[Daily Discussion] Monday, September 18, 2017

the valid tx was just for bitcoin and not for barrycoin as barrycoin does not exist and one can never know if it will exist beforehand.

Looks like you don't have interest in a serious discussion. So that's probably my last response to this thread.

We aren't taking action though and creating the split , thus the responsibility isn't upon us. If consensus isn't found than the default is status quo for HF , otherwise its a messy split.

I doesn't matter who is at fault here. There are two diverging viewpoints that are going to create a split and that split will be bad for the users and the ecosystem. And both of those viewpoints have a significant amount of support behind them.

Of course you can say: "There'll be no compromise on our side - the other side should fix this" but I'm pretty sure you'll know that in that case neither of the side will change their opinion and that the hardfork will happen.

So either deal with a messy HF that will hurt users and the ecosystem, or find a fucking compromise that works for both sides. As a user I don't think we need a block size increase right now, but further down the road such a size increase will be inevitable. Have Core to 1) commit to a clear roadmap towards future block sizes and 2) push a new client code now that will increase the block size in a year or so. That'll be enough time for the ecosystem to prepare for the HF and this will most likely prevent the 2X fork (as most rational players are going to accept that compromise).

I'm not happy about the short-term roadmap of 2X that's going to cause disruption as not everyone will be able to upgrade in time. But unfortunately that's the only scaling proposal that got traction. If we don't follow up on the 2X proposal we won't have another good chance to push a block size upgrade in the near-term future.

/r/BitcoinMarkets Thread Parent