, and no miner would mine on the minority chain for 2 weeks.

So the majority always wins. It could technically happen with 51%, but just for safety and less drama, let's say 70%.

So if 70% agrees to hardfork now, of a 2mb, then the other 30% will be outnumbered, and then they will later see that it was not a big deal.


It' will not split in 2 like Ethereum vs Eth classic.