bitcoin scaling war explained in simple terms

[Kakmakr]

Be aware of the fact that everyone involved in the hardfork is a direct enemy of bitcoin.

hard forks are not dangerous or enemies of bitcoin. as long as the hard fork actually uses the full symbiotic consensus to enable a hard fork.
segwit whether bip9 or any other bip has avoided a proper consensus.. yep even sgwit2x is avoiding true consensus.

softforks can cause a bilateral split just as much as a hard for can.

soft bypasses certain symbiotic vote/veto where as hard utilities full symbiotic relationship vote/veto.

the issues of splitting or not splitting is not soft or hard.. its simply consensus vs controversial. and whether the controverts either giving and join majority or go on a ban-hammer session of dis-communicating opposing nodes to keep their minority alive(can happen soft or hard)

its worth people actually running scenario's instead of script reading from reddit

What do you think will happen on August 1st, Core or Unlimited will win?

This should not be about who wins, but rather what code wins. The battle for dominance < brag rights > are fought for the wrong reasons and people should focus on the quality of the code that are being produced. We have already had a taste of the so-called BugCoin and this should be an indication of what we might expect in the future.

Let's the code dictate your choice in this matter. ^hmmmmmm^

[crazyivan]

People,

decentralization s just a myth which has never worked well in practice. Why? Cause there need to be a way of decision making. Look at Bitcoin core, which should be a decentralized solution, even devs who re part of Bitcoin core cannot propose a unilateral solution for the scaling. Not to mention they also have ulterior motives of staying in control.

IMO, it s much better to have a centralized solution which is stable and WORKS then so called decentralized which creates instability every 6 months. Why do you people think large mining pools would do anything to harm BTC? FFS, they make their money out of BTC, for them it s very important for crypto to grow in price and develop.

I do come from an ex socialist state and I ve seen benefits of strong leadership and those of western democracy. In both cases, there need to be a leader, someone who makes the final decision, top of the pyramid. The rule of the people has NEVER worked.

[franky1]

People,

decentralization s just a myth which has never worked well in practice. Why? Cause there need to be a way of decision making. Look at Bitcoin core, which should be a decentralized solution, even devs who re part of Bitcoin core cannot propose a unilateral solution for the scaling. Not to mention they also have ulterior motives of staying in control.

IMO, it s much better to have a centralized solution which is stable and WORKS then so called decentralized which creates instability every 6 months. Why do you people think large mining pools would do anything to harm BTC? FFS, they make their money out of BTC, for them it s very important for crypto to grow in price and develop.

I do come from an ex socialist state and I ve seen benefits of strong leadership and those of western democracy. In both cases, there need to be a leader, someone who makes the final decision, top of the pyramid. The rule of the people has NEVER worked.

a single leader doesnt work
because there are so many mouths shouting, that having 1 guy making the decision just resorts to bribery and corruption and no one being happy but the rich controllers.

what does work is consensus, ofcourse 95% cant work because 95% agreeing nearly never occurs. neither does 51% because its a too close number to a minority.

a safe number would be ~75% where by the remaining 25% just accept the loss with dignity, which is more of an acceptable loss than 49% losing or 51% winning

but just one guy deciding it, where that guy could bat for the minority team due to corruption is wrong.

we really need to actually start using real consensus. and stop with the whole crap of 'go soft to avoid consensus'..or  go controversially hard to also avoid consensus..

we have seen in the last 2 years core and friends of theirs, have avoided real hard consensus by any means they can. trying to sell hard consensus as bad, yet fake and lie to promote soft and hard controversy as the only routes..

its time people wake up and learn what the real bitcoin consensus is and how to utilise it properly for the benefit of everyone

[hv_]

Thanks for the link. Everyone with half a brain should recognize that the unwillingness to increase the blocksize is driven by ulterior motives and greed. A second layer is unnecessary and opposite to Satoshi's stated goal of decentralization.

... that might be also the major reason why 'wrong' posts are sometimes 'moderated' away in distinct forums and discussion platforms to keep such critics down as long as possible and facts are created with software that you cannot easy rollback later .

[Hydrogen]

The scaling war is miners attempt to seize control of the developer side of things.

Bitcoin unlimited/segwit are puppet groups for miners.

Best move is to support core and keep things decentralized, rather than support bu/segwit and give miners all the power in a centralized format.

Let's be honest guys. Bitcoin unlimited developers are incompetent but miners supported them anyway.

Miners don't care which incompetent developers they support, bu or segwit it makes no difference.

Bu & segwit developers are willing to bend over backwards and be a whore for miners, that's the only reason miners support them over core devs.

[1Money]

http://www.segwit.co/#

It does not look as if SegWit is anywhere near the required support.

[xbiv2]

Have all answers about Aug 1.
Easy topic:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2007635.msg19988238#msg19988238
Complex topic:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2018878.msg20119234#msg20119234