BTC how to change the current stalemate?

[1ANHEQIAO]

Should see, as long as BU and SW, both sides can't activate, for a total of 100% to calculate force, side occupied more than 25%, the other party can not be occupied by more than 75%, and now is not the two aspects of competition, but at least four aspects: the SW, BU, 8 m and 1 m (no change)

This is a wooden bridge. Everyone wants to go across the bridge and then nobody can cross the bridge
Advice first put SW. "reason；

1. The voice of The many negative SW believes that after The SW blocks will be limited to 1 m. This is nonsense. After SW if need hard branch expansion, as long as The work force can support The or hard The split ends. The SW can never limit block size.

2. After the SW, if the Core doesn 't support hard branch expansion, can get the team to push hard branch expansion, that is because SW has had been activated, and can no longer and hard bifurcate competition force. The hard the fork is the only option. Not like now stalemate.

3. If the let other schemes, to as by BU, equivalent to a class from the Core rob power, inevitable chaos. The BU team development ability is limited, and certainly not on the basis of the BU to implement SW function. In addition, In addition to the miners, COINS ecosystem is still recognized by most of the Core. So let SW through can your a smooth transition to the greatest among, the to get confusion.

4. For the miners, loose block is not beneficial. Loose block size reduces the transaction fee, on the contrary, if for no plugging condition, transaction fee is quite high. Miners so you do not know from what point of view support block loose. Route according to the Core, to implement SW, then step by step if there is a need to think of some way to hard branch expansion, should be the best use of the block, and to ensure the transaction fee won't be too low, it is more advantageous for miners should be.
Please friendly, release your comment

[1715177396]

1715177396

[1715177396]

1715177396

[1715177396]

1715177396

[1715177396]

1715177396

[1715177396]

1715177396

[1715177396]

1715177396

[1ANHEQIAO]

No one have a view

[Amph]

you can't force anyone to decide, just leave the case alone will solve itself eventually, miners currently have no real reason to have a better adoption for bitcoin because their profit is more than enough

that's why they don't care about the block limit and pretend that everything it's fine, and you can see that the majority are undecided as well, a better adoption i the future willforce a decision on the block debate....

[LittleBitFunny]

you can't force anyone to decide

Irrelevant, we can discuss it and help convince them to decide.

Part of the problem with SegWit is that they expect too much support to actually go through with it.  BU recognises that a hard fork is possible when slightly over a majority, just not preferable, whereas SegWit suggests needing very high levels of support (such as 95%), which just won't be reached.

[Xester]

Should see, as long as BU and SW, both sides can't activate, for a total of 100% to calculate force, side occupied more than 25%, the other party can not be occupied by more than 75%, and now is not the two aspects of competition, but at least four aspects: the SW, BU, 8 m and 1 m (no change)

This is a wooden bridge. Everyone wants to go across the bridge and then nobody can cross the bridge
Advice first put SW. "reason；

1. The voice of The many negative SW believes that after The SW blocks will be limited to 1 m. This is nonsense. After SW if need hard branch expansion, as long as The work force can support The or hard The split ends. The SW can never limit block size.

2. After the SW, if the Core doesn 't support hard branch expansion, can get the team to push hard branch expansion, that is because SW has had been activated, and can no longer and hard bifurcate competition force. The hard the fork is the only option. Not like now stalemate.

3. If the let other schemes, to as by BU, equivalent to a class from the Core rob power, inevitable chaos. The BU team development ability is limited, and certainly not on the basis of the BU to implement SW function. In addition, In addition to the miners, COINS ecosystem is still recognized by most of the Core. So let SW through can your a smooth transition to the greatest among, the to get confusion.

4. For the miners, loose block is not beneficial. Loose block size reduces the transaction fee, on the contrary, if for no plugging condition, transaction fee is quite high. Miners so you do not know from what point of view support block loose. Route according to the Core, to implement SW, then step by step if there is a need to think of some way to hard branch expansion, should be the best use of the block, and to ensure the transaction fee won't be too low, it is more advantageous for miners should be.
Please friendly, release your comment

You have a very long explanation but for me there are no stalemate and  the bitcoin core together with Segwit has already won the battle. If you monitor the statement coming from the exchanges they say that they will treat BTU as an alt and in certain countries like the Philippines the existing exchange has already declared that they will only accept bitcoins version from the core which means they will accept segwit and not BTU.

[paul gatt]

I think BTC should keep the current technology, it should only be upgraded and without any changes, upgrading technology is what we need. BTC needs a stronger technology to address current problems, but that does not mean it has to change its core. It is the only virtual currency recognized by the world, which is the core of every currency, so it should retain its identity. I support bitcoin core

[Senor.Bla]

Should see, as long as BU and SW, both sides can't activate, for a total of 100% to calculate force, side occupied more than 25%, the other party can not be occupied by more than 75%, and now is not the two aspects of competition, but at least four aspects: the SW, BU, 8 m and 1 m (no change)

This is a wooden bridge. Everyone wants to go across the bridge and then nobody can cross the bridge
Advice first put SW. "reason；

1. The voice of The many negative SW believes that after The SW blocks will be limited to 1 m. This is nonsense. After SW if need hard branch expansion, as long as The work force can support The or hard The split ends. The SW can never limit block size.

2. After the SW, if the Core doesn 't support hard branch expansion, can get the team to push hard branch expansion, that is because SW has had been activated, and can no longer and hard bifurcate competition force. The hard the fork is the only option. Not like now stalemate.

3. If the let other schemes, to as by BU, equivalent to a class from the Core rob power, inevitable chaos. The BU team development ability is limited, and certainly not on the basis of the BU to implement SW function. In addition, In addition to the miners, COINS ecosystem is still recognized by most of the Core. So let SW through can your a smooth transition to the greatest among, the to get confusion.

4. For the miners, loose block is not beneficial. Loose block size reduces the transaction fee, on the contrary, if for no plugging condition, transaction fee is quite high. Miners so you do not know from what point of view support block loose. Route according to the Core, to implement SW, then step by step if there is a need to think of some way to hard branch expansion, should be the best use of the block, and to ensure the transaction fee won't be too low, it is more advantageous for miners should be.
Please friendly, release your comment

You have a very long explanation but for me there are no stalemate and  the bitcoin core together with Segwit has already won the battle. If you monitor the statement coming from the exchanges they say that they will treat BTU as an alt and in certain countries like the Philippines the existing exchange has already declared that they will only accept bitcoins version from the core which means they will accept segwit and not BTU.

The last 3-4 months there has bot been a significant adoption of SegWit, so the battle is surly not won and you can call it a stalemate.
In Bitcoin we allways use the argument that even if a few countries would forbid Bitcoin it would not matter and the people would still use it. So now using the argument that some countries will not accept BU seems like a weak argument.
Why would i care what exchanges say. They make the most money with a hard fork and two coins. They will do what brings them more money not what is best for Bitcoin. I guarantee you that if we have a split and BU wins while Core will be left with just some small percentage, then the exchanges will change their mind very quickly.
But lets hope it will not come to this. Also there is nowhere said it is a either or question. We could have both SegWit and BU.

[Qartada]

Should see, as long as BU and SW, both sides can't activate, for a total of 100% to calculate force, side occupied more than 25%, the other party can not be occupied by more than 75%, and now is not the two aspects of competition, but at least four aspects: the SW, BU, 8 m and 1 m (no change)

This is a wooden bridge. Everyone wants to go across the bridge and then nobody can cross the bridge
Advice first put SW. "reason；

1. The voice of The many negative SW believes that after The SW blocks will be limited to 1 m. This is nonsense. After SW if need hard branch expansion, as long as The work force can support The or hard The split ends. The SW can never limit block size.

2. After the SW, if the Core doesn 't support hard branch expansion, can get the team to push hard branch expansion, that is because SW has had been activated, and can no longer and hard bifurcate competition force. The hard the fork is the only option. Not like now stalemate.

3. If the let other schemes, to as by BU, equivalent to a class from the Core rob power, inevitable chaos. The BU team development ability is limited, and certainly not on the basis of the BU to implement SW function. In addition, In addition to the miners, COINS ecosystem is still recognized by most of the Core. So let SW through can your a smooth transition to the greatest among, the to get confusion.

4. For the miners, loose block is not beneficial. Loose block size reduces the transaction fee, on the contrary, if for no plugging condition, transaction fee is quite high. Miners so you do not know from what point of view support block loose. Route according to the Core, to implement SW, then step by step if there is a need to think of some way to hard branch expansion, should be the best use of the block, and to ensure the transaction fee won't be too low, it is more advantageous for miners should be.
Please friendly, release your comment

You have a very long explanation but for me there are no stalemate and  the bitcoin core together with Segwit has already won the battle. If you monitor the statement coming from the exchanges they say that they will treat BTU as an alt and in certain countries like the Philippines the existing exchange has already declared that they will only accept bitcoins version from the core which means they will accept segwit and not BTU.

That doesn't mean that they've won the battle, it just means that some major Bitcoin exchanges believe that BTU (as a new coin) should be listed as an alt.  BTU still unfortunately has more hash power than SegWit, but clearly due to the stubbornness of both sides there is a stalemate and neither will go much further.

[Velkro]

you can't force anyone to decide, just leave the case alone will solve itself eventually

Agree, u are writing some ur theories but this is more accurate.
It will solve eventually so don't worry and keep investing.