submitted by itistoday [link] [82 comments] read whole article

Related Links

  1. Is it really Classic forcing a hard fork? If there is overwhelming support for a simple 2mb block increase... Then aren't the core Devs forcing the hard fork by being stubborn and refusing to implement the change themselves?
  2. BTCC: It would be much better to have the support of Core, but if Core doesn't include a blocksize increase soon in the master branch, we may be willing to start running a fork.
  3. Bitcoin Core Project on Twitter: "CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (CSV) soft fork has been merged! Preparing for relative lock-time transactions! https://t.co/7oNr30QT4P"
  4. Bitcoin Core Project: "The CSV soft fork has reached the "locked in" point of no return. The new rules will activate on block 419328."
  5. If the Classic fork wins, Greg Maxwell, Pieter Wuille, Wladimir, and others have indicated they might quit. The Classic devs are just as good right? Nothing to worry about?
  6. Bitcoin Core Developer Jonas Schnelli Explains Controversial Transaction Replace-by-Fee Feature
  7. [Just heard at Bitcoin Core weekly dev meeting] -- "Wladimir: anyone against merging segwit? / Pieter Wuille: i have no objections :) / Btcdrak: I'd like to see it merged too / Lombrozo: the sooner the better / [...] / Wladimir: #action Merge segwit"
  8. F2Pool Reneges: Bitcoin Pool Pulls Segwit2x Support Over Hard Fork
  9. "Bitcoin Core does not condone participation in network attacks to push controversial protcol changes through." - Peter Todd
  10. Bitcoin Core Dev Gavin Anderson’s GitHub Commit Access Removed