On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Regarding the timeline, its certainly rather short, but also is the UASF BIP > 148 ultimatum.
This is correct. If you are trying to imply that makes the short timeline here right, you are falling for a "tu quoque" fallacy. > More than 80% of the miners and many users are willing to go in the Segwit2x > direction. There's no logical reason I can think of (and I've heard many attempts at explaining it) for miners to consider segwit bad for Bitcoin but segwitx2 harmless. But I don't see 80% hashrate support for bip141, so your claim doesn't seem accurate for the segwit part, let alone the more controversial hardfork part. I read some people controlling mining pools that control 80% of the hashrate signed a paper saying they would "support segwit immediately". Either what I read wasn't true, or the signed paper is just a proof of the signing pool operators word being something we cannot trust. So where does this 80% figure come from? How can we trust the source? > I want a Bitcoin united. But maybe a split of Bitcoin, each side with its > own vision, is not so bad. It would be unfortunate to split the network into 2 coins only because of lack of patience for deploying non-urgent consensus changes like a size increase or disagreements about the right time schedule. I think anything less than 1 year after release of tested code by some implementation would be irresponsible for any hardfork, even a very simple one. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
