Bitcoin Forum

We can never have enough consensus for segwit, 95% is too much.

UASF can cause some disturbances in the mining world, even miners that are signaling for segwit could suffer from network split resulting in PoW change (rendering their mining operation useless.. millions in loses?

BUcoin, BClassic etc, are developed by incompetent morons, no one will ever trust their money on those.

Looks like Bitcoin will remain as it is for life. What do we do now?

Staying as it is means getting obsolete, loosing competition. It's better to fork to 2 different coins and see which one outcompetes the other. But before that it would be better to try to forget mutual insults, become less arrogant, more respectful to our opponents and find common ground after all.
I guess the problem could be that most communication in our cryptoworld is going online. For some reason, online communication is almost always much less civilized than offline. I think VIPs should arrange real world meetings much more often.

As far as I know, there are a lot of these "real world meetings" but mostly they call it debate. There are a lot of debate happening about these solutions and I think noone will ever understand eah other because of their pride.

I really hope that you're right about it,
I wish that the price would stay at the $1,100+ or get even higher.

But what will happen when PoW change happens? PoW change is needed to protect from the hashrate of the other chain (they admited they will attack, in case of a split)

This means segwit-core chain starts from scratch.

Will exchanges, services etc support a chain with small hashrate?

LAST 1000 BLOCKS :

Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 373  ( 37.3% )             
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 2  ( 0.2% )             
SegWit blocks: 275  ( 27.5% )

Conclusion: The majority of miners support bigger blocks

https://vote.bitcoin.com/arguments/block-size-limit-should-be-increased-to-8-mb-as-soon-as-possible

Conclusion: The majority of bitcoin holders supports bigger blocks

Core needs to either increase the block size, or miners (acting in their own economic interest) will start using an alternative client, and they'll become irrelevant. Its really that simple

Segwit is a block size increase. The size of the "block" p2p message can be larger than 1 MB after segwit activates.

No it isn't. The miners can't just activate any arbitrary consensus rule unless all users follow them and use that alternative client. Given that right now most full nodes are running some version of Bitcoin Core, if miners start using an alternative client supports a block size increase through a hard fork, they will be mining on a chain that few people use.

No, this is a block size increase:


Note the "-" at the beginning. That for removing that line of code. That's really all that needs to be done. The rest of the code is just for phasing that in.

I think its a little extreme to say we'll remain at this deadlock for forever..

It may not look like we can ever come to consensus right now, but I strongly believe we'll have UASF & SEGWIT implemented before the end of next year.

We will need to come to a conclusion some time. I have a feeling we will be stuck in a deadlock for a couple of years more until some devs come to their senses and create a compromise. Im trying to stay neutral in this situation, because neither forks are ideal.

As long as the value remains, the price continues to increase, people continue to use it as a store of value, no fatal flaws are found, I see no reason to change it.  Just leave it as is.

Other coins can become the everyday "currency" coins you use to buy coffee. 

Bitcoin works just fine as it is for storing and transferring relatively large sums of money/value.

High security is only possible because of high revenue to miners, which in turn is caused by demand.  If you remove the component of the demand that is caused by people wanting to transact on a smaller scale, the demand decreases, the revenue decreases, and the security decreases, which can lead to even less demand and a downward spiral. 

 

We shall see.  But I have started to become convinced that a 3 TPS system could possibly work.  The fees will have to be high and it would not be used for anything but higher value transactions.  I can envision a system where, due to the high fees, people put their savings in and only take out what they need when they need it - maybe a few transactions per year.

3 TPS does give us 3 x 31,622,400 = 94,867,200 transaction per year.

I do understand your argument.  I do understand the demand side issues.  I do not know of a way to prove it will be sustainable at 3 TPS so I guess we will just have to see how this great experiment turns out.

One thing we can both agree on:  at 3 TPS Bitcoin will never be the everyday currency of large portion of the population.

The solution is to fork when two different special interest groups with different use cases diverge on policy preference.

Unfortunately there is an unfounded stigma in the public's eye that forks are a bad thing.

If a money supply forks and two money supplies develop, it is better for everyone.  There is a net gain increase in money market cap, entrepreneurs who invest in both profit.  Money users in both enjoy lower transaction fees than otherwise possible.

If one branch immediately dies, its just an insignificant short term problem for the entrepreneurs mistakenly invested in it. 

The only thing I request is better replay attack prevention.  I'd propose each branch use the transaction version bits for a sort term solution.  Long term if there are lots of forks, then use a "Pre-TX branch ID" that is not part of the TX ID, but is signed on by the witness data, and part of a SegWit style merkle tree commitment.

If Unlimited doesn't want to adopt such a merkle tree commitment in the coinbase due to asicboost, but we still want two separate merkle tree commitments for with and without Witness/branch data, then a hard fork that has these two merkle roots under the merkle root commited in the block header could be used.  Such could be used to develop additional extensions like SegWit that Gregory Maxwell was concerned asicboost usage would prevent.

Cheers,
Praxeology Guy

As time goes on , the fees will have to be higher and higher.  Its ironically the same argument made by the small blockers (that block subsidies keep halving, so then what)... except the solution cannot be to simply keep raising fees because there is too much competition from other coins and traditional options.  The solution has to be to get a wider user base.  I cannot prove my position either.  Intuitively, I highly suspect I am correct. 

Hope you're doing well Burt.  God Bless you.

The price depends on the users itself. But the thing is that, the Whales are the ones who controls the flow of its price in the market. If they make some dump or pump in the market. Chain reaction occur and its price will then either pump or dump. Also, the news affect its price and if the fork happens, the price may decline and may even fall three digits.

The total fees per POW will only be higher when there are more transactions. It is the accumulation of thousands of small fees that adds to 1 big fee per POW. That can only happen when fee are low, so that demand can rise. That can only happen when capacity is higher - 2mb block for this year and scaling is higher - not LN.

Agree completely.

In 3 years when the next halving occurs we will see a burst in the price.

Life is a long time, solutions will present themselves without compromising the core principles of Bitcoin.

The problem with that is.... Will mining and the status quo or even a reduction in miners fees be sustainable, if people only use Bitcoin for a

store of value? We need a significant increase in transactions to replace the Block reward in the future and that will never happen if we only use

Bitcoin to transfer large sums of money.  ::)

Not at all.  Your argument is that the majority of miners support bigger blocks, but a better phrase would be that a majority of the mining hashrate supports bigger blocks.  The mining hashrate is represented by a small group of pools, and since miners typically gravitate towards their own interests they will go to whichever pool they prefer rather than, necessarily, to the one which supports a specific scaling solution as many don't care.

In fact, SegWit currently has a marginal lead (https://coin.dance/blocks) over BU due to F2Pool beginning to signal for it.  What matters is how much hashrate is favouring each side, not how many blocks have been mined for each (as the number of blocks is subject to variation so you have to measure it over a longer timespan) and with the addition of F2Pool, the hashrate currently is supporting SegWit by a small margin.

The miners don't even represent the community either.  No one can reasonably claim that the miners' interests are always that of the community and a reason for supporting a cause should never be "other people support it so I do too".  It should be because the system holds weight as an idea and in code.

But there are two ways to replace the current block fee subsidy:

1) A lot of transaction with a lower fee per transaction

OR

2) The same number of transactions (capped at 3 TPS) but with a much larger fee per transaction.

If we do not remove the transaction cap, and we want to pay for the level of security we currently have then the fees / transaction will have to go up to the point that they replace the current subsidy.

So more transactions is not the only way to accomplish this.

A fork wouldn't mean a competition. A fork would result in Mutually Assured Destruction.

That's good news and hope it's true.
I hope that bitcoin prices remain high or higher

It appears to be true. A lot of users panic whenever a massive dump happens but it has proven to be getting back up again over and over.  They fork whenever they want but consensus still has to rule. Whatever happens to BTC, there are still hundreds of altcoins to choose from. I have to invest to the most coin that I find useful in the future.

If that happens then I am very happy to hear it, then this will be a bright future for those who join.
My expectation of bitcoin price is always stable if you can add higher up again.

The so called hashrate support has become an useful tool for miners to short the market at do some massive inside trading gains. They use twitter to spread their agenda and rumors. This puts fears into investors minds, which make those miners richer every time. I don't believe for a second that Wang Chun will keep his segwit support in either BTC or LTC. He can change at any second, look at the guy's history.
Jihan keeps doing the same on LTC too.

They are obviously exploiting their power to make money by manipulating the market.

Yeah, this is why it was nice to have satoshi in the early days... Now it's like hundreds of people trying to decide the toppings on a pizza. The guy running the ovens doesn't like pepperoni, the guy selling the ovens doesn't like mushrooms, the girl who makes the sauce can't have cheese, the guy who makes the pizza boxes only makes small boxes, and you just want a slice before your lunch hour is over.

I don't think any of these community driven solutions will come to pass this year because everyone is too self absorbed in their own opinions and ideas to accept the common needs. Maybe further down the line when people get tired of arguing and move on to an altcoin or something.

While segwit fixes transaction malleability which is good, the idea of sidechains such as the lightning network goes directly against the idea of decentralization as transactions will be processed by a third party in the name of saving time and resources. Regardless of how little power these 'points of authority' have, I think its a step towards centralization and therefore a step in the wrong direction.

I am also understanding that the people who came up with segwit have ties to Blockstream (a company that focuses on sidechain solutions) which is very much a conflict of interest if you ask me.

We will need to resolve it sometime. I have a feeling we will be stuck in a deadlock for a couple of years more until some devs come to their senses and create a compromise. My advice would be to stay neutral in te forks.

I agree the future of block chain is distributing threw put fairly and increasing decentralization at the same time. Hopefully while creating place for smaller players, therefor playing on the systems strengths. Often when two parties disagree greatly the solution is in the middle. Ultimately the problem with this is, as it always is, that people will not easily go down a path that they think will harm them in any way. Even it represents the greater good of the community. However only threw destruction are we recreated so just as BTC nicked the old financial system. perhaps that outer fith on either side should be abandoned.