Bitcoin Forum

That's just inertia. Pools are going to be slow to get on board with whatever they choose, being conservative...

Chances are pools will start to move and make their choices at some point soon, but for right now it looks like there is going to be no change, based on the current trend. Neither is likely to reach their required targets unless some pools change up their votes.

We might get a shakeup soon, but for right now there isn't much to consider as a real change.

though segwit doesnt need node network confidence/validation consensus to activate... BU does.

pools wont even flag for BU in droves unless they see the node network is ready
which is a safety feature. why push a new rule if network nodes are not ready.

however segwit doesnt care about network nodes and blockstream have funded a few nice long weekend all inclusive 'meetups' with some pools to sway them.. seems though it has not swayed all the pools. or some of the pools were not invited to the many paid for parties.

so some pools are not going to just run software unless they have evaluated it themselves.
but we know some pools ran ahead and started using it in a timescale that shows they didnt even read the final release code line for line..
which is a safety risk. why push a new rule before checking every line of code

all that can be said is time will tell

It's much too early to come to such a conclusion, since the vast of hashpower hasn't even voted yet. Judging by the hashpower that already voted there is ample support for Segwit, especially considering that almost all of the UnlimitedCoin hashpower stems from Roger Ver's obstructionist efforts.

The big Chinese pools will join in early 2017. Some of them are not yet being able to support C++11 compilation, that's why they haven't upgraded their mining software yet. SegWit will activate much sooner than UnlimitedCoin trolls like franky1 expect.

ya.ya.yo!

LOL 75% of segwit obstruction is roger vers???

seriously?
if ver had 75% to obstruct segwit. then the unlimited/classic segment would be at 75%.

look at he OP's image 61% is neither side.

get your head out the clouds and stop exaggerating.. atleast be rational and honest

these guys are conservative. i wonder how many of them actually pay minute by minute attention to the wider bitcoin scene as long as the coins keep rolling in. the pool operators will be on the ball, maybe the guys playing video games in noisy warehouses are less so.

It would really be a great relief for many people in this forum if you could just stop your misreading, misinterpreting and spreading of misinformation. But I know that this won't happen, because it is your job to do that. Regardless your efforts are to no avail.

You can't be taken seriously anyway, because you openly endorse socialist dictatorship (in this case that of Venezuela):


Your delusional ideas are not shared by the vast majority of the Bitcoin community, because Bitcoin was simply not built to establish a socialist dictatorship.

ya.ya.yo!

im guessing your favorite tv channels are fox news and cnn and you thought that clinton and trump deserved to be the only 2 choices

you got no clue what socialist is
so you attach dictatorship to it (which is more of a capitalist (selfish) sided word) and twist a community concept into a authoritarian concept.

i have rad your posts and where i am a libertarian/socialist. your a capitalist/authoritarian.

your the one twisting things because you have no clue about the difference between a open community and dictatorial authority..
as for this topic.. look at the image the OP made and explain the 61% undecided.. go on
im laughing that you now say its related to c++11.. seriously.. china has been using c++11 before the yanks. think about it.. all major electronics programmed using c++ come from asia...
china is ahead of the electronic/gadget industry of the world, not behind

it makes me laugh
it seems someone is spoon feeding you what to say and you are regurgitating it out, pretending its fresh

As and when a dominant pool takes a side, it might lose hash power as well.

yep

http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png
though it topped 35%(reactive) we have also seen segwit desire drop to under 20%(reactive)..

thus the actual(not instantly reactive) rule metric of 2016 blocks is hovering just under 25%

Yeah abit strange but i think it is early days yet, there is plenty of time to commit to segwit which i am pretty much certain that it will happen.  like seriously we have to give this a chance and see where we go from there. 

Is there a similar graph for BU as well?

This isn't like an election. There's no election day with results coming in late in the night. For the best or the worse, miners may choose to wait weeks, or even months, before upgrading their system. I agree it's worrying, though. Very unnerving to say the least, as you can't make predictions.

Welcome to immutability.

I hope that you do realize that you need upgraded software that supports actually compiling newer revisions of C++?

No, it is not. Bitcoin works fine without any further changes. Surely it would be nice to have more TPS. Would Bitcoin die if it didn't attain that? No. Honey badger doesn't really care.

although BU is one interpretation/bip of dynamic blocks. there are several different ones.
most pools are not even gonna raise a flag unless there is a clear way to implement it that is agreed by the community

and thats part of the issue. core dominate the bip acceptance log. core dominate the mailing list and so they are muddying the water while delaying their own implementation.

because consensus needs the node network to be ready first there needs to be a clear available release by the major implementation 'brands' so core holding back means most pools are just gonna wait it out.

what would be interesting is the core excuses why the delay of segwit happens, afterall they cant blame 75% undecided vote on a 10% opposition.
and it will get to a point where they can no longer blame it on the undecided needing time to review.

after all CSV got accepted in 4 weeks.(purple and green)
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-50k.png

interesting to see the CSV initial unreviewed leap was at 40%-45%... taking 4 weeks to activate. where as segwit is 20%-25%

i hope you realise that china are ahead of the game, but seems some think china's modern industrial culture is actually just mud huts using windows98 sat beside rice fields, running on dialup. where electric is generated from peasants turning a wheel

Seems at this point, all we can do is wait and hope for the best.

it works, but not fine... We have had queues that last for hours(10+) to confirm, and if every time that happens we have to raise fee's... give it a year and nobody will be using bitcoin.

i remember lauda getting very excited about a game "world of tanks" accepting bitcoin as payment.. but soon after he went very quiet and dismissive when reality sunk in, that players would have a headache actually trying to buy things with it.

lauda's mindset is a road with a pot-hole every 100 yards is still a fine and working road because all he can see is cars driving on it. he has no concept of the axel/suspension damage the pot holes can cause or the wheel rim damage. or even just the discomfort to the people in the cars.
to him he would not care about repairing a road. he would rather make people be detoured to a parking lot and then commute by bus(LN)

That's exaggerating with nonsense when you know very well that I'm right in this case.

Nonsense. If you want to skip the line, you pay the miners more. If you can / want to wait, then you pay less. That's how the intended fee market works.

If you genuinely believe that right now, then may be impaired in one way or another.

As previously said, providing the right fee will always make you jump in line and will most surely not cause any 'headaches''. I have never had a problem transacting in any of the waves of TX spam. It's not my problem that others may be technologically inept to do the same.

So, u r supporting SegWit now?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5kdrlx/solockpoolorg_has_started_signalling_segwit/

Is there anyway a person mining at your pool can support BU?

Do you talk about Roger Ver in every thread?  Or is it just, like, half of them?  Do you briefly see his face in a crowd and then do a doubletake to realise he isn't really there?  Does he haunt you in your dreams too?  You come across as a little bit obsessed with the guy.  It's not healthy.  

gmaxwell isn't concerned with anyone's "obstructionist efforts", so calm your delicate little nerves already:



Like many, it seems like the complaint isn't with alternative developers or the code they release, because the code itself is completely inert if no one runs it.  Users will always have the option of running Core's code if they so choose.  So it stands to reason that your complaint is with the very fact that people have a choice and some of them don't share your views.  But since you can't admit something that innocuous being true, there has to be a boogeyman who is ultimately responsible for this outrage.  

"How dare people have free will!  It's all Roger Ver's fault!  He's basically the devil!"   ::)

Does the authoritarian fanboyism ever end?

im laughing
firstly
gmaxwell is still pushing the anything not core is an altcoin. yet he doesnt realise if they were an altcoin they would already be on a separate network. so the altcoin wont be part of bitcoins network or concensus

but here is the kicker.. gmaxwells mindset is this twisted because he has an agenda..
he wants to intentionally ignore those opposing.. thus forcing an activation by denying other non-favoring blocks

what a sore loser.
first not releasing a version of core to let users even choose dynamic blocks. thus making a self fulfilling prophecy that his flock of sheep hate dynamic blocks.. not due to giving them the option.. but denying them an option and thus using no choice to fulfil his rhetoric for his flock of sheep
seems he is too afraid to release code that includes dynamic blocks because he fears people will download and use it, ruining his rhetoric

next telling non-core code to stop running on bitcoin main net and telling them to F**K off.. ofcourse thats not gonna happen, but yet maxwell is again scared that the consensus mechanism can ruin his rhetoric if his sheep decided they had enough of cores antics.

lastly he wants to intentionally and biasedly ignore opposition.. not because block data is invalid, but because he wants to twist the numbers to his favour to force his favoured code into activation. thus not using true consensus.

what a loser maxwell has become. im starting to think he has lost all care and understanding of bitcoin ethos and is willing to do anything to meet some corporate target to release the next tranche of investment

seriously he has lost grip of bitcoins ethos and has become a fiat money man. only thinking of the commercial services to make returns for his investors.

such a corrupt loser maxwell has become

That's correct I am supporting segwit and always planned to. On the other hand Kano and I differ on our opinion on this and he does not plan to signal support for it in kano.is unless segwit gets close to activating and ultimately that is his pool and I am technical support for ckpool which he runs.

No there is no way to support BU on my pool. That would defeat the purpose of showing my support for segwit and contributing to its activation.

Note also that bitminter is signalling segwit too.

On the other hand my pool is a tiny entity and will not be the deciding factor in segwit activating it or not, however as a visible member of the community showing my support serves another purpose.

free weekend all inclusive at blockstream sponsored next roundtable?

You forgot the hookers and blowjobs.

nah. i said all inclusive, im sure adam back and his playboy matt corallo will be there to supply those.. oops did i just out them
and yes i have noticed that at a few events even when only one is set to make a speech, the other is nearby with a weird eerie shadowing for emotional support body language, kinda not subtle.

im 50% thinking its the booze hookers and blowjob weekend you are choosing..
and 50% fear that core will blacklist your blocks out of spite if you opposed core. not due to any bad data, but just not going with them you'll lose income.

Considering I have nothing to do with bitcoin core devs, blockstream, blockchain, blocktrail and whoever else you want to try and lump me in with, am not employed by any bitcoin related entity, have never attended a single bitcoin related function, roundtable or whatever, and am a specialist anaesthesiologist by trade that hacks on bitcoin mining related software in his spare time, I'm not even sure why you're attacking me or what the purpose of your attack is apart from continuing your usual tirade of nonsense trolling. So at this point I'm quite content to disengage any further communication with you as others have already done since you are clearly a full time btctalk troll.

Maybe it's just me, but personally I don't take issue with the way Core are implementing SegWit.  Although, yes, clearly the wording should be "alternative client" and not "altcoin".  The open market arguments I constantly feel the need to repeat cut both ways, so at the end of the day, Core are free to release any code they see fit and it's entirely the decision of those securing the network if they accept that code or not.  I really don't see the point in arguing whether it should be 95% or 90% or whatever.  As long as there's a clear and decisive sway towards activation, that's good enough for me.  Obviously if it's not so clear-cut and people try to force it unnaturally, that's entirely another matter.  But that's not what I'm seeing in gmaxwell's post.

Believe me when I say that I'd love to see a dynamic blocksize too, but I don't think it's right to block SegWit or hold it to ransom in order to enact a dynamic blocksize.  Whether you like it or not, it isn't your decision.  Either the network activates it, or it doesn't.  There has to be a better approach to this discussion and not the constant bashing by both sides of anyone they disagree with.  That means the approach shouldn't include constantly painting Blockstream as the boogeymen, since that's no better in reality than yayayo's foolishness earlier in the thread, or any of the other doomsayers constantly raving about "coups", "takeovers" and "benevolent dictators".  Every time I read that nonsense, it just makes me think people don't understand this stuff at all.

This should be the 101 stuff.  The absolute basics.  Bitcoin has no central authority.  There's no one person who can abuse the system.  It doesn't rely on a "trusted" third party to make it work.  As such, there can be no takeovers.  There is only the code run by those securing the network.  That's it.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Why does everything have to be some nefarious conspiracy on both sides?  I swear people need to find something better to do with their time.  Everyone's losing the fucking plot.

I don't think they pay attention at all. As you say, as long as the coins keep rolling in, they're happy.

there i even made it red..
strange thing is that other clients are not just going to reject core positive blocks purely because they are core positive.
other clients are just not going to want segwit by not flagging desire.

even funnier is that this intentional orphaning and blacklisting opposition is the controversial chain splitting thing they cried doomsday.
gmaxwell actually wants to intentionally split the pools just to activate a soft fork.
thats pure desperation to the Nth degree.
not only is it an intentional split. but its also mining collusion by getting them to ignore other competing pools.

if your still defending maxwell even with this announcement by him.. then you have definitely been led down the rabbit hole

if you cant see the difference between voting no vs trying to write off an opposition from the ballot sheet. then your not seeing the corruption.
also core are trying to activate segwit without using node consensus. they bypassed it by going soft. all they need is to bribe a few pool owners with a few free weekend all inclusive vacations/parties/social events.
so please dont try assuming cores methodology is consensus or the peoples choice

lol..
yet you "trust" gmaxwell and sipa.. and think core deserve to dominate, thus giving core the power to do what they like.
we are no longer in the days of true diversity. even gmaxwell knows this. and this is why he calls anything not core an altcoin because he wants his codebase to be "the bitcoin". and be at the CORE of what bitcoin becomes. hence why they chose the name in 2013. they want to be the engine that drives bitcoin. maxwell has been very public about that

---

imagine it this way. lets use the american presidential elections as an analogy
other implementations want a public vote by citizens (full nodes) not for a president. but for a set of laws and human rights.. that each state senator and citizen should obide by

core want only senators(mining pools) to vote and will shred the ballot papers of senators that vote for hillary to ensure that trump gets a 95% victory, before the citizens even get to see the reality of what trump wants to push next

You can certainly place the emphasis on that part, but you're leaving out the part I'd emphasise, which is


He isn't saying that Core will unilaterally take the decision to start orphaning blocks.  He's saying that the network participants, miners and nodes, have the power, if they really wanted, to force activation of SegWit by orphaning blocks.  But it's also equally possible the network participants won't elect to do that.  The option is there.  That's all he's saying.  The users make the decision, not Core.

But in fairness, I suppose if anyone proposed the same tactic in an attempt to active a hard fork, it's pretty clear that the people in the other camp would overreact in equal fashion.  



It's possible I've gone a bit "zen philosophy" over the matter of consensus.  I simply trust the network as a whole and will happily let the cards fall where they may.  Everyone places far too much emphasis on individuals and personalities and what their supposed motives are, which is where the majority of largely pointless and irrelevant arguments stem from.  I do still question the issue of centralised development and wish the community would adopt a more mature attitude towards competition from other developers.  Even the fact that we seemingly have to refer to them as "alternative developers" irks me somewhat and strikes me as a failure to set the narrative correctly from the offset, which means almost everyone sees it the wrong way as a result.  It somehow became an "us and them" mentality, which isn't conducive to healthy discussion.  And you'll see me continue to call out the absurdity of it every time I notice someone calling an alternative client an altcoin.  That's just bullshit.  I point blank won't abide users proclaiming that Core possess any kind of ownership over the project as a whole.  They have their repo and that's the extent of it.

There will always be concerns and things that I believe could be done better, but let's be honest, none of these things are a showstopper.  There's nothing catastrophically imminent that's going to bring down the network.  Just a load of forum drama that makes it look that way.

bip9 is a core invention that bypasses users choice.
its purely a pool election. not a full node election.

they went soft to avoid user choice. and if pools dont go for core code those pools loving core can ignore those pools not voting for core.
thus creating an intentionally splitting hardfork to activate a softfork
 thus again no user choice and no pool choice. core can blacklist if they got anything above 75% to force it in but prefer to wait for 90% to force it in or hope for 95% to not need to force it in

as for my mindset.
although core do their own spoonfeeding. there needs to be open discussion from those not core.. otherwise its just circle jerking the flock of sheep down a single path.

in an open network there needs to be diversity. i personally think that the only 2 options are core or BU is bad. there needs to be more diversity and that all implementations should have releases of eachothers 'bips' and let the networks have a true free choice related to which bandcamp they prefer

EG BU have a dynamic block release and a segwit+dynamic block release
EG core have a segwit release and a segwit +dynamic block release.

then its true free choice
but like i said only 2 'bandcamps' that dont support open choice is bad

some of them will turn out to be scammers in the  end .it is better to less expect and i guess u have heard about segwit ,just what happpened .noting more to tell.

Almost one month has passed since this thread was created. Still, SegWit+BU is less than 50% of the total hash power.

https://coin.dance/blocks

After one month, here is the current stat...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2eOIiJXgAEbfsH.jpg

It is insane that a single guy managed to get so much power.  So much for 'decentralizaion'.  It doesn't exist in actuality.  Besides the fact that GMax is a punk bitch pushing his own altcoin onto the bitcoin blockchain.

SegWit is an altcoin.  LN is an altcoin. 
These are not Bitcoin!