Do you want hardfork?

[Snorek]

As some of you said already SegWit is not a hard fork and it will offer backward compatibility, so it is a safer option compared to standard hard fork.
Secondly, hard fork is not something inherently evil and wrong, it is natural way to upgrade a protocol, many altcoins had successful hard forks in the past.
Split - the problem you are referring to as potential outcome of HF is only possible when losing side won't accept defeat and will stick to their old protocol rules.

[Yakamoto]

I do not support a hard fork, and honestly there are way better solutions to the problems that are being faced by the blockchain than forking into something like Segwit (even though it is more of a softfork) or BU.

Both answers seem to be leaving out a lot of the other important parts of the blockchain, and something should be done to find a bit better of a solution. I don't know what it is, but tabling those two as the only options seems to be short-sighted.

[sotoshihero]

I do not support a hard fork, and honestly there are way better solutions to the problems that are being faced by the blockchain than forking into something like Segwit (even though it is more of a softfork) or BU.

Both answers seem to be leaving out a lot of the other important parts of the blockchain, and something should be done to find a bit better of a solution. I don't know what it is, but tabling those two as the only options seems to be short-sighted.

For me, I am quite hesistant to changes as I am comfortable already on the present except for the transaction speed. But if this hard fork is beneficial to all of us and improve the bitcoin the way we transact its ok for me.

[andrei56]

I don't want hardfork, I don't want to see bitcoin get clone. I don't really understand with the code, technical system, algorithm, or anything about that, i am not that man. I am just a bitcoin user that already comfortable with bitcoin right now and don't want bitcoin get compete. I see what happened with eth, etc. I just curious to ask why, why we need it? Because of raising fee?

We don’t need it, but in open source projects hard forks are common when the developers seems to have strong differences in the direction the project needs to go, and at this moment there are big differences about how bitcoin should resolve some of its issues.

[Dream 1000 BTC]

No way for hard fork, we can't give our future to those BU incompetent devs.

[xuan87]

No i don't want hard fork, because of this rumour bitcoin price already fall down and cause the instability price, if the forking really happened then the price will fall deeper and a lot of people will leave bitcoin, it is not good for bitcoin, because once people leave, it will be difficult for them to believe in bitcoin again

[freedomno1]

No, One Bitcoin to rule them all however being ignorant of all the possibilities is a fools fallacy so its good to prepare for those situations as much as you can.

[Amph]

i would not mind hard fork to change the algo, if needed and make it truly decentralized again with gpu mining, i would really love this to happen, but an hard fork to change the block like unlimited it's not something i would support

everythign that make bitcoin better is welcome, and more decentralization isn't a bad thing, but almost none would agree with this change

[mynhpark]

As we all know the development of Bitcoin is accelerating.

The number of new features, improvements and innovations is increasing all the time.

Scaling is just one issue and it does not define Bitcoin. Scaling will continue to be an issue as long as Bitcoin is growing.

In this way, a soft fork implementing Bitcoin core would allow the integration of quite useful features for the whole community, such as: segwit, lighting network and tumblebit.

[mynhpark]

Why Canadian Companies Unanimously Rejecting Bitcoin Unlimited

The vast majority of the Canadian Bitcoin market and industry believe that Bitcoin Unlimited as a contentious hard fork shouldn’t be executed or forked for various reasons. Major companies including Honey Badger, Bitcoin PoS and Opendime manufacturer Coinkite and Bitcoin broker Yuri Yerofeyev stated that Bitcoin Unlimited goes against almost every criterion of a healthy and beneficial hard fork.

See more details below:

https://cointelegraph.com/news/why-canadian-companies-unanimously-rejecting-bitcoin-unlimited
 

[lurker10]

No, I don't want a hardfork. Bitcoin must stay crippled as is and stagnate itself out of relevance. /s

[NeuroticFish]

Do you want hard fork?

Yes, of course I do, if the reasons are good. Hardfork is most of the time the only way to evolve.
But your question is not well - made. You should have asked if we want BU hardfork. Then the answer is "no". Bitcoin Unlimited is not well enough thought and implemented. It's not enough future proof, it fixes a short term problem .. for short time.

Of course, it would have been nice to see a real discussion between parts and some sort of "in between" solution, to make everybody happy. I would have liked that because now either of the options seems to be still far away.

Is it for real that SegWit will come live next winter even if the 95% is not met??

[Xester]

As some of you said already SegWit is not a hard fork and it will offer backward compatibility, so it is a safer option compared to standard hard fork.
Secondly, hard fork is not something inherently evil and wrong, it is natural way to upgrade a protocol, many altcoins had successful hard forks in the past.
Split - the problem you are referring to as potential outcome of HF is only possible when losing side won't accept defeat and will stick to their old protocol rules.

If there are only alternatives to keep the old system moving faster and efficient to cater the demands of todays bitcoins community without resorting to segwit (softfork) and Bitcoin Unlimited (hardfork) then the recent conflicts will not be very crucial to bitcoins survival. But I do not lose hope and I believe that there will be some technological advancement in the future that will settle the problems in bitcoin without changing protocols.

[Sadlife]

I dont want any hardfork,split or BU. But bitcoin should change as it is cause we need solutions in the bitcoin scaling problem or is there even a scaling problem to begin with. Because ive only seen few people complaining about their transactions not going through or not confirming if Bitcoin scaling is really that a major crisis. Why is there no many complaints coming from the users?

[Glucose]

I dont want any hardfork,split or BU. But bitcoin should change as it is cause we need solutions in the bitcoin scaling problem or is there even a scaling problem to begin with. Because ive only seen few people complaining about their transactions not going through or not confirming if Bitcoin scaling is really that a major crisis. Why is there no many complaints coming from the users?

Ok, I voted no, but everyone has to admit Bitcoin needs a solution, and needs it fast.

From far away it looks like Bitcoin Core developpers are sleeping. A lot of altcoins are way faster, way cheaper, way more user-friendly than bitcoin. Biggers blocks or Segwit is needed. Even if the hard fork affraids me a lot, and I don't want it to happen, I'm ready to understand their position and admit they are right...

[romero121]

Even though hard fork have lots of risks such as bitcoin price crashed, i think hard fork is fine rather than stuck at 1MB block size since majority chain will win, bitcoiner will enjoy new hard-fork update and minority chain coin can be sold for extra money.
But, i think hard fork won't happen since BU couldn't receive 75% support and we will stuck with 1MB block size limitation.

While we think of hardfork we need to think of the miners, 1MB blockade doesn't look to be a big issue. Users get a small delay in the confirmation with a lot transaction log. This can be sought out even without increasing the blocksize. The blocksize increase first directly attacks the miners who are the people for such a perfect functioning, because only the large scale miners can mine and the mining difficulty of small scale miners will be quite hard.

[Denker]

Under the actual circumstances a hardfork would be very dangerous and damaging to Bitcoin!
Imo it has to happen with an overwhelming agreement. If that can't be reached it should be avoided!
So right now I would prefer a softfork and activation of SegWit. I have nothing against a moderate blocksize increase, if all agree and we can be sure that decentralization doesn't get hurt.
A fork and blocksize increase with BU however is no solution and far away form being a progress. That's my 2 cent.

[Erichallig]

No. This just make things complicated

[bettercrypto]

It depends if it improve the protocol of Bitcoin and make it to scale and compete with the latest technology both in crypto and finance system I will support it. But if it is only to fuel the greed of some people then I am completely agaisnt it.  Hardfork is not evil and mostly needed to implement something to avoid errors and exploits during update/upgrade

[kiklo]

Hard Forks are not that big a Deal, why Core is acting like a bunch of crybabies over one is stupid.

Set the Hard fork for 2 months in the Future, Let everyone know they need to update by posting in the forums and calling the big mining pools.
And that is it, anyone that is too lazy too update, will find out when they can no longer send and receive BTC.
Then they just update the Wallet and redownload the Blockchain and -reindex to make sure all of their coins are intact and they are on the correct fork.
It is not hard for anyone with half a brain, why you guys act like it is the Bogeyman is just stupid.
Grow up Children , Real Men are not afraid of hard forks.