Gonna explain this again, since I guess you need a memory refresh:
1/ CEOs of major wallets were freaking out on high fees, said users were upset, couple threatened a malicious hard fork BEFORE 2x because THINGS WERE THAT URGENT. Claimed Core was holding them back, blah, blah
1/ CEOs of major wallets were freaking out on high fees, said users were upset, couple threatened a malicious hard fork BEFORE 2x because THINGS WERE THAT URGENT. Claimed Core was holding them back, blah, blah
2/ Meanwhile SegWit was developed & tested for 2 yrs as a backwards-compatible way to enact a block size incr, fix malleability, make hardware wallets function better, more security for P2SH, improved script versioning, reduced UTXO growth, etc. B/c Core devs actually INNOVATE.
3/ Being backwards compatible/opt-in also seriously curtailed potential collateral damage that could be caused from a hard fork not being adopted by 100% of the user base. Besides, hard forks in the past never garnered consensus. And Core devs wanted a safer route for users.
4/ 2x came along, SegWit went live. UASF is not relevant at this point, no matter how sore you want to be about it. It was grass roots, it took hold, it succeeded. SegWit is live on the Bitcoin network whether you like it or not.
5/ It fixes all of the issues above and shrinks transaction size, and is extensively tested w/o one hiccup on Litecoin or Bitcoin.
6/ So now you say, “the market isn’t accepting SegWit!”. Answer is the same CEOs that threatened network stability with a malicious fork have leading market share in wallets. They directly affect a large % of SegWit adoption. And they are dragging their feet.
7/ So SegWit is sitting there on the network, ready to go. Never mind that it gets us close to 2MB block capacity if said CEOs got off their butts, that it helps ALL users with fees the higher SegWit adoption goes.
8/ Never mind that it helps THEIR USERS who they claimed were up in arms just months ago about fees, that it is extensively tested, that it doesn’t preclude further scaling improvements, that it helps wallets function better or help enable Lightning.
9/ It’s more important for BCi to add BCash because Roger has Peter by the huevos. It’s more important for Coinbase to follow pet projects and shill ETH. It’s more important for Pair to just put his foot down because politics.
10/ So just a few months ago at least one of these CEOs was willing to risk the entire ecosystem based on fees. Now SegWit just isn’t good enough? What happened to “our users have spoken?” No longer an issue? Users went on sabbatical? Users happy now?
11/ They were/are misleading at best, liars at worst. So they can go ahead and opt out. They are now directly responsible for higher fees on the network by doing so though.
12/ And other companies that are smaller, more nimble, with CEOs with half a brain will start to run circles around them while these CEOs mess around with Roger’s crapcoin and kitties. /F
