unlike the other things there where views of most people are much too nuanced to categorized, segwit2x is a laughable affront to bitcoin's utility and the technical decisions they're making seem to be entirely based on deliberately ignoring people who tried to give them advice and a deep lack of understanding of the system they're changing
bitcoin core compiles almost entirely without changes in c++17 mode, btw
luke-jr: I absolutely do not believe it is false equivalency, actually. We're talking about what precedent is being set for Bitcoin's future and how changes are made in Bitcoin
the idea that its a "bug" (or even an issue) for a user to *not* "upgrade" to enforce a soft fork is laughable...if that were the case, Bitcoin would pretty clearly have no long-term value
luke-jr: i don't "want" BIP148. I want segwit, as I think it's necessary for Bitcoin's future. BIP148 is a overly risky means of obtaining that. That does not mean I oppose it if there were tremendous support, but on itself I think it's a bad idea
[bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #10545: Use list initialization (C++11) for maps/vectors instead of boost::assign::map_list_of/list_of (master...list_of) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10545
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10201: pass Consensus::Params& to functions in validation.cpp and make them static (master...consensusparams-receivedblocktransactions) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10201
bitcoin/master 1b708f2 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10201: pass Consensus::Params& to functions in validation.cpp and make them static...
bitcoin/master 24980a3 Mario Dian: Make functions in validation.cpp static and pass chainparams...
luke-jr: perhaps you should take it seriously when many people are telling you that this is a lot like Bitcoin XT or Bitcoin Classic's hardfork, but you've just defined yourself into a corner.
One issue I have is that waiting for the output of the command is run on the UI thread, so Bitcoin Core appears to hang :/
spudowiar: but you can't do anything with bitcoin transactions without also having bitcoin transaction ser/des support! and then you have to worry about that your json format cannot losslessly represent a transaction. Decoderawtransaction cannot. E.g. it can't encoding different choices for encoding in varints.