So who the hell is still supporting BU?

[zimmah]

So who the hell is still supporting BU?

I support BU. 

Bitcoin Unlimited is a tool to allow node operators and miners to more easily configure their nodes' blocksize limits and signal their preferences to the network.  This is what we need right now.

There's not so many people like you who supports Unlimited. It has so many flaws and It's not been even tested properly. Why do you think the minority may dictate the majority?

minority may dictate the majority?

This is what Core does, Core wants to rule everyone, and decide for 100% what bitcoin is and does, and what direction it takes.  

BU wants to give power to miners and nodes, and therefore brings bitcoin back to its original design. A lot more people have power, and everyone can get power, because everyone can buy a miner and run a node. But it does take an investment. So it's kind of "Proof of stake" and that's a good thing. Because it makes sure that the people who call the shots have an investment in bitcoin and want bitcoin to succeed, otherwise they lose their invested money.  

The Core devs haven't invested anything except time into bitcoin. And if bitcoin fails the Core devs can still get a job in the tech industry, so they don't have anything to lose. However, the miners invested millions of dollars, and if bitcoin fails, they will have lost millions of dollars in mining hardware that is now useless. Therefore, miners should decide the future of bitcoin, not the core devs. 
This is also how satoshi designed bitcoin in the first place.

[1714880423]

1714880423

[Gimpeline]

So who the hell is still supporting BU?

I support BU. 

Bitcoin Unlimited is a tool to allow node operators and miners to more easily configure their nodes' blocksize limits and signal their preferences to the network.  This is what we need right now.

There's not so many people like you who supports Unlimited. It has so many flaws and It's not been even tested properly. Why do you think the minority may dictate the majority?

minority may dictate the majority?

This is what Core does, Core wants to rule everyone, and decide for 100% what bitcoin is and does, and what direction it takes.  

BU wants to give power to miners and nodes, and therefore brings bitcoin back to its original design. A lot more people have power, and everyone can get power, because everyone can buy a miner and run a node. But it does take an investment. So it's kind of "Proof of stake" and that's a good thing. Because it makes sure that the people who call the shots have an investment in bitcoin and want bitcoin to succeed, otherwise they lose their invested money.  

The Core devs haven't invested anything except time into bitcoin. And if bitcoin fails the Core devs can still get a job in the tech industry, so they don't have anything to lose. However, the miners invested millions of dollars, and if bitcoin fails, they will have lost millions of dollars in mining hardware that is now useless. Therefore, miners should decide the future of bitcoin, not the core devs. 
This is also how satoshi designed bitcoin in the first place.

And since only 5% of the nodes go with BU, after your logic with "giving the power back to the nodes and the miners", Bitcoin should go with core instead of the failed, bugged BU code?

[-ck]

BU is rapidly growing in popularity and it's exceeding support for SegWit, so it looks like BU is winning, not Core. So, sad for you.

Not sure where you come to that conclusion. More than 50% of regular nodes are signalling support for segwit which is already a majority of sorts, far more than are signalling support for BU, and there are 5x as many miners signalling support for segwit than BU. Neither has the majority required to create the dominant chain since they both fall far short of their mining node requirements for activation, but on those numbers there is no sign whatsoever that BU is "exceeding support for SegWit" and "winning" as you claim. The only thing BU seems to be exceeding support for is the number of new posts on btctalk, though most of them are coming from the same forum members (EDIT: Most of whom I've set to ignore since they don't use sane arguments and are mostly trolls).

[RawDog]

 
This is also how satoshi designed bitcoin in the first place.

That is unimportant to the people in control.  Blockstream spent over $70 million and now they want to convert the network into a system where they handle the bulk of transactions and charge a fee outside of the miner's fees. 

They need SegWit to get it all working and they need 1MB blocks to put scaling pressure on the system so people with adapt their solution. 

What a fucking joke that Chinese miners let Adam Back take over the network this way. 

[jbreher]

after your logic with "giving the power back to the nodes and the miners", Bitcoin should go with core instead of the failed, bugged BU code?

1) not quite. Each node should run the code they prefer. I would certainly prefer that BU become the dominant implementation on the network, at least long enough for the community to learn the benefits of emergent consensus. Multiple implementations implementing emergent consensus would be even better.

2) BU has not failed.

3) BU did recently evidence a bug. It had exactly zero impact on the network as a whole. It has been fixed. There will likely be bugs that surface in the future. The Satoshi client has had bugs as well. The worst of such had a impact on the network far more severe than the recent BU bug. Core will also likely evidence bugs in the future. We all hope these will have minor impacts. Your characterization of BU as 'buggy' is unsupported by all available evidence.

[franky1]

3) BU did recently evidence a bug. It had exactly zero impact on the network as a whole. It has been fixed. There will likely be bugs that surface in the future. The Satoshi client has had bugs as well. The worst of such had a impact on the network far more severe than the recent BU bug. Core will also likely evidence bugs in the future. We all hope these will have minor impacts. Your characterization of BU as 'buggy' is unsupported by all available evidence.

i agree with what your post says, but trying to teach some people needs to be done more simply.
i dont like resorting to this way of teaching people.. but i feel its the only way they will learn their own hypocrisy, due to the only method they seem to be learning their fake scripts is done this way..

so lets teach them the real truth, in a learning style they can accept.

[iCEBREAKER]

When BU nodes started attacking the network, they were automatically blocked by Bitcoin's built-in shit filter.  No human intervention was required.

You don't get to submit invalid blocks to the network and then stay on the network, you get banhammered at the protocol level.

If you BU guys want to sit around spewing invalid blocks on each other all day, be my guest.  But please leave the rest of us out of that sticky situation.

[franky1]

If you BU guys want to sit around spewing invalid blocks on each other all day, be my guest.  But please leave the rest of us out of that sticky situation.

reject that was rejected in 3 seconds before needing the ban hammer..
but core nodes went anal by blocking nodes.
this in short is core triggering what could have ended up as a core caused bilateral fork. due to core rules.
it was a non event because it was a 3 second reject. but core nodes made a mountain out of a mole hill with such silly banscore settings.

there was no intention by any non-core node to cause a bilateral split and if core were unbiased they would have updated the banscore code to be fair to how to treat the network properly.

in laymens "oh look a reject, lets bin it and move on with our lives"
instead of "oh look a reject, lets lock all the doors and close all the windows and scream on forums that apocalypse nearly occured"

i call that desparation

[iCEBREAKER]

If you BU guys want to sit around spewing invalid blocks on each other all day, be my guest.  But please leave the rest of us out of that sticky situation.

reject that was rejected in 3 seconds before needing the ban hammer..
but core nodes went anal by blocking nodes.
this in short is core triggering what could have ended up as a core caused bilateral fork. due to core rules.
it was a non event because it was a 3 second reject. but core nodes made a mountain out of a mole hill with such silly banscore settings.

there was no intention by any non-core node to cause a bilateral split and if core were unbiased they would have updated the banscore code to be fair to how to treat the network properly.

in laymens "oh look a reject, lets bin it and move on with our lives"
instead of "oh look a reject, lets lock all the doors and close all the windows and scream on forums that apocalypse nearly occured"

i call that desparation

"Desperation?"  LOL, the Bitcoin network barely noticed BU's attack, only briefly paying enough attention to reflexively mitigate Known Bad sources of invalid blocks.

Most block explorers didn't even see the invalid block, and the only reason we know it happened was some sharp-eyed observers noticed all the incompatible-and-therefore-adversarial BU nodes getting BTFO.

After the fact whining about "silly banscore settings" is just fake 20/20 hindsight and clumsy deflection.

It's very simple.  You don't get to submit invalid blocks to the network and then stay on the network.

If you BU guys want want to enjoy more permissive badscore settings and sit around spewing invalid blocks on each other all day, be my guest.  But please leave the rest of us out of that sticky situation.

[Viscount]

That is unimportant to the people in control.  Blockstream spent over $70 million and now they want to convert the network into a system where they handle the bulk of transactions and charge a fee outside of the miner's fees. 

They need SegWit to get it all working and they need 1MB blocks to put scaling pressure on the system so people with adapt their solution. 

What a fucking joke that Chinese miners let Adam Back take over the network this way. 

The fact that people like you support Unlimited is good reason for decent people to hate BU and vote for Segwit.

[Viscount]

BU is rapidly growing in popularity and it's exceeding support for SegWit, so it looks like BU is winning, not Core. So, sad for you.

Not sure where you come to that conclusion. More than 50% of regular nodes are signalling support for segwit which is already a majority of sorts, far more than are signalling support for BU, and there are 5x as many miners signalling support for segwit than BU. Neither has the majority required to create the dominant chain since they both fall far short of their mining node requirements for activation, but on those numbers there is no sign whatsoever that BU is "exceeding support for SegWit" and "winning" as you claim. The only thing BU seems to be exceeding support for is the number of new posts on btctalk, though most of them are coming from the same forum members (EDIT: Most of whom I've set to ignore since they don't use sane arguments and are mostly trolls).

I wonder why we are arguing about unlimitedcoin in main Bitcoin discussion. It should be in Altcoin discussion just like their previous classic scam. Some newbies may misunderstand that it's bitcoin  

[Foxpup]

You don't get to submit invalid blocks to the network and then stay on the network.

Except they do. One thing which nobody seems to want to mention (likely because Core users don't care and BU users are too incompetent to notice) is that .onion nodes didn't ban anyone. They can't, what with the whole "anonymity" thing and all. My .onion node saw two BU peers relay the invalid block and... that's it. No other BU nodes connected to it until the Core chain overtook the BU chain. That's actually a lot because I usually only have one solitary BU peer connecting via Tor. Is this really the entirety of BU's Tor presence? I like to think that those two BU nodes were the only two still able to connect to Core nodes and were the only thing preventing the network from splitting completely.

[mezzomix]

BU wants to give power to miners and nodes, and therefore brings bitcoin back to its original design. A lot more people have power, and everyone can get power, because everyone can buy a miner and run a node.

No. A hard-fork that changes the mining algorithm would bring back bitcoin to its original design. So the number 1 priority is to change the mining algorithm with the next hard fork!

[classicsucks]

Been thinking about this intractable blocksize debate in human terms. I think it boils down to WHO CONTROLS BITCOIN? Until recently, Core devs wrote the code and people compiled and ran it. Now, people (especially miners) aren't running Core's code. This is frightening to Core, and they don't want to let go of what remains of their control. People have pointed out the economic incentives of increasing mining fees and integrating sidechains/Lightning, but I believe there is also a human "mother hen instinct" that Core feels. After all, they HAVE (full credit is due) kept Bitcoin running for YEARS. They've mitigated dangerous hacks, optimized the communication protocols, and implemented many of Satoshi's original concepts (pruning, etc). Many, many people have tried to derail the protocol, network, and infrastructure, with all kinds of dirty tricks, ad hom attacks, threats, etc., and Core should be commended for holding their ground and fearlessly defending the code.

However, now Core has deviated from the "happy path", they are losing support by the day, and the pressure is mounting to SIMPLY fix what's been broken for several years now. People don't want Segwit, and they aren't likely to suddenly change their minds. The mempool keeps growing (almost a new record today), yet Core keeps their heads in the sand and mumbles about esoteric issues.

Core just can't let this go, be WRONG for once, FIX A MINOR PROBLEM (AS THEY HAVE DONE BEFORE WITHOUT ISSUE), and move forward. And they're likely afraid to lose further control over the code if they increase the blocksize after people have lost trust in them (what else is really required in Bitcoin?)... a bit of a quandry.  So the "Core hens" sit in their nest, warming their precious tiny egg, pretending it's not DYING. I am starting to believe that they could "cut off their nose to spite their face", and this is worrisome...

Only one thing do - argue reasonably and WAIT.

If you look at all of the people screaming about unconformed transactions, it shows how difficult it is for people to increase the fees they're paying (you would think exchanges could've fixed this in the past 2 years?). Imagine how painful a transition to Segwit would be, as it breaks SO MUCH existing software!

[Cred]

Not sure I want to get involved in all this but I'll be running a node again at some point so trying to get beyond the trolling and do what is best for Bitcoin.

Right now I'm pro segwit because it is a sensible refactoring and optimization, regardless of whether it includes transaction malleability fix or not and the fact that it does enables lot so potential solutions to real scaling because onchain scaling is not a thing. I don't care who wrote it or who they work.

The argument on core's side (and core != Blockstream) are around avoiding a hard fork, which will cause orphan drama in a split consensus, and enabling off-chain scaling, which is essential.

The arguments of BU seem to be that Blockstream will have too much power if segwit activates and the unrealistic dream that getting rid of the block size limit will somehow mean infinite and therefore free transactions for everyone. Also Ver seems convinced that more usage = higher price which ignores velocity and isn't necessarily true. Supply and demand still applies no matter what.

Some things that strike as being lost are
- Blockstream does not need Segwit to implement LN so if it's just an attempt to force them into a dynamic blocksize in the hope of sabotaging their ambitions it won't work and may give a more consumer orientated business or altcoin the opportunity to use the infighting in BTC to take that market.
- Dash, ZCash, the banks, the likes of Microsoft, MPesa and governments aren't sitting still. I'd rather Blockstream made money and used it to invest in the network than Bitcoin fail for being sanctimoniously pure about things that new users won't give a shit about. There's too much expectation of something for nothing.
- They also don't have a monopoly on LN. There's already multiple implementations competing as well as other solutions like in the works if they make too much.
- If they become a hub, so what? It takes load of the main chain and lessens the power of miners. So long as I am still in full control of my BTC that is fine by me.
- Users of transactions who don't care about about store of value or who don't even know their money is going through a blockchain will use the cheapest and fastest, whether it is LN or Litecoin. Somebody is going to make a business acting as trusted third parties to enable consumers. Get over it.
- Onchain can never scale to a remotely large number of transactions. It's a O(n) increase to an O(n^2) problem. Has nobody in the BU/XT/Classic camp ever dealt with internet level scaling and knows what O(n^2) means because I never see it this debate, just politics of Ver vs Blockstream. There's a reason a lot of smart software engineers and architects said BItcoin wasn't scalable and why there's been conferences call SCALING BITCOIN every year with some of the smartest people working on it: because just letting the blocksize increase ISN'T SCALABLE. Was that all a waste of time because we could just bump the max size?
- Miners want high fees so why do BU people think that they will choose to mine for free. How exactly is BU going to lead to magical times and free transactions for everyone?
- The BU code might be the best ever but changing the consensus rules of everyone setting their own parameters is untested and the game theory is a lot harder to get right than the code. A straight 2mb upgrade I'd be happier with. Segwit only alters the rules slightly by tipping the weight of UTXOs

If Bitcoin is to grow at the rate of a network (n^2) it has to have an extra DIMENSION of scaling even if we let the blocksize increase linearly, either vertical through a second layer like LN or vertically through side chains or through some mathematical enabler of Log(N) like MimbleWimble.

Blocking Segwit seems to be just anti-Blockstream paranoia or a ploy by miners to keep the fees up for as long as they can.

Can someone explain the BU solution to all these issues because it seems to be let's just increase the blocksize according to some convoluted rules and see what happens because segwit is bad m'kay?

Unless an anti-segwit person comes up with and implements a real alternative scaling solution

[franky1]

Right now I'm pro segwit because it is a sensible refactoring and optimization, regardless of whether it includes transaction malleability fix or not and the fact that it does enables lot so potential solutions to real scaling because onchain scaling is not a thing. I don't care who wrote it or who they work.

'onchain scaling is not a thing' ??
im guessing you dont understand bitcoin or LN.. lets read on and see if you have done any research about consensus, about LN, about multisigs. about anything you actually need to know to for you to have an informed opinion.

The argument on core's side (and core != Blockstream) are around avoiding a hard fork, which will cause orphan drama in a split consensus, and enabling off-chain scaling, which is essential.

1. the paid core devs ARE blockstream, the unpaid devs are loyal interns hoping to get a blockstream job. you can tell due to their lack of objection to obvious flaws wrote by blockstream paid devs
2. consensus=agreement with small risk of temporary orphans.. NOT a split.... a split is not consensus. learn consensus vs bilateral split. try not to pretend consensus causes splits.
3. core want other implementations to bilateral split(non-core object to this). core just scare the community saying non-core will split to play the victim card. while under same breath begging non-core implementations to bilateral split. but non-core wont split off intentionally.

The arguments of BU seem to be that Blockstream will have too much power if segwit activates and the unrealistic dream that getting rid of the block size limit will somehow mean infinite and therefore free transactions for everyone. Also Ver seems convinced that more usage = higher price which ignores velocity and isn't necessarily true. Supply and demand still applies no matter what.

1. the argument of the rational community (much bigger than just BU), so dont attempt to make it just a bu vs blockstream thing..
2. many rational bitcoin community people care more about bitcoins consensus, not the failed banks FIAT value. the failed banks are going to hyper inflate anyway. where a loaf of bread will eventually be $2000. smart people dont care about fiat value, because inflation of fiat is killing fiat all by itself

Some things that strike as being lost are
- Blockstream does not need Segwit to implement LN so if it's just an attempt to force them into a dynamic blocksize in the hope of sabotaging their ambitions it won't work and may give a more consumer orientated business or altcoin the opportunity to use the infighting in BTC to take that market.

agreed segwit isnt needed for LN. but segwit is a stepping stone for other features that give blockstream the upper power. EG the way blocks will be formed would require blockstream gate keepers UPSTREAM to filter the data out to the downsteam nodes. (fibre is already becoming the pools gatekeeper)
other stepping stones segwit leads to is sidechains.. yep blockstream want altcoins aswell as the LN commercial permissioned hubs. aswll as being the network gatekeepers (as gmaxwell calls fibre, the 'upstream filter'

- Dash, ZCash, the banks, the likes of Microsoft, MPesa and governments aren't sitting still. I'd rather Blockstream made money and used it to invest in the network than Bitcoin fail for being sanctimoniously pure about things that new users won't give a shit about. There's too much expectation of something for nothing.

you do know that letting blockstream succeed is helping them get more involved in hyperledger (the bankers chain)

- They also don't have a monopoly on LN. There's already multiple implementations competing as well as other solutions like in the works if they make too much.
- If they become a hub, so what? It takes load of the main chain and lessens the power of miners.

miners should not have power anyway if core actually cared and used consensus. again im thinking you need to learn about real full consensus..
blockstream paid devs decided to avoid real consensus by going soft. the reason. if it works they have slipped in their control stepping stones without nodes consent. if it fails they can play the victim card blaming the miners. yet it was them that decided to give miners power. so shouldnt
blame the miners if the miners disagree

So long as I am still in full control of my BTC that is fine by me.

you need to learn about LN and learn multisig. dont be fooled by the word twisting like "birdirectional". and instead realise your funds are put into
a joint account where you need a counter parties permission.. and if that counterparty is a hub.. essentially they are a bank. authorising their many customers payments

- Users of transactions who don't care about about store of value or who don't even know their money is going through a blockchain will use the cheapest and fastest, whether it is LN or Litecoin. Somebody is going to make a business acting as trusted third parties to enable consumers. Get over it.

agree with that statement above. but we should not be just letting LN be the end goal of bitcoin.. only let it be a side service for niche users

- Onchain can never scale to a remotely large number of transactions. It's a O(n) increase to an O(n^2) problem. Has nobody in the BU/XT/Classic camp ever dealt with internet level scaling and knows what O(n^2) means because I never see it this debate, just politics of Ver vs Blockstream.

1. the community is much wider than your attempt to just plop people into bandcamps.
2. also the fake scare of quadratics is fail because any malicious user who wants to make quadratic tx's still can after segwit activation.. they just avoid using p2wpkh keys.
2. thus segwit doesnt end quadratics. the real solution can be found in other ways. such as limit how many sigops a tx can have.

There's a reason a lot of smart software engineers and architects said BItcoin wasn't scalable and why there's been conferences call SCALING BITCOIN every year with some of the smartest people working on it: because just letting the blocksize increase ISN'T SCALABLE. Was that all a waste of time because we could just bump the max size?

lol shouting fear of growth by using fake stories of gigabytes by midnight and billions of users by midnight.. is a failed and flawed argument to intentionally hold up real onchain natural growth, and only done to promote the centralised commercial services as the end goal.
natural growth scaled over decades where natural adoption occures over decades shows it can work. but i bet you will scream the "not overnight" empty argument

- Miners want high fees so why do BU people think that they will choose to mine for free. How exactly is BU going to lead to magical times and free transactions for everyone?

pools dont care about fee's. fee's are just a bonus. pools care more about having a functional and spendable network to spend their rewards. without doing anything to the network that would cause pools efforts to get orphaned. fee's are not a concern for decades.

its blockstream that are desperate to push users into commercial hubs so that blockstream can repay their banker investors

- The BU code might be the best ever but changing the consensus rules of everyone setting their own parameters is untested and the game theory is a lot harder to get right than the code. A straight 2mb upgrade I'd be happier with. Segwit only alters the rules slightly by tipping the weight of UTXOs

a straight 2mb is just a tmporary gsture that lasts no time at all.. mempools already contain more than double a blocksize of unconfirmed tx's so its not really giving any breathing room. secondly after 2mb. its then another long beg/grovvel and treat devs like kings for more again. instead of letting nodes decide for themselves.
please learn consensus

If Bitcoin is to grow at the rate of a network (n^2) it has to have an extra DIMENSION of scaling even if we let the blocksize increase linearly, either vertical through a second layer like LN or vertically through side chains or through some mathematical enabler of Log(N) like MimbleWimble.

if a sidechain (an altcoin) can be vertical.. then obviously tx count vs tx count would allow bitcoin do the same after all an altcoin is limited by the same internet and hardware as bitcoin..
so i see this as a failed argument. if a sidechains computer and internet can cope. then internet and computer is not a problem for bitcoin. (logic!)

Blocking Segwit seems to be just anti-Blockstream paranoia or a ploy by miners to keep the fees up for as long as they can.

Can someone explain the BU solution to all these issues because it seems to be let's just increase the blocksize according to some convoluted rules and see what happens because segwit is bad m'kay?

Unless an anti-segwit person comes up with and implements a real alternative scaling solution

lets summarise
1. segwit promises 2.1x tx count - reality only if 100% of people use segwit keys(not gonna happen)
2. segwit promises end quadratics - reality bloated spammers loving quadratics simply wont use segwit keys. thus segwit has solved nothing
3. segwit promises end malleability - reality double spending scammers simply wont use segwit keys. thus segwit has solved nothing
4. segwit promises end double spend - reality blockstream added new double spending methods(RBF/CPFP/CLTV+CSV). thus segwit has solved nothing.
5. segwit promises tx fee discount - reality blockstream removed reactive fee and added fee average. pushing the price up to offset future discount.

as for solutions.
the reason you see no alternative solutions in blockstreams moderated github bip list is because the bips have to go through blockstreams CTO's
approval process atleast twice officially. and in reality more like 3-4 times. so lack of seeing anything in the bips by non blockstream friendly devs does not mean there are no bips/alternatives. it just means gmaxwell 'takes one look at the computer screen.... and its gone!'

lastly. dealing with your final sentence of:
'Unless an anti-segwit person comes up with and implements a real alternative scaling solution '
segwit is not a solution. its a tweak that offers a temporary empty gesture. but leads things into a direction away from bitcoin scaling and only into altcoin and offchain commercial permissioned scaling.

p.s
dont be a sheep script reading and just throwing insults that i must be in bandcamp A,B,C or d.. instead be wise. do some research into the topics and learn
consensus vs bilateral splits
multisig permissioned contracts
sidechains(altcoins)

[classicsucks]

Not sure I want to get involved in all this but I'll be running a node again at some point so trying to get beyond the trolling and do what is best for Bitcoin.

Thank you for your relevant thoughts and polite demeanor.

Allow me save you some time - Unlimited is not a great solution, and it won't be adopted. So forget about it. There is a fear-based false dichotomy being fostered right now that this fight is about Unlimited versus Segwit. The real fight is to just increase the effing blocksize with a simple hard fork AS WAS DONE IN 2014 ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS AND WITHOUT ANY ISSUES. 

Unlimited only exists to block Segwit, and it's been quite effective: Unlimited blocks now surpass Segwit blocks. I think this conveys some sense of urgency to Core, which is long overdue, given that they've had their thumbs up their butts for FOUR+ YEARS now on this blocksize problem. I think we all know that the blockchain is problematic when you get too much volume and/or the blocksize is too big, but ask yourself, "Is Bitcoin is working properly today"?

Ver seems convinced that more usage = higher price which ignores velocity and isn't necessarily true. Supply and demand still applies no matter what.

Laws of supply and demand generally apply to price discovery of labor and assets, not currencies. The US Federal Reserve doubled the money supply in 2008-12 but the USD value remained constant, did you wonder how they did that? Also, BTC velocity is a touchy subject because much of the transaction base is spam and churn. I think Ver is stating the obvious that if Bitcoin is not useful to people, its value will go to zero. Hard to argue that. The BTC supply increases every day, and demand is likely increasing due to greater global acceptance and tightening capital controls. But how will millions of new users adopt Bitcoin? I can tell you that someone who waits 24 hours for their transaction to confirm will not be back... If exchanges are having a hard time setting higher transaction fees, imagine how much pain it would cause if they tried to implement Segwit?!

A straight 2mb upgrade I'd be happier with. Segwit only alters the rules slightly by tipping the weight of UTXOs

+1

Blocking Segwit seems to be just anti-Blockstream paranoia or a ploy by miners to keep the fees up for as long as they can.

Valid theories but no hard evidence. I think Blockstream has been a bit shady of late. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a $100 million corporation WITHOUT a profit motive and a plan to execute on.  I find it strange to be in the company of Gavin, Ver, Hearn, etc., as I regard them as generally less tech-savvy than Core devs. Often times the most important thing is to "know what you don't know". I feel like the Core devs aren't aware of their lack of economic knowledge and outside perspective, or alternately (and far less likely) that they are playing dumb and have been compromised by a hidden agenda from Blockstream.

Unless an anti-segwit person comes up with and implements a real alternative scaling solution

Hard fork to 2MB, and then immediately start screaming about the next increase to 4MB in ten years.

[RealBitcoin]

Hard fork to 2MB, and then immediately start screaming about the next increase to 4MB in ten years.

NO, you add an automatically adjusting blocksize to leave less management into human hands.

Humans are corrupt, and greedy, the only way to solve the block increase is to make the code automatical, to not rely on infighting every 4-5 years.

[hv_]

Hard fork to 2MB, and then immediately start screaming about the next increase to 4MB in ten years.

NO, you add an automatically adjusting blocksize to leave less management into human hands.

Humans are corrupt, and greedy, the only way to solve the block increase is to make the code automatical, to not rely on infighting every 4-5 years.

If you define 'automatically' = adjusted by the free market = Austrian economics type

You are with BU

Otherwise there is a BIP from sipa, adjusting by some 'magic rules' in code derived by extrapolation into future....  

[franky1]

Hard fork to 2MB, and then immediately start screaming about the next increase to 4MB in ten years.

NO, you add an automatically adjusting blocksize to leave less management into human hands.

Humans are corrupt, and greedy, the only way to solve the block increase is to make the code automatical, to not rely on infighting every 4-5 years.

easy way to achieve this, is to have a 'speed test mechanism' built into an implementation.

knowing in the code you can see the time your node asks for a new block. and when it validates the block it knows the time of that.
so it can use these two milestones to set a 'score'.
EG
if a block can be requested and validated in under say 120seconds. (2minutes) where over say 2016 blocks= target 241920score.
if the node can get a score BELOW(meaning faster than) 241920 over a 2016 block period. then it can easily handle block validation

this score can be part of the nodes user agent/metadata. thus easy to get stats of the network. to see what is capable by the nodes