Do you want hardfork?

[Slark]

But we don't need hard fork. There are many ways bitcoin can be 'upgraded' without HF.
We can have perfectly fine off-chain scaling solution as well, end users and business are ready for it now.
Why risk it with HF when we have other options? Sure, it is easier to say that HF is good when you have altcoin worth $200M to fork.
Not whole economic network worth $17BILLION ATM.

[1714879717]

1714879717

[1714879717]

1714879717

[Juggy777]

Of course we do not want hard folk, any sane person will outright reject this idea. This idea is only accepted to miners and small amount of the community who are failing to see the effect that it will cause upon us. I do hope before its to late people realize that they are making a big mistake agreeing with hard folk. Bitcoin is the best and Bitcoin can never be replaced by any other coin. I do personally hope that people shall wake up and stop this madness.

[ralle14]

I voted no because I don't like to have bitcoinX in my wallet and I don't want the price to crash but sadly there will be a fork that'll happen. Segwit looks impossible, now we have BU left I don't like any of these because I feel like miners will mostly benefit from these changes imo.

[kiklo]

But we don't need hard fork. There are many ways bitcoin can be 'upgraded' without HF.
We can have perfectly fine off-chain scaling solution as well, end users and business are ready for it now.
Why risk it with HF when we have other options? Sure, it is easier to say that HF is good when you have altcoin worth $200M to fork.
Not whole economic network worth $17BILLION ATM.

It is now cheaper to send money orders than BTC and may be faster depending on the unconfirmed transactions.
We needed a Hard Fork 3 months ago, and we need it even more now.

Offchain Scaling , without ONCHAIN Capacity will result in Increased Theft of Bitcoins when the Time Locks expire due to network spamming.
Read the LN WhitePaper it is a Know Flaw of LN , and it was stupid of core to promote segwit & LN before increasing the blocksize.

Again , if you children are that scared of hard forks, leave your BTC on the exchanges and the grown ups will handle it for you.  

 

[sportis]

I am not very familiar with this issue, because I don't know very well the technical details but I voted negatively. There are some reasons about this decision where the most important, imho, are:

Exchanges have already declared that will accept BU as altcoin.
Many people they will loose their faith in bitcoin; something that took years from bitcoin entrepreneurs to be built.
I don't have the same trust to BU developers as to Core ones. Recent bugs which were discussed in some threads of this forum are proofs of that.

[iamnotback]

Re: Do you want hardfurk?

Yeah baby, furk it harder. Bend over, thrust, and mutilate that azz!

Bloody or it didn't happen.

[Hydrogen]

The hard fork is a classic example of how the media influences people in the 21st century.

1. Create a "crisis".  (unconfirmed spam transactions)
2. Propose a "solution" to fix said "crisis".  (bitcoin unlimited)
3. Implement the bad "solution".  (hard fork)
4. The outcome is worse than the original problem.

Sometimes the "cure" is worse than the "disease".

[Betwrong]

Easy question for everyone.
Do you want hard fork?

Personally I dont want any hard forks. Bitcoin is Bitcoin and it should be like this. I don`t want any changes. Growing fee is ok for me because it is still so cheap if you think about how big amounts of money you can send. For sure I don`t want any BU. It is stupid. People don`t know what to do now. We should finish this negotiate and leave it as it is.

The only possible change can be to connect with SegWit and everyone will be happy

If you are going to send over $100 then the fee is really not that big. Right now for example paying 101-120 sats per byte you'll have your transaction confirmed in 5 hours. Taking into account that a median transaction size is 226 bytes you'll have to pay around 25k sats which is not that much. And if you want your transaction get confirmed in 35 minutes you'll have to pay 200 sats per byte, or around 45k sats for a transaction which is not that much too. I know nowadays we have times when we have to pay over $1 for a fast transaction, but are those cases that frequent?

[kiklo]

If you are going to send over $100 then the fee is really not that big. Right now for example paying 101-120 sats per byte you'll have your transaction confirmed in 5 hours. Taking into account that a median transaction size is 226 bytes you'll have to pay around 25k sats which is not that much. And if you want you transaction get confirmed in 35 minutes you'll have to pay 200 sats per byte, or around 45k sats for a transaction which is not that much too. I know nowadays we have times when we have to pay over $1 for a fast transaction, but are those cases that frequent?

$20 , $ .60 transaction fee, $2 fee to convert from Fiat

Cost me $2.60 to send $20 damn bucks, 13% of the Total.

Money Orders are cheaper.

 

FYI:
In the Words of IAMNOTBACK,
Bend that BTC Bitch over the Counter and get to Hard Forking.

[Betwrong]

If you are going to send over $100 then the fee is really not that big. Right now for example paying 101-120 sats per byte you'll have your transaction confirmed in 5 hours. Taking into account that a median transaction size is 226 bytes you'll have to pay around 25k sats which is not that much. And if you want you transaction get confirmed in 35 minutes you'll have to pay 200 sats per byte, or around 45k sats for a transaction which is not that much too. I know nowadays we have times when we have to pay over $1 for a fast transaction, but are those cases that frequent?

$20 , $ .60 transaction fee, $2 fee to convert from Fiat

Cost me $2.60 to send $20 damn bucks, 13% of the Total.

Money Orders are cheaper.

 

FYI:
In the Words of IAMNOTBACK,
Bend that BTC Bitch over the Counter and get to Hard Forking.

In your case yes. But normally people don't have to pay $2 fee to convert from Fiat, they just send BTC to one another, right? So even sending $20 worth of BTC and paying $0.60 for this is not that bad IMO. But of course if you want to send $5 it's bad, but I think we'll find a solution for that if we think hard enough.

[kiklo]

In your case yes. But normally people don't have to pay $2 fee to convert from Fiat, they just send BTC to one another, right? So even sending $20 worth of BTC and paying $0.60 for this is not that bad IMO. But of course if you want to send $5 it's bad, but I think we'll find a solution for that if we think hard enough.

Who do you know besides an ASICS miners that don't have to convert Fiat to BTC , to Have BTC to send. 
Just Curious.

 

[Betwrong]

In your case yes. But normally people don't have to pay $2 fee to convert from Fiat, they just send BTC to one another, right? So even sending $20 worth of BTC and paying $0.60 for this is not that bad IMO. But of course if you want to send $5 it's bad, but I think we'll find a solution for that if we think hard enough.

Who do you know besides an ASICS miners that don't have to convert Fiat to BTC , to Have BTC to send. 
Just Curious.

 

People who are getting paid in BTC for their work. I know a guy who earned $2,000 in BTC in one month, in August 2016, for creating a poker site. There are many others earning smaller but still significant amounts, for example here, participating in Sig campaigns.

[qiwoman2]

Initially I didn't want a hardfork but if it is going to congestion the blockchain and have smaller fees then for this reason only I would recommend it. If Bitcoin becomes too expensive to send, all those people sending to developing countries remittances, will end up opting for other digital currencies that are faster and cheaper, now that Pandora's box has been well opened. Bitcoin will always be Bitcoin, the forked off chain coin will just be another alt, like the rest, that we can choose from and enjoy. You now also have more bitcoin named coins like bitcoin plus and bitcoin dark, next we might have bitcoin gold who knows?  

[kiklo]

People who are getting paid in BTC for their work. I know a guy who earned $2,000 in BTC in one month, in August 2016, for creating a poker site. There are many others earning smaller but still significant amounts, for example here, participating in Sig campaigns.

Hmm,
If people like me quit buying BTC because of ridiculous fee system, who is your friend going to sell his BTC to , when he needs to convert to fiat.  
Higher Transaction fees will be everyone's problem, not just mine.  


 

[BingoDog]

Seems that majority doesn't want hard fork and many users have kind a fear of it. People don't like changes, I know. But is it realy so bad and does it realy need to bring something bad to bitcoin and its users. I think there is room for adjustment and hard fork could be something that we could get used to and everything could function well.

[Text]

Seems that majority doesn't want hard fork and many users have kind a fear of it. People don't like changes, I know. But is it realy so bad and does it realy need to bring something bad to bitcoin and its users. I think there is room for adjustment and hard fork could be something that we could get used to and everything could function well.

Right, most of us here don't want that hard fork. For me having bitcoin now is enough but I agree to you that there is always a room for improvements. We have already suffered those issues when it entered and it has a bad impact.

[naughty1]

I may be a nostalgic person, so I choose bitcoin core, I want bitcoin is still it, I want it to grow from the original technology foundation, and do not want any other changes. Bitcoin is very powerful, it has shown us its potential, so we do not need any innovation. What we need is another way of addressing the present bugs, not the innovation to get more trouble. We all use bitcoin, and we develop it, which is a common resource for all of us. BU is just a greed of the miners, it should be excluded.

[DoomDumas]

Simple, SegWit is serious, BU is a joke !

[noise2]

Sometimes it needs to get worse before it gets better. A fork would clear the air and it's probably really bad short term but should be good medium/long term if enough miners starts supporting BU.

Segwit is a crappy implementation and relying on the LN vaporware is insanity. As a benefit we could get rid of crazies (you all know who I mean).

[richardsNY]

Seems that majority doesn't want hard fork and many users have kind a fear of it. People don't like changes, I know. But is it realy so bad and does it realy need to bring something bad to bitcoin and its users. I think there is room for adjustment and hard fork could be something that we could get used to and everything could function well.

Right, most of us here don't want that hard fork. For me having bitcoin now is enough but I agree to you that there is always a room for improvements. We have already suffered those issues when it entered and it has a bad impact.

It's not a matter of 'there is room for improvements'. Bitcoin needs to scale, and better as soon as possible. It prevents Bitcoin from growing further as current situation leads to nothing but doubts and panic. SegWit isn't a perfect solution, but it's the best one so far, and should get activated as soon as possible. BU stands for a hostile takeover, which is exactly what we at all times must prevent. There is no place for hidden agendas.