RE: For Bitcoin Devs Inaction Might Be A Worse Option Than A Risky Decision
BItcoin's killer app to date is hellacious store of value. Doing nothing doesn't break that anytime soon. Worse case, Bitcoin becomes your savings account and Litecoin + Lightning, Decred, or whatnot becomes your personal wallet. Once into crypto, it is trivial to move some portion of your wealth into another blockchain.
I don't like the idea of hardforking to large blocks before we get efficiency and that's what SegWit offers--along with a long shopping list of other innovations.
IMO the illogical and emotional appeals of the big block camp with their buggy code that has slammed their nodes like three times already, the ASIC boost, the Bitcoin 'Killswitch' in the ASIC chips... all of this points to more than just self interest and butt hurt. I think the most logical and likely explanation is Chinese officials have given Jihan 'marching orders' to slowdown or break Bitcoin into smaller pieces that can be destroyed. Why Roger Ver doesn't see this suggests he's in very deep doo as well. Or maybe he just has a massively inflated overestimation of his own abilities? Remember he said Mt. Gox was OK. There is a LOT of money at stake for the community, and total disintermediation on the not-too-distant horizon for not dumb state actors. This is a friggin' war that has to be fought.
Eh, hardforking is absolutely not what you make it out to be. Segwit as a soft fork is much more dangerous than a hard fork. Segwit is also not an efficiency gain at all - it is actually the opposite. Sure it does make second layer solutions like lightning easier but it is not essential. On chain scaling is fine.
Say what you want about BU and their bugs. None of that pertains to emergent consensus - run a core node with an EC patch, run a Bitcoin Classic or XT.
Trust me because I say so is what I'm hearing.
Don't trust me, that is the last thing I want.
A SW transaction is larger than a non SW transaction- fact.
Soft fork dangers - ehh you could argue with me but I would take a look at this post first
SW is not essential for lighting - fact
Hate BU? Core nodes with EC patch works just fine. - fact
You don't have to take my word for it!
Ok I'm not arguing... if not SegWit, what malleability fix is out there?
Flexible Transactions
Segwit is much much more than a malleability fix; it has so much bloat because of the desire to deploy as a soft fork.
But it is optional.
Optional? In that it should be deployed as a hard fork? Or that we don't need segwit in the first place, because we don't.
It is worrisome, as if they bring Bitcoin down, the whole of crypto comes down!
that not true for say if bitcoins went down only then prices will fall down rapidly but if it goes down there will be group of people who take over hard fork it and boom ad segwit, prices will take more than 5 years to recover