Bitcoin Forum

It should probably be noted that Jihan controls Antpool, ViaBTC and BTC.TOP. This is quite obvious, yet some want to keep living in denial. It's interesting that ViaBTC has lost a fair deal of hashrate % over this time (it was >6% and frequently hit >10% due to variance). The increase in hashrate at BTC.TOP is also highly suspicious. I wonder why HaoBTC and 1Hash haven't made up their minds yet.

---

BU needing 51% to active it probably very misleading. BU has no activation threshold, and 51% hashrate symbolizes a classic hashrate attack on the network. If BU wanted to split bilaterally, they could do it right now at any hashrate. The issue with that is that nobody actually wants BU. The economy, users and development community are all in favor of SegWit and Core (besides the obvious minority consisting of Ver, Jihan, charlatans like Peter R, et. al., and their companies).

Looking at the chart there are 38% out of the total population of miners have chosen to side with Bitcoin Unlimited + classic. But this does not mean that BU has the lead and will overcome the votation since there are 26% who have not decided. Thus this still mean that BU and segwit are in tie. There will be only a decision I guess if the 26% will vote and we can finally see what is the decision of the majority.

This is about pool hashrate not number of miners. You can't know for example whether Antpool is using all their own devices at their own pool, or there are other miners mining on it. Note: Obviously the latter is more likely, but hopefully you get the point.

As BU is a hard fork, pool majority vote is useless. The miners do not decide what Bitcoin is or isn't. At best, they will create the BTU altcoin.

Now if Bitcoin Unlimited were feeling extremely psyops ish they could sneak release a new version of their code named Do Nothing. There might be enough stupid miners to run it.

There is a certain way of knowing whether 'Do Nothing' is actually the BU client in disguise (in your scenario). If it crashes the whole network of nodes, then it is BU certificated technology. ::)

As it happened I have mixed the 75% of last 1000 blocks mined with 75% hash power needed to activate SW, either way if BU only needs 51% or even less then what are they waiting for? are they really waiting for 95% consensus? but that will never happen and they know it.

From what I see SegWit is gaining more and more %. Just look at the numbers for the last 24h:


And imho the numbers are not even 100% "correct" because there are pools (like Slush) which are signaling sometimes SegWit, sometimes BU, so while now they "split" their hashrate (I am not sure how are they calculated), they will just join the winning side at the end.

classic, xt, bcoin, bitcoinec, bu and other diverse nodes do not want to "take over" (only blockstream(core) want a take over)
blockstream have offered and demanded a few times for anything not core to split away, but that was not taken up because the community does not want a civil war but a real consensus choice of something the whole community can unite around.

hence no deadline, hence to threats, hence no hardware bombs.

blockstream are the ones that bypassed node consensus.
blockstream are the ones that gave only pools the vote.

but blockstream are not getting the pool vote they were hoping for. so now blockstream are looking for blaming everyone. rather than listening to everyone and programming something that the community want..

all of you blockstreamists are forgetting one small thing.

blockstream can code things differently to a way the whole community would be happy.
but no.. its a blockstream short cut or kill every opposer in the community and blame the opposers

Here we go again from troll, noob and paid shill Franky1. As usual bla bla bla bla bla bla bla BULLSHIT!

Although I don't agree with you on BU matter (I think that we need something better than just increase the block size), you are right on this. Somehow they should be more receptive to what the community wants.
And if what the community wants is stupid (since most don't know nor care of the internals) they should invest more time explaining and debating.
And time is something they actually have now, since we are far from the % needed for any of the sides.

...unless...
..Unless they are baking something else. I don't know. Maybe they are testing other approaches too and don't tell. Maybe they will come up with something much better than the actual SegWit and the actual BU ideas. But that's wishful thinking, I know.

Back on track: now it should be the time to discuss more; to explain for everybody want to read (again and again, I know, but maybe packed different) all the small details that makes SegWit the approach they went for.



iamnotback came with an interesting idea (although it was on a LTC related discussion). Maybe all this "war" is just a "divide et impera" game to keep the coin prices from exploding, before the right guys buy in and accumulated the amounts they planned for.

SegWit can never succeed because there will always be miners who are against it, and SegWit will never survive a BTC fork.

It's a waste of time to debate. The only question is how long until we start mining bigger blocks.

Bitcoin, since I learned about it 6 years ago, has shown just how incompetent the powers of the world have become - dependent on their monopoly on money creation. I spend way too much time enjoying the nonstop-worthless-shilling on behalf of AXA/Bilderberg funded Blockstream that displays how mindless their followers have become and how desperate and ignorant 'our rulers' have become in their ivory castles.

In a nutshell, its so fun watching you people lose  ;D

P.S.: Hey Henri de Castries, how about spending another $75 million? Definitely helps my portfolio. Ha Ha, Greg failed you.

What they should've done is stuck to that mythical 2mb + Segwit agreement that wasn't an agreement or whatever it was. Things would be rosier than a rosy thing by now.

Why would they? Their hubris was counted on to doom them from the beginning. If they had just raised the blocksize a little they may have gotten SegWit, but now that opportunity is gone forever. Ha Ha!

That may have been an option, but for a reason I don't know they labelled this approach "unsafe", from what I know (afaik they labelled all >1MB approaches unsafe).


I don't understand why you are so happy. BU is losing percents every day that passes. Of course, not enough to ever help SegWit, but this means BU is (also) doomed...
Did you diversify into alts?

I always wondered why we still have (beside SegWit, bitcoin unlimited  and undecided miners) another option signaled: 8 MB blocks.
What BW Pool is thinking? This option is totally, not going to work, it is condemned to fail. They know it, we know it. Then Why?

BU isn't losing anything. They've been sitting around 38% and haven't gone down. None of this was unexpected. When I first read about bitcoin in 2011, I figured the day would come when the banking elite would start buying up bitcoin infrastructure (mining) in order to control it, thus skyrocketing the price. AXA/Bilderberg funded Blockstream and their affiliates are largely responsible for the popularity and market cap of bitcoin and many alts. Thank them for making us all money.

What they failed to realize is that even if they had succeeded with taking over Bitcoin, they would just have to do the same thing over again with the next coin, making us all more money. They're fighting a losing battle, all because they know they are worthless without control over the money supply and they are scared to death of losing that control.

I accept 16MB blocks, so why wouldn't it work? If they generated an 8MB block, my home PC would validate it in seconds, in the background while I'm gaming.

Why can't we have both larger blocks as well as SegWit? Is it not possible for miners to signal both?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't really care how, I just know something has to happen to allow scaling. Bitcoin can't grow without more users, and it can't have more users if it can't handle more transactions.
Blocks are full for at least 6 months now. "They" are trying to have a power-battle now, instead of doing a scaling-discussion in the background while at the same time increasing blocks to 2 MB to take the pressure off.

Because SegWit is unnecessary and frankly, shitty software.

its about knowing that 8mb is network safe. blockstream know it.
but blockstream want to control things by spoonfeeding.
since 2015 there has been
2017-03-08 - Bitcoin Core version 0.14.0 released
2017-01-03 - Bitcoin Core version 0.13.2 released
2016-10-27 - Bitcoin Core version 0.13.1 released
2016-08-23 - Bitcoin Core version 0.13.0 released
2016-04-15 - Bitcoin Core version 0.12.1 released
2016-02-23 - Bitcoin Core version 0.12.0 released

and even then there is a v0.14.1 coming soon.
and even if segwit gets activated. EVERYONE wanting segwit needs to download yet another version after activation just to get to 'opt-in' to the new keypairs just to get the voluntary disarming themself feature that blockstream used to call a 'fix'.
yep its not a network wide fix its just a voluntary dis-armourment/amnesty, which funnily enough only the innocent people not spamming would opt-in for anyway. thus solving nothing.

if blockstream just recognised in 2015 what the community wanted and done a 8mb single merkle version(consensus.h) where by the nodes could voluntarily say 'i prefer 2mb'(policy.h and useragent display)
then the pools follow the voluntary blocksize preference..

we would have a true single merkle block that was most definetly under 8mb size and dynamically growing at what the majority preferred of say 2mb and grows based on user settings at runtime. without the need of wasting 3 years and atleast 7 different downloads required

get it yet
7 downloads with unachievable hopes of 100% of people move the 46m UTXO to segwit keys to get the estimated upto 2mb 2merkle klusterf*ck of a tier network. which is going to be kept pushing right up until 2019

vs
something that could have been done properly last year that by now would have got high percentage community united around for a healthy peer network

Hashing support for segwit goes up, price goes up:

https://image.ibb.co/g2fkMF/segwitup.png

Most relevant actors in the field reject BU and support segwit:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8HwIp7VwAEGPBb.jpg

https://medium.com/@21/using-21-to-survey-blockchain-personalities-on-the-bitcoin-hard-fork-1953c9bcb8ed

Most nodes support segwit:

https://i.redd.it/0j5c3wjy47ny.png

https://image.ibb.co/hyWs1F/nodes1.png

Only a fool would go against this objective reality. Miners that aren't yet signaling for segwit (basically Jihan only with his various pools) are proving to go against:

1) All experts
2) All relevant actors
3) The market
4) Basically all nodes (nobody support BU software)

Miners that are still not signaling for segwit (basically Jihan only with his various pools) are against Bitcoin going to the next level.

Miners that are supporting BU want to see the market crash, thus are enemies of Bitcoin.

The fact that a couple of chinese state-sponsored mining monopolies (basically Jihan only with his various pools) get to stop the rest of the Bitcoin ecosystem is ridiculous.

im laughing at billybob
trying to mix litecoin with bitcoin results to confuse the numbers.. funny

trying to say there are actually 100k nodes when a more reliable metric is bitnodes which has ~7000
and sipa (segwit main guys) block stats http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png ~68% say no/abstain

1. bitcoin: 68% of blocks and 36% of nodes say no/abstain
where by even then you dont know if the 'yays' are explicit 'yays' or fabricated 'yays' just to avoid DDoS/hacks by hiding as 'yays'

2. assuming that its all down to 1-2 guys causing it...... (facepalm)

if you think that DDoSing isnt happening

Wrong. When asked, all major players rejected BU and want segwit.

Wang Chung recently started signaling for segwit with his f2pool, this resulted in a clear uptrend to $1,200, so I don't see how anyone that isn't delusional isn't seeing the positive connection of segwit on the price.

Please realize that no amount of posts will change this reality: Segwit up: price up. All major players except Jihan: support segwit.

The " Do Nothing " crowd has to make up their damn mind and stop sitting on the wire like a bunch of cowards. Taking a position that would not

take us forward is going to hurt Bitcoin more than what they might think SegWit or BU would do. We need some sort of scaling solution or Bitcoin

will die or be replaced by a technology that can scale. { No scaling = RIP Bitcoin }  >:(

Doing nothing is as valid of an option as the next thing. Some people value the immutability of bitcoin as a very attractive feature, specially if you intend to use bitcoin as a long term store of value where you expect the price going up.

Sure, I want to see bitcoin with segwit and lightning network to enable instant payments and see bitcoin getting used in over the counter real life situations, but other people don't care about scaling bitcoin, they just want it to be as immutable as possible. Lack of consensus may lead us into a split tho, and hodlers shouldn't have that on their plans.

There's immutable and then there's ossified. Many people would be more comfortable with something immutable that had capacity baked in. Then it's welcome to be as immutable as fuck.

My best to worse choices are:
SW
Any other idea to resolve block size
Do nothing
BW

We will have to do something sooner or later, because without resolving this issue large worldwide acceptance cannot happen, but BW is not the answer. Bw is a commercial move to fill pockets of a few already wealthy individuals.

Well, the possibility for it to mutate is there: 95% hashrate agreement. Thought luck with that as we all know.

What are the alternatives? UASF, as we also know, can lead to a chain split, which can be a disaster for the price, but maybe it's our only way out from Jihan's monopoly.
We are assuming that the rest of the miners don't rebel against the PoW change and start mining BUcoin tho... so don't count victory.

It's a extremely tricky situation. I wish that we could at least get segwit, then LN. But even after we get LN, we would need eventual blocksize increases, otherwise optionally doing onchain transactions would be impossible, and LN functionality itself I assume would suffer eventually, without said blocksize increase.

Unfortunately, none of the "flexible blocksize" proposals work, so we will see situations like this every X years.

Indeed. I think part of the problem is that despite all the noise, everyone with influence is still too fat and comfortable to be pushed to action. Exchanges are still coining it, miners certainly are, Core can point to things working perfectly.

The only people who may not be so content are the users and by the time they make themselves properly known they might be permanently shopping elsewhere.

you keep saying you want segwit.
what part of segwit can you prove is a 100% fix. that you desire about segwit
what part of segwit can you prove is a 100% guarantee promise. that you desire about segwit

can you even explain HOW the parts of segwit that you desire actually get the promise/fix

so before just pasting off another daily reddit script stats page..

i want you to actually do the segwit research and show you understand segwit, and can convince me that segwit will 100% get the promise you desire to show why you are sooo devoted into wanting it.

im guessing its going to be a reply about 'who' coded it not what they coded.

now lets see your reply.
please
no insults.
no 'cant be arsed'
no 'why should i tell you'
no 'if you dont know why ask me' word twisting..

i have done the research so lets see if you really understand segwit beyond the 30 second utopian sales pitch.

i laugh at that statement
along with 'core are the best team'

if everything is perfect and core are the best team.. then there is no need for segwit, there would be no debate
because there are no problems and bitcoin is already in utopia.. right (sarcasm)

oh an the other laugh
core are independent..

after all if independent then when devs do something independently they why would they be subject to REKT campaigns. or fear peer reviewing and helping out independently of other implementations.

the only way they can end up helping is by pretending to attack by publicising the issues of other peer implementations. that way they wont get pigeon holed into other implementations be acting like they are attacking it. when realy they are saying something needs to be fixed at line x,y,z

even gmax is keping his head low by hiring samson mow to be the face of UASF so that gmax doesnt get the face smack talk about Uasf issues and thrown the BIP's moderation over to luke JR and trying to make it look lik achow is the cencorship master of the tech discussion of this forum.. although the puppet strings are visible

Do Nothing crowd is going to be deciding factor of the scaling debate.

How much does Roger pays you for each FUD post you make? $1 $10? If you know so much about it why dont you share youre opinion on GitHub? You wont do that because youre troll ass will be destroyed over there.

I know you have been rejected Franky1, youre pessimism is not a way to excuse youre self.

Why do we still debate about which one is better: SegWit or BU?!
Apparently no one cares about the community's opinions, only Hash-rate is the one speaking out loud. If you want your opinion to be heard, why don't you get some hashrate and then decide what you want?! And the sitting ducks who would flow with the river, they should decide what they want now and spare us this fucking headache.

i do not get paid, sponsored or handed any funds for my opinions or comments. nor am i paid by roger or any other bitcoin corporation or project.
i am self sufficient which means i don't have to 'toe the line' or kiss ass.

your right the censorship of cores github is high.. but that just reveals the problem..
lack of independence and obvious censorship.

there are over a dozen implementations that all get REKT. and lots of independent devs that have their opinions quashed at the door.
thats not the fault of independence. thats the fault of core not being as open as they falsely proclaim.

if you think that centralised control is cores asset. then you have failed to understand what the whole point of bitcoins ethos/invention was originally.

I can validate that while video editing. The trick is to use one drive for editing and another drive for Bitcoin.

Why?

The more i look into segwit, the i am not liking it. LN is a no no for me.

The current impasse can be solve with a straight forwards 1mb to 2mb. Then up to 3mb when the time comes. In the meanwhile the developers can go back to the drawing board.

As much as I would like attribute the current bullish trend to rising SegWit support, it is most likely not the case.
Price of bitcoin is growing because all major Chinese Bitcoin exchanges + Bitfinex stopped accepting US dollar deposits and withdrawals.
Exchanges blame banks for problems with wired transfers. No one knows for sure what is going on.
This situation caused BTC price to grow due to increased demand because traders buy BTC to withdraw it and there is no way to sell it.

Slush doesn't calculate anything to split their hashrate. They give each individual user/miner the option to vote and signal for whatever they want. They can also vote to let the pool operator decide what he feels best.
Take a look at this: https://slushpool.com/stats/?c=btc

95% in next 7 month is just impossible.

95% in any amount of time is impossible. They will never get past the amount of hash power that is for bigger blocks. BU will pick up hashing power once it is firmly over 40% that will send it over 50%. Then things will probably go quickly as the rest of miners will be pressured to also accept big blocks.

But, I wonder, who'll bell the cat? I mean, what I understand, BU may gain 75% hash power and still operate as 1mb, until a pool owner raises the limit to 2mb or 8mb... whatever. Others are at their will to follow or not. I wonder, which pool will take the risk of losing 12.5 BTC by raising the block size?

unlike core that bypass node consensus. bu and other dynamic and >1mb blocks wont make blocks over 1mb unless they have both node and pool consensus.

dont start thinking they are gonna make a 4 or 8mb block instantly .. thats more reddit fud drama creating false narative
they will start slow like 1.000250 and test the water for issues (like the 500kb level db issue core had in 2013) , orphan risk and timing to propagate.. and slowly increase increments when demed safe and it actually forms blockheight

logically and naturally.
which if the block does not get accepted its not "losing 12.5" .. its just not winning /gaining 12.5..

you only gain 12.5btc after 100 confirms. so you cant really risk losing 12.5 unless you had it in the first place

If the block is orphaned after wasting hash power to find it, then should not we call it losing?

I dont get this 100 confirms part. Does BU has such logic?

Newly minted coins are not spendable until after 100 confirmations. Standard protocol.

nope.
if it doesnt get accepted and doesnt stay in the chain. then the pool never had it

there are 20 pools and only one block gets it in an average of 10 minutes
put it this way

EG thats why if a pool put in a reward of lets say 1000000btc..
it would get rejected.. does not mean it had it and lost it.. it just means it never had 1000000btc

yes it wasted hash trying..

but doesnt mean it lost 12.5btc or 1000000btc.. it just means it didnt win..

when you play the lottery.. you dont lose millions.. you just dont win, someone else does

That's a different explanation than the original course of discussion. I said...


The question of loss is coming here because one pool need to take the risk of raising block size. There is not much extra reward for this risk other than some minuscule mining fee. It is BIG risk vs little reward and hence I said risk of losing 12.5 BTC.

Will be nice to see BU fork away forever.

If they do, that might not be a sweet story for Core chain as well. Because BU will fork only when they have above 50% hash power. This majority hash power supporting them may do rogue things to core chain and the only option left at that time will be to change the algo.

The logic behind EC, as implemented by BU, ensures that no amount of confirmations is enough to secure your payment due to chain reorganizations (not that this is relevant to the 100 number).

Ironically, those who claim to be "pro-users" and "pro-capacity" are the ones that are staling a capacity increase. Without BU, we'd be long within >1 MB blocks due to Segwit activation & usage.

They can surely attempt that. Good luck explaining this behavior to anyone looking to join their chain (investment, development and any other kind of form of interaction). "Remember that time when we played dictators and attacked anyone who didn't obey our rules?" ::)

It started with Core...


https://twitter.com/lopp/status/856498402951090176

No it didn't.

I guess this means you know who was behind ddos attack?

If BU activates there will be no more pie charts in the future. Asicboost will make sure only Jihan and his underlings will be able to mine profitably, so he will have 99% of the pie from then on.

And the Chinese government will control Jihan. End of Bitcoin story.

BU could be the most perfect software in the world and we should still oppose it.  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Are you trying to imply that, in case of you not knowing or not having adequate proof of someone being behind [insertAttack] (any), you blame "Core" for it?

What makes you think that they already are not? :)

For someone with legendary status this comment displays profound ignorance about how bitcoin works. BU doesn't 'activate', I think what you mean is if miners generate larger than 1MB blocks. When that happens, there will still be pie charts for various pools, there just will no longer be a 'SegWit' part of the pie.

I think that is what you're upset about.

The post I was responding to has someone who was claiming to be responsible.

but wait..
wasnt the reddit propaganda that the blocks opposing segwit meant to be all be jihan...  67% (12+ pools)  
- im laughing at that part that jihan owns 12 pools(67%)..

if bu activates now controversially(wont happen, so relax) or segwit pulls the UASF bomb(could happen, they have made many threats)..
then bu, classic, xt and other diverse decentralised nodes would have 12+ pools and 67% of average blocks

- im still laughing how people still think the core opposition is just ver and jihan.
thats way beyond fox news sheeple mindset of repeating what they see... thats alex jones sheeple mindset of repeating what they see.

but in both cases.. all they see is one enemy that needs to be bombed. rather than think naturally about who poked the bear first

I don't like the bitcoin unlimited idea at all. I really hope it becomes segwit for now. If no agreement can by made then do nothing for a while. Like 2018.

or core tries something else thats actually adding and doing things the whole community can unite around, before wasting another year on half baked segwit

I'm leaning towards this right now.

Truly I'm not educated enough on the entire shebang so I don't say that my opinion has any weight, but BU seems like a bad idea and Segwit looks like the best option, however I have expressed, and continue to express, a desire for more alternatives to be made before we have to fork anything. Worst case we stall and kick the can down the road, but having some diversity in our options would be nice.

With the current state of the scaling solution right now with Bitcoin, I think this is something that is driving people away from actually going ahead and using Bitcoin because it seems as if we're in a civil war here, and we are to a certain extent. Though, the people on the side of Segwit are fighting for what's right while on the people on the side of BUG COIN are attempting to do a centralized takeover of Bitcoin cause Ver and Daddy Wu said that they should (paid off too)

Once we address the scaling problem through SegWit, we'd actually be able to get more people to join Bitcoin as the tx fees would start to go down from the bloated point in which we're at now. I simply see tx fees being high as the single highest rate of people just going "Well, I could just use my credit card"

SEGWIT

With tons of bugs, It should be avoided to be the scaling solution for bitcoin.

A lot of benefits and the possibilities for supporting off-chain development.

Do you mean about the alternatives way? As you can see bitcoin is in a hurry time.
Thought about UASF?It's just a terrible way.

LAST 1000 BLOCKS:

Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 422  ( 42.2% )             
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 4  ( 0.4% )             
SegWit blocks: 317  ( 31.7% )     
BIP100 blocks: 53  ( 5.3% )


In the last 7 days   (1000 blocks), Unlimited + Classic hashrate is ~1423 PH/s (42.6%) of the total Bitcoin network (3340 PH/s)

The seven day average keeps inching up.   ;D

With the recent crashing of nodes by Bitcoin Unlimited i think that should wake up people to whom to put their hash power to.
Segwit is the best option and has many possibilities that can fix bitcoin malleability and scaling.

Segwit is pretty great in comparison to the alternatives. Denying it doesn't change anything.

That's pretty irrelevant considering that almost all of that is concentrated under 1 person, aka. Jihan Wu (under disguise as at least 3 independent pools). Additionally, the super majority of every other part of the network is anti-BU.

That's the thing, nobody is actually using BU client whilst mining. They are using Core whilst signalling for BU.

---

With weighting enabled:
https://i.imgur.com/qY6wCQ0.png

There are many disadvantages expressed against SegWit but there are more against Bitcoin Unlimited. The fear against BU came mostly from personalities behind such an option and the self-vested interests they are bringing on the table. I am wishing that soon this kind of an online civil war can be laid to rest so we can all concentrate on making more Bitcoin and enriching our own pockets. I am in Bitcoin, of course, to make some money and to be a part of a big financial revolution and not to witness a movie entitled "Bitcoin War" because that is so nasty.

"Many"? No. Stop reading troll posts. There are some disadvantages that have been documented on the Bitcoin Core website. However, in comparison to BU, Segwit has been extensively tested for months.

That stance is also nonsensical. When it comes to implementations, the code is more important (and BU has many holes as we've seen so far).

You're here for the wrong reasons.

Nonsense. I'm afraid that you may be at no point of return if you're following franky1.