The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support.

[dinofelis]

A chain split would mean a severe usability reduction. Every user that uses a certain number of Bitcoin services (e.g. exchanges, merchant sites, remittance services) is deprived from using a part of them in the case of a chain split if he doesn't want to use both chains.

I don't see why.  After all, a chain split doesn't "halve" the users or the coins: the old chain remains exactly as it was, with all the holdings etc... and all its functionality, and all its users.  Of course, if the old chain loses traction, then of course, it will lose out to the new chain - but I don't see the difference with an alt coin.

The difference is that the altcoin is visible from the start as a clearly separated ecosystem, while in the case of an chainsplit that is not so clear. In every chain split there will be services that were available to the users of the existing chain that limit themselves to only one chain (because of ideology or practical considerations). So it's most probable you, as an user, couldn't use all the services you were used to after the split, because otherwise you would have to use both chains.

I don't understand that argument.  After all, the original chain is still functioning.  How would services "disappear" from the original chain ?  You can entirely pretend, as a holder of the original token, that the new fork doesn't exist - apart from the fact that there's now more competition in the market of course.  But in what way would a service that was working on the original chain, cease to exist because someone is making a new chain somewhere ?  Of course, it could be that the service provider makes up his mind to CHANGE his service and not offer it any more to the original chain - but that's an active decision on his part.  He could make the same decision without the fork: giving up on the service all together, moving his service to litecoin, or to ethereum or whatever.  That's healthy competition in the market, but it requires an active decision on the part of the service provider to give up on the service on the original chain. 

In addition, there is the value/price problem. Money is useful because it's an unit of account. Even now without chain split Bitcoin is volatile, but at least for short-term operations it is usable. What would you do as an user if the chain splits and you have to care about the value you posess? You would have to sell your holdings on the chain you don't want to use anymore (e.g. because of there are no services that support it) on an exchange. Even if the prices of Chain A + Chain B reach the price of the old chain, it's a major usability hassle to have to worry about that.

That is exactly one of the problems of "collectibles" which aren't collectibles, because, exactly, they can be copied over.  If a chain had a value-regulation system, then after the storm is over, the value would go back to whatever it was supposed to be regulated to.

As I pointed out in my answer to coincube, the forking business hasn't really taken off yet, but is a phenomenon to be expected in crypto space.  After all, it is way easier to give yourself an existing ecosystem than wanting to build one from scratch.  There's no reason why in the long term, cryptos will not split regularly.

[CoinCube]

A transparent, hierarchical future is shear horror.  My only interest in crypto was to have a growing, anonymous, underground economy that can bribe the transparent economy and politics to death without ever revealing anything about its inner workings.  This would then be the way in which the machines could take over society without any of us ever knowing how it could happen.
If you can have a large underground anonymous economy, that can buy homicide, that can buy all deciders (economical, political, judges, military...) etc... to make them part of a system they are not aware off, you can finally make a real "deep state" nobody knows about, which could in the end be a network of machines without any human in control, to subjugate humanity and make unknown machines the new dominant species on earth.  That's what I saw as the future of crypto.

@dinofelis we have fundamentally divergent views.

I am fairly certain that if we delved into it we would find we disagree on pretty much everything from the nature of money to the value of transparency and even the nature of decentralization itself.

Given your stated positions above it seems logical for you to desire bitcoin to fracture and fail in its present state and be replaced by some hardfork both to destroy the value of current implementation and to clear the way for a totally opaque system enabling anonymous funding of the "deep state". My vision of the future is entirely different and I have laid it out in the CoinCube highlights below. I do not want to drag this thread off topic with a philosophical debate.

I think I now understand your position. Thanks for sharing.

[dinofelis]

@dinofelis we have fundamentally divergent views.

I am fairly certain that if we delved into it we would find we disagree on pretty much everything from the nature of money to the value of transparency and even the nature of decentralization itself.

Most probably true.  However, one needs to distinguish personal preferences, and probable system outcomes.  One's idea of what are the probable system outcomes should be as independent as possible as one's desires of what those outcomes ideally should be.  So even if we diverge on our *desires*, we might agree on what most probably will happen, because that is independent of our desires (assuming that both of us have zero power to influence the outcome, which I take is true).

I think, whether a desired outcome or not, we can foresee that:
- bitcoin will be a hierarchical power system where an oligarchy of deciders will decide upon the rules in their advantage (usual human systems) ; or will remain sufficiently decentralized to keep with the original protocol (immutability will hold).
- in the long run, it will be unavoidable that many forks of bitcoin will arise ; what is less clear is how many of them will be a market success ; unless bitcoin's demise is earlier than we think and nobody is interested any more in forking it.

Given your stated positions above it seems logical for you to desire bitcoin to fracture and fail in its present state and be replaced by some hardfork both to destroy the value of current implementation and to allow a totally non-transparent system to arise enabling anonymous funding of the "deep state". My vision of the future is entirely different and I have laid it out in the CoinCube highlights below. I do not want to drag this thread off topic with a philosophical debate.

I now understand your position. Thanks for sharing.

I'm not even "desiring" that, but I'm fundamentally convinced that at a certain point, machines will overtake humans: it seems like the natural evolution of things.   My idea was that crypto could play a role in that, because the difficulty has always been: how could we LET them take over ; but if we are not aware of it, then that's an explanation of course.

But yes, I would have liked to have a freedom currency (even if it were ultimately used to the demise of humanity which is in any case unavoidable at a certain point), what bitcoin *pretended* to be, and of which I'm now convinced that not only it will never be that, but it will even be a huge obstacle for a freedom currency to arise.   However, apart from that, bitcoin *is* a dynamical system that will do SOMETHING (but that's not "become a freedom currency"), and it is interesting to observe the dynamics of how it is acting, independent of any "desire".

[cellard]

post

How is bitcoin not a good store of value?

If bitcoin was supposed to be a regular currency, there wouldn't be a limited supply, but an infinite inflation of like 2% or something, it wouldn't have halvings every 4 year but every 10+ years, it wouldn't be so hard to change.

Hardforks a non issue because you don't lose your money and there will always be a loser chain and the winner chain continues appreciating in value.

BTC has only gone up long term, has never been hacked, you can carry it around and cross any borders.

There's no better store of value in 2017.

[CoinCube]

But yes, I would have liked to have a freedom currency (even if it were ultimately used to the demise of humanity which is in any case unavoidable at a certain point), what bitcoin *pretended* to be, and of which I'm now convinced that not only it will never be that, but it will even be a huge obstacle for a freedom currency to arise.   However, apart from that, bitcoin *is* a dynamical system that will do SOMETHING (but that's not "become a freedom currency"), and it is interesting to observe the dynamics of how it is acting, independent of any "desire".

dinofelis I appreciate your candor in admitting that you wish bitcoin to fail in its current implementation as you feel it is an obstacle to to "freedom". Some of us do not share your enthusiasm for bitcoins downfall.

I have found that people often put insufficient thought into what freedom actually entails and what is necessary in the long run to sustain it.
Below are two posts that highlight my thoughts both on freedom and on your thesis of machines overtaking humans.

The Nature of Freedom
Faith and Future

My position is that bitcoin is a freedom currency.

That said I will now cease taking this thread off on tangents, however interesting, and allow it to return to its original and important topic.

[JessicaG]

Imagine that, the CEO of a billion dollar hardware company has better things to do than personally read through the trivial software change proposals of one random protocol client; who'da thunk it.  

You could also imagine where and how he'd become the CEO of a billion dollar hardware company, by not reading anything or caring for end users I assume. it was so random that I suspect they draw a number from random.org.

Did I mention that Bitcoin is a protocol?

wrong and true! yes Bitcoin is a protocol but the documentation of the protocol was/is incomplete and was completely missing at the beginning. Nakamoto chose to build a reference implementation of the protocol. And Core is the maintainer self proclaimed maintainer of this reference implementation.

I like this article; not literally and with everything in it, but it has a point: BIP148 is a fork. And it's a minority fork. And, a fork done wrong.

The protocol needs onward movement. Yet it's stuck on doing so. Boiling point is coming closer; and many sides don't play nice...

Still an interesting time to see where this all heads. But I also find it a bit creepy, this uncertainty. Instead of expanding my mining capabilities on the Bitcoin, I'm now expanding them on the Litecoin until the dust/uncertainty settles. Following with interest 

[CoinCube]

Here is an interesting talk by Simon Dixon on the BitcoinMeister youtube channel. He does a good job of highlighting what is most important in this scaling debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNGzhWODF2s&t=3761

[Wind_FURY]

Here is an interesting talk by Simon Dixon on the BitcoinMeister youtube channel. He does a good job of highlighting what is most important in this scaling debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNGzhWODF2s&t=3761

I called it! Simon Dixon said "If Segwit was not pitched as a scaling solution, we would have had it ages ago."

The question now is why did Core pitch it as a scaling solution?

[ComputerGenie]

I called it! Simon Dixon said "If Segwit was not pitched as a scaling solution, we would have had it ages ago."

The question now is why did Core pitch it as a scaling solution?

Most likely because Core devs believed the opposite to be true: if they didn't pitch it as a scaling solution, no one would give a shit or want to bother with it.

[d5000]

The difference is that the altcoin is visible from the start as a clearly separated ecosystem, while in the case of an chainsplit that is not so clear. In every chain split there will be services that were available to the users of the existing chain that limit themselves to only one chain (because of ideology or practical considerations).

I don't understand that argument.  After all, the original chain is still functioning.

I think here lies our misunderstanding - in my chain split scenario (the most likely if BIP148 would compete with "Barrycoin") there would be no agreement which one is the original chain. Both the BIP148 client and the "Barrycoin" client have code in it that will eventually become incompatible to unupgraded non-Segwit clients.

How would services "disappear" from the original chain ?  [...]  Of course, it could be that the service provider makes up his mind to CHANGE his service and not offer it any more to the original chain - but that's an active decision on his part.

If there is no agreement which chain is the "original" one, and there is a new client A (for chain A) and a new client B (for Chain B),  then there will be services that will upgrade to client A and others to client B. It is an active decision in both cases, but it's not too different from a regular upgrade of the client. It isn't important if one of the chains is "hard-forking" or only "soft-forking", both are forking.

That is exactly one of the problems of "collectibles" which aren't collectibles, because, exactly, they can be copied over.  If a chain had a value-regulation system, then after the storm is over, the value would go back to whatever it was supposed to be regulated to.

My fear is that a "regularly splitting" Bitcoin will become usable only for people with a technically advanced understanding of the ecosystem. Now, with all the volatility, Bitcoin is still usable as a saving/speculation vehicle for common people (a sort of "poor man's stock"). The user has to follow one price feed and can take decisions based on it. Having to follow two feeds is already far too complex for most people.

Also in non-speculative use cases like remittances, then in a "regularly forking" scenario both parties must pay attention to the danger of a chain split all the time. That would mean, de facto, that it couldn't be used for this purpose in an independent/decentralized way by common people but only by specialized companies that hide the hassle for you. That is also a centralization risk.

[dinofelis]

post

How is bitcoin not a good store of value?

Well, it depends what you call a store of value, but no, bitcoin was NOT originally meant to be (at least officially) to be a store of value (like rare paintings), but a means of payment, something that fluidizes economic interaction, a currency.  A currency's most important property is that it has a kind of reliable value, and is not a speculative asset: you are not taking risks you didn't want to take when you fluidize economic interaction.

Now, if you also see a store of value as something which keeps its value in the long term, the idea is more or less the same: that what you put in as value, is also more or less what you will get out.  In the long term, stability is even less easy to obtain than in the short term, but that's nevertheless what you want: something that has an almost *guaranteed* way of getting out later what you put in.  

In as much as you would like to see a *rise*, you accept volatility and hence also a *fall*, which makes it deviate from a store of value, and turns it into a more risky speculative asset ; but in the long term, some volatility is almost always unavoidable.  However, as with a currency, the less volatility, the better, also for a store of value.

A few classical examples of stores of value are gold, real estate and broad index values on the stock market.    Something that goes up by a factor of 10 or goes down by a factor of 6 in a few years time, I wouldn't call that a reliable store of value.   However, it is a fantastic speculative asset.  And yes, it may become, maybe, a long term store of value like rare paintings.   Or not.  Nobody knows.  But as of now, you can hardly call it a reliable store of value, and even less a reliable currency.  But it is a fantastic speculative asset with rarely seen volatility - which is exactly what makes it a bad currency or store of value.

If bitcoin was supposed to be a regular currency, there wouldn't be a limited supply, but an infinite inflation of like 2% or something, it wouldn't have halvings every 4 year but every 10+ years, it wouldn't be so hard to change.

Indeed.  You mentioned exactly what makes bitcoin impossible as a currency.  In bitcoin and in most crypto, one regulates the debasement, and one doesn't regulate the value.   If the difficulty of bitcoin were following a fixed, slightly rising curve to offset technological improvement and induce SLIGHT (and controlled) deflation, then it would stabilize its value.  But bitcoin has an inelastic offer, which makes it highly volatile.

Hardforks a non issue because you don't lose your money and there will always be a loser chain and the winner chain continues appreciating in value.

This is indeed why I think they are a good idea, but I also think they are logically unavoidable.  Why WOULDN'T someone make a hard fork if he has an idea, and let the market decide, instead of wanting consensus ?  As you say, it doesn't cost much of an effort to propose a fork.  If it can be done, I don't see how one can expect it never to be done.

BTC has only gone up long term, has never been hacked, you can carry it around and cross any borders.

Yes, but every pyramid game only goes up until it goes down.  I think that most people buy bitcoin because they expect a rise.  That's the definition of a greater fool game, that lasts as long as there are greater fools.  But on a finite earth, the number of greater fools is limited, so what will happen when the last greater fool has bought the most expensive bitcoin and is expecting a rise which will not come ?  It is economically impossible to have assets that outperform spectacularly the stock market for a long time in a systematic way.   These crazy expectations wouldn't be there if one knew that bitcoin's value were capped and stabilized, and its use would indeed only be "currency" and eventually, though still riskier "store of value", because one would have taken out the irrational speculation.

[dinofelis]

The difference is that the altcoin is visible from the start as a clearly separated ecosystem, while in the case of an chainsplit that is not so clear. In every chain split there will be services that were available to the users of the existing chain that limit themselves to only one chain (because of ideology or practical considerations).

I don't understand that argument.  After all, the original chain is still functioning.

I think here lies our misunderstanding - in my chain split scenario (the most likely if BIP148 would compete with "Barrycoin") there would be no agreement which one is the original chain. Both the BIP148 client and the "Barrycoin" client have code in it that will eventually become incompatible to unupgraded non-Segwit clients.

Well, that's a triple split then !  There is still the unmodified chain, with the protocol of today.  I was thinking of the more classical scenario when there's the original chain going on without any modification, and a new chain, which forks off with a new protocol.  Then it is pretty clear that the original chain is, well, the original one.  In the ethereum split, ETC is the original chain.  (the battle for the NAME is an entirely different issue)

Of course, if, at the moment of split, the original chain simply stops, and two NEW chains emerge, both with a different protocol from the original one, yes, then of course you get a confusion.  But that can only happen if the system is *entirely* centralized, where almost all entities in the system have colluded into one camp or another one.

I was thinking of the more "decentralized" approach when there are no "agreements in meeting rooms" at any point, but that suddenly, an entity proposes a fork as individual initiative, the rest of the system not even knowing about this plan until it is announced.   Then of course, the "rest of the system" cannot collude to make a different protocol modification exactly on the same date !

How would services "disappear" from the original chain ?  [...]  Of course, it could be that the service provider makes up his mind to CHANGE his service and not offer it any more to the original chain - but that's an active decision on his part.

If there is no agreement which chain is the "original" one, and there is a new client A (for chain A) and a new client B (for Chain B),  then there will be services that will upgrade to client A and others to client B. It is an active decision in both cases, but it's not too different from a regular upgrade of the client. It isn't important if one of the chains is "hard-forking" or only "soft-forking", both are forking.

OK, in the "double split" I agree with you.  My hypothesis was that the original chain wasn't even aware of the fork until it happened of course.

My fear is that a "regularly splitting" Bitcoin will become usable only for people with a technically advanced understanding of the ecosystem. Now, with all the volatility, Bitcoin is still usable as a saving/speculation vehicle for common people (a sort of "poor man's stock"). The user has to follow one price feed and can take decisions based on it. Having to follow two feeds is already far too complex for most people.

It wouldn't be any different than coinmarketcap.  A fork is just a new crypto currency, with the funny property that if you were holding coins on the original chain, you also happen to hold coins on the new one, coins which you may care about, or not.  You just get a holding on a new chain if you care to download the wallet.  You might just as well not. 
This is no different than if one would tell you that you can download, say, a litecoin wallet, and if you put your bitcoin keyfile in there, you also happen to be the proud (or not proud) owner of a certain stash of litecoin.
If you want to stick to your original coins, and not care about your holdings on a new chain, well, that's OK too.

Also in non-speculative use cases like remittances, then in a "regularly forking" scenario both parties must pay attention to the danger of a chain split all the time. That would mean, de facto, that it couldn't be used for this purpose in an independent/decentralized way by common people but only by specialized companies that hide the hassle for you. That is also a centralization risk.

I don't see what it changes.  If tomorrow, I decide to launch, say, a fork of litecoin, without even most litecoin users knowing, what would that even matter ?  Ok, if most users of litecoin LIKE my fork and dump their old litecoin for the one on my chain, then litecoin's market cap will fall severely and mine will rise.  But hey, if those same litecoin users suddenly like bitcoin, and sell all their litecoin to buy bitcoin, the same would happen.  So for the ignorant litecoin user that doesn't know of my fork, I don't see what changes.  He doesn't even need to know about my fork (ok, he will have coins he will ignore, too bad).  Yes, there's a volatility risk, but that always exists.

[Argon2]

There will be no chain split, instead it will remain binary. 

[d5000]

I was thinking of the more classical scenario when there's the original chain going on without any modification, and a new chain, which forks off with a new protocol.  Then it is pretty clear that the original chain is, well, the original one.  

Yes, here I agree - and in this case I think you would be right with your assumption that at least a very large part of the services would stay available to the users of the "original" chain.

Of course, if, at the moment of split, the original chain simply stops, and two NEW chains emerge, both with a different protocol from the original one, yes, then of course you get a confusion.  But that can only happen if the system is *entirely* centralized, where almost all entities in the system have colluded into one camp or another one.

I think I have overcomplicated things with the UASF/"Barrycoin" scenario. But my scenario with "splitting services" would also be adaptable to a classic scenario with one hard-forking party where the hard-forking chain has the backing of large parts of "the economy". Think of the UASF. I could imagine a scenario where their supporters could get more than 50% of the economy and a substantial portion of the miners to support a chain that eventually becomes incompatible with the "old chain".

The old chain would become then the minority chain. In a case of a 60%/40% split it would continue to be usable, though - but several services would cease to exist for the old chain because they support the changes the upgrade introduces (e.g. Segwit). Some could offer their services for both chains, but I think that would be a minority.

I was thinking of the more "decentralized" approach when there are no "agreements in meeting rooms" at any point, but that suddenly, an entity proposes a fork as individual initiative, the rest of the system not even knowing about this plan until it is announced.

I think a smart "forking group" would announce their plans well in advance to try to get adoption by the economy and miners. BU made this exactly and failed, but another group may have better luck (see Ethereum).

It wouldn't be any different than coinmarketcap.  A fork is just a new crypto currency, with the funny property that if you were holding coins on the original chain, you also happen to hold coins on the new one, coins which you may care about, or not.  You just get a holding on a new chain if you care to download the wallet.  You might just as well not.  
This is no different than if one would tell you that you can download, say, a litecoin wallet,

That would only be true in your case where a fork is a minority option not announced well in advance and without substantial community support. Cryptocurrencies are social communities where some kind of "valuable token" is accepted. If the community splits in two parts that are roughly equally important (50/50 to 70/30, for example) then you do have the confusion which chain is the "original one" or the "most supported one". And then you would have all the usability hassles I'm talking about.

[Wind_FURY]

I called it! Simon Dixon said "If Segwit was not pitched as a scaling solution, we would have had it ages ago."

The question now is why did Core pitch it as a scaling solution?

Most likely because Core devs believed the opposite to be true: if they didn't pitch it as a scaling solution, no one would give a shit or want to bother with it.

Probably. But seeing what has happened now, the right move was to treat it like a regular "upgrade" and leave the scaling debate after the soft fork. If Segwit were activated, I believe the debate today would be if we are scaling off chain or on chain. A little of both would be good if you ask me.

[Paashaas]

Segwit is the best possible update Bitcoin can have, followed later by a hf. After that sidechains, that will make Bitcoin mainstream.

[Paashaas]

Here is an interesting talk by Simon Dixon on the BitcoinMeister youtube channel. He does a good job of highlighting what is most important in this scaling debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNGzhWODF2s&t=3761

I called it! Simon Dixon said "If Segwit was not pitched as a scaling solution, we would have had it ages ago."

The question now is why did Core pitch it as a scaling solution?

in the same sentance he repeats twice "we NEED segwit"
1. spammers wont use segwit keypairs so.. spammers always gonna spam
2. segwit does not disarm legacy transactions it just disarms volunteers who were innocent of spamming from spamming when they opt to use new keypairs
3. LN doesnt NEED segwit.
4. it suppose to remove the malle issue to remove the tx bait/switch double spend. but core introduced RBF and CPFP which brings back the tx bait/switch double spend issue

so be honest those screaming "we need segwit". explain why.. lol.. explain the real fixes that are guaranteed by having segwit

Still spamming for ''key-pairs'' FuD...i told you there is nothing wrong with it.

[dinofelis]

It wouldn't be any different than coinmarketcap.  A fork is just a new crypto currency, with the funny property that if you were holding coins on the original chain, you also happen to hold coins on the new one, coins which you may care about, or not.  You just get a holding on a new chain if you care to download the wallet.  You might just as well not.  
This is no different than if one would tell you that you can download, say, a litecoin wallet,

That would only be true in your case where a fork is a minority option not announced well in advance and without substantial community support. Cryptocurrencies are social communities where some kind of "valuable token" is accepted. If the community splits in two parts that are roughly equally important (50/50 to 70/30, for example) then you do have the confusion which chain is the "original one" or the "most supported one". And then you would have all the usability hassles I'm talking about.

Well, I fail to see the difference between the "community" largely opting for a forked coin, or largely opting for another crypto.

The only way in which a "forked" coin becomes the original one, if it is a non-contentious fork, that is, 95% or more of the "community" switches to the new one, and the old chain simply stops.   It is indeed somewhat silly to claim that the old, non-existing coin is now the original one, and the new coin is a new crypto currency, no, one MODIFIED the original coin (my idea is that such thing is almost by definition impossible in a truly decentralized system where no collusion occurs between entities).

But apart from "we all agree to modify something and we won't continue to do it the way we did it until now", bringing out a modified version of a coin NEXT TO the original coin or bringing out an entirely NEW COIN, or having people that were using the old coin SWITCH TO ANOTHER (existing) coin are very similar acts.

I fail to see the difference in principle between:

A) I create a totally new alt coin, "bitcoinNew" (with a new genesis block), and most of the people holding bitcoin fall in love with it, and sell their bitcoins to buy bitcoinNew ; but a minority continues to use bitcoin

B) I fork off a totally new alt coin, "bitcoinFork", (which forks off from block 500 000 onward, and, say, has a different PoW scheme), and most people holding bitcoin and hence also bitcoinFork, sell their bitcoin to buy more bitcoinFork, but a minority still continues to use bitcoin

C) I don't do anything, but most people holding bitcoin sell their bitcoin to buy, say, Litecoin, but a minority still continues to use bitcoin.

What does that do to the original bitcoin, except suffer competition ?


EDIT: BTW, I think that in a decentralized system, one cannot talk (by definition) of a "community" because we are supposed to have an eco system of non-colluding entities, contrary to most open source software, for instance, where "community", "cooperation" and "leadership" have a meaning.  The whole idea of a decentralized system is to have antagonist entities that cannot collude over any change, because any change is in the advantage of some and the disadvantage of others, given that it is a system with on-purpose scarcity and competition.  You cannot have a "community" in a competitive free market either ; every form of significant collusion is called a cartel.

[Lauda]

Still spamming for ''key-pairs'' FuD...i told you there is nothing wrong with it.

It's FUD that I've debunked long ago. If miners want capacity, miners prioritize: native -> Segwit and Segwit -> Segwit transaction. Simple solution to the non-existing problem created by Franky1.

Segwit is the best possible update Bitcoin can have, followed later by a hf. After that sidechains, that will make Bitcoin mainstream.

Correct. As it currently stands, we do have sidechains but they are either *private* or federated/permissioned. Bitcoin needs Segwit and some new OP codes for decentralized sidechains (not that I see anything wrong with the current model if only used by companies).
Can we agree that the non-compatible Segwit deployment from this proposal is a bad joke at best?

[ComputerGenie]

... I think that in a decentralized system, one cannot talk (by definition) of a "community" because we are supposed to have an eco system of non-colluding entities, contrary to most open source software, for instance, where "community", "cooperation" and "leadership" have a meaning.  The whole idea of a decentralized system is to have antagonist entities that cannot collude over any change, because any change is in the advantage of some and the disadvantage of others, given that it is a system with on-purpose scarcity and competition.  You cannot have a "community" in a competitive free market either ; every form of significant collusion is called a cartel.

The central definition of "community" is like-mindedness. The fact that competitors are opposing forces doesn't negate that they have certain like-minded goals, aspirations, and views. While the ecosystem may involve you vs me, we share the same interest that we want Bitcoin to be a success. To that end, we do what we must to do what we want. Not all compromise is collusion (which by definition involves secretiveness and/or deceit).
Even when our goals, aspirations, and views are not like-minded, we are in the community of those who wish to use Bitcoin, see Bitcoin succeed, and/or wish to make Bitcoin better to further either the former or the latter.