Bitcoin Forum

If you support Segwit and want to see it activated soon (and have a Twtitter account obviously), then you should vote for it: https://twitter.com/ViaBTC/status/860933165002522625
If you have voted 'Yes' on the first poll, you should probably vote 'No' on this one (even though they aren't mutually exclusive as Segwit is essentially equal to bigger blocks): https://twitter.com/ViaBTC/status/860933065022898176

---

They are probably reconsidering after they've seen the effect on Segwit in other alts.

https://i.imgur.com/5ZcYIt4.png
https://i.imgur.com/h3qwKuB.png

So there are 821 Votes for Yes, and 181 votes for No to implement SegWit. But do you really think they are going to take that poll into consideration for supporting SegWit? Because I don't think so (though I have voted). When money speaks, all the other noises turn to silence.

A reasonable super majority is in favor of Segwit wherever you look, besides the current number of blocks mined with it (which makes no sense considering the first part of this sentence).

You could both say yes and no to this question. F2Pool had a similar poll after which they have started signalling for Segwit. You can, of course, argue that they did it for some other reason(s) as well. It can't hurt to show your support this way in any case.

Let us hope this is the beginning of the end to the scaling wars. Forgive, accept and move on. Progress must be made.

Voted yes to active Segwit, Out of 1589 votes 81% are in favor of Segwit and only 19% are not.  I hope viabtc consider this poll on what to support or if they are supporting HF, I hope this poll will make them consider and see that lots of Bitcoin enthusiast are in favor of Segwit and start broadcasting their support for it.



I agree, it is time for Bitcoin to move forward with Segwit activated.

I think it wouldn´t make much sense to make this survey if they didn´t take into account the result afterwards. In fact it´s likely they have their decision almost made and are doing the survey to look for a confirmation in the form of popular support. I voted for it because it seems that the effect on other coins is being positive and I think the fastest and safest way to end the scalability debate is, nowadays, the activation of Segwit.

+1

Look what great result it brought to LTC. I m sure something similar would happen to BTC price as well. Who would not want that?

MOVE it Viabtc.  ;D

Segwit is the right choice and the market has proved that it favors it.

It's doing pretty decently, although BTU altcoin supporters are complaining about the poll being "sybil attacked" whilst they have linked it in their own subreddit. Ironic. ::)

Besides the enemies of Bitcoin, I don't see how someone wouldn't want that. :P

Obviously no one can prove that the poll is legitimate and that there aren't fake/additional accounts being used.  However, any claim that it's illegitimate would be unreasonable, just because the amount of malicious people and hardcore pumpers is going to be roughly equal on each side.

Just like the F2Pool poll showed before, public support is largely for SegWit.  Miners will have to follow eventually or nothing will happen at all.

If BW comes around and drop the 8MB nonsense support and starts signalling for SW I think we're good to go, honestly 8MB is never gonna get the majority support so why keep the whole network as a hostage while if we all stand united we'll have much more to offer to the world?

I can see even now everything seems divided still there is confidence in system from community and we're at $1500 price ranging, what would've happened if we were all united as a whole? price will definitely rise above $1800 no doubt.

I've always used their tx acc and the first block they found my tx was in it, so while you have good intentions then lets test SW again as a whole because that way even if we fail we have the support of the majority and we'd said it was the majority's decision not a %51+ hash power attack forcing the change.

There are still those wackos that are in favor of a split purely because they will have the double number of coins. Just for their own benefit, they have no problems with causing a massive blood bath in case a split becomes reality -- clowns are they. Either way, I voted Yes on the activate SegWit poll. It's a bit weird to vote on the second poll since it could basically mean anything, so I decided not to vote there.

What is important is that they are actually asking, by taking a poll.
That means they are at least contemplating that they may need to
activate SegWit at some near term point.

Ultimately, due to pressures coming from many different directions,
miners like ViaBTC will need to make a final decision, but there are only
2 possible choices (since the third, do nothing, can not exist forever).

So, the question becomes, is ViaBTC and other miners willing to hardfork
the network without the support of many separate sectors? I think not.
Ultimately they will need to accept SegWit since they will never perform
a contentious hardfork on their own accord (unless it was a purposeful
attack, such as by a government or their intelligence services).

voted YES to activate as well because we can not remain neutral about this as it will divide the community in half with two different Bitcoins emerging

and if the proposed fork fails to deliver whats expected of it am sure we can revert back to the old version

While it's hard to know with certainty without any context what the purpose of this poll was - be it that they expected their followers to confirm they don't want segwit or they genuinely are reconsidering it - the response should be enough for them to consider it regardless. The effect it had on the floundering litecoin economy should have been an eye opener for them, especially since they also run ViaLTC and helped activate it. My take on it is they are actually realising going against it for dubious political reasons is bad for bitcoin. They even said on their feed "The main reason to refuse SegWit is because the Roadmap of bitcoin core, not the technical detail." While they have lashed out with a few attacks on segwit themselves, they have not done so to the extent that Bitmain did, where changing your mind and backtracking would make them lose face on a grand level. Naturally voting against segwit will be seen as implying one would be voting for them continuing their BIP100+BU support, so hopefully they interpret any vote for segwit as against those too.

Glad to know ViaBTC is starting to reconsider their position. Looking at the success of LTC, I hope miners will start to understand what is better for the development of bitcoin.

I wonder what the thinking is behind it. I presume it's a face saving measure where they can say they're fulfilling the will of 'the people' despite their own misgivings. A neat out for them.

Only the true shills will resist now.

SegWit (and next Bitcoin exponential bubble) by late summer, early fall.

Good times ahead  ;D

If it was a 3rd party sponsoring the poll I'd say  they'd discount it like they've discounted everything else. But at least they are publicly asking the question. I see this as a positive sign. Hopefully the lopsidedness of the poll will make it clear to them that they are the problem in the scalability debate by holding out on this.

It's been less than a month since the last time they announced that they are against it https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/why-we-dont-support-segwit-91d44475cc18
Do you guys believe that they changed their mind  so quick and now they are seriously thinking to start signaling segwit?

Voted fo Segwit and not bigger blocks. I think Segwit increases the block capacity so it's early days yet to decide wheather we need bigger blocks or not. First we need to see if SegWit will be enough. We don't need to inflate blockchain unnecessarily

in the end miners are just our employees who are mining the blocks. it doesn't matter if they want Segwit or not, that much.
as Lauda keeps repeating as the super majority wants Segwit, they will eventually see they have no other choice but to embrace it.

Anyone in favor of a Bitcoin split is either very ignorant (and/or delusional) or an enemy of Bitcoin. Now if we were forced to do a split of any kind, then a bilateral split is the only way to go (to prevent damage on both chains). The BTU clowns don't even want that.

It's probably a get-out clause to save themselves. If you resist a successful UASF, you become entirety irrelevant later on. This is why it is better for them to activate it via MASF.

It is very possible if you considering that the price of LTC increased about 600% primarily due to Segwit.

Just look at the node stats (both listening and non-listening), the amount of companies ready or in support of Segwit. Combine that with the results of this Twitter poll (which is not exactly representative as a lot of people do not use Twitter), you get the proof required to confirm my statement (which I will keep repeating).

I think yes, we should activate segwit because it will be a big help for bitcoin because it will increase the size and it can help for the speed of transactions to be faster than now, i tried litecoin and even the segwit is not fully activated, i think it will make litecoin more efficient so why not give it a try for bitcoin ???

without threat without insult without bias i say this

segwit is not:
"Segwit is essentially equal to bigger blocks"
due to the requirement of people needing to move funds to segwit keypairs long AFTER activation, just to even get some where above the norm but below the expectation.

my statement is based on the reality of user requirement of segwit keypairs.

I'm actually really surprised to see this poll coming from Via, given their seemingly unshakeable stance, but I think it's a really good sign that either side of the argument can still change their mind based on pragmatic reassessments of the situation. My vote is yes, of course! Whatever decision Via takes, well done.

I and my team voted yes. Hope it will go ahead tho.  :)

It's like a bitcoin war? No, It is a measure to support bitcoin development, some larger blocks will help the bitcoin transactions be confirmed more quickly. Bitcoin is being loved by people, it should be improved better. So, I support segwit, I take a vote for "yes" answer. I never thought that F2Pool chose segwit because they had seen the effect on Segwit in other alts. You surprised me.

That is right and I agree with you that whatever vote we make and whatever polls we agree on still we can not make them change their minds. It will be the vote of the miners that will have a voice and not ours and thus even if we make a consensus or poll it will not make a voice. But theres no harm in trying, let us just do it and possibly a miracle will happen.

So 5,369 votes and it seems that SegWit is the most favored. 83% out of these (4,456 votes, more or less) are supporting Segwit, while the other 17% are not. Seems people want this to be settled. Well, thanks for pointing this poll out, Lauda.

I hope there will be a mining hash pool. The present poll can be rigged. Somebody could register many Twit accounts and rig the poll.

Going some way to show that the majority of people prefer SegWit. The only reason it hasn't been activated is Chinese miners trying every trick in the book to stop it.

I think eventually sometime in the future Segwit will get activated. Miners want money correct? Well they make money in 2 different ways.

1) Extra miner fees with every block they find. Currently its usually an extra ~1 BTC or so.

2) 12.5 BTC for the block reward.

After Segwit goes online their miner fees will be reduced because blocks won't be filled up as before. However with the huge adoption of Bitcoin in the near future, the fees will go back to the way they were. LightningNetwork is way too far off right now to think about.

However if BTC/USD can double/triple just by Segwit activation then their mined BTC will be worth much more.

Basically pick the better option.


14.00  BTC per block @ 1500 BTC/USD

12.75 BTC per block @ 2000 BTC/USD



Which option would the miners choose?


However there is a centralization issue at the moment in China that they probably still want control off. When BTC goes higher, more miner manufactures might start ASIC production and they will lose marketshare. By keeping BTC/USD low, then they can still keep their monopoly. But if BTC/USD is very high then they will start to get competition.

Yes has clearly won with 80%, but unfortunately, Proof of Twitter is not a part of bitcoin, so it all comes down to ViaLTC wanting to do the switch or not. I think since f2pool did the switch there's some hope of other pools slowly switching up specially as LTC reaches an all time high and potentially reaches 50% of Bitcoin's marketcap, they may get scared and this may trigger all the miners to signal segwit in BTC. We'll see.

It is one thing to consider the theory and another thing is to see the practical use it is having and see how it is working. The application of Segwit in Litecoin is serving as a test field for Bitcoin and this application is giving very positive results, it is normal that more and more voices asking that it apply to Bitcoin.


$ 21000 the first option, $ 25500 the second one, and 2000 BTC/USD is a conservative prediction thinking in medium term. Once the scalability issue is resolved the price will rise significantly and the users will complaint when they have to pay 50 cents (0.00025) per transaction.

I also find surprising their change of mind. I voted, but I'm not too confident that they will actually take this poll into account much.
But yeah, I hope I'm wrong and they'll switch to SegWit soon after the poll. How long until the poll is concluded?

You're welcome. I was right about my initial assumptions, and the "losing side" is already whining about "sybil attacking" on Twitter. ::)

Combine this with the ASICBOOST exploit and you get a monopoly that nobody can compete with (unless they want to constantly be operating at a loss).

F2Pool did it not long after their poll concluded.

~2-3 hours. You can see that on the link, just take a closer look.

I was totally disappointed when Viabtc before releases a lot of statement against Segwit Activation. I was quite surprise about it and didn't find their reason to be valid. But now it looks like they are changing their tune. What gives? Do they come up to the conclusion that hard fork is not really the solution for bitcoin technology? I will vote now for Segwit.

Thanks Lauda. I didn't play with Twitter enough to know they can show the ending time and I totally missed it.

And somehow I felt like ViaBTC will be one of the hardest ones to convince to go to SegWit path, much more difficult than F2Pool.

Sorry for not quoting you, it's pretty hard to do that on my small display smartphone.

Unfortunately they have not changed they mind after the poll, but at least they try to find out.

https://supload.com/SyfsSeTJ- (https://supload.com/SyfsSeTJ-)

Let's give it a few weeks or months and then see what's what. The stars are very slowly aligning or colliding for something to be done. Segwit is the prime option for now.

Well they did say "for now" and backtracking on what they have said would involve some degree of embarrassment to admit they were wrong about their decision. The world is full of people ploughing on with a bad decision long after it is brutally obvious that they made a bad decision so it's normal for them to hold their position for now. It took f2pool a while to settle on what their final stance would be too, but they didn't make as bold statements as viabtc did against segwit so they had no need for a big backtrack. Naturally it will take viabtc longer but I suspect they will switch positions. The real key, then, is what will happen with Bitmain since they have the most hard line position against segwit and will lose the most face from changing their minds. Their leader is so stubborn he could just persist indefinitely flying in the face of all logic and reason that tells him he's headed the wrong way. Money and the reality he'll lose out by doing this is the only thing that might swing him back.

In my arrogant opinion, Antpool is stalling SegWit on Bitcoin to see what happens with LTC and for a while they'll keep stalling to earn more profit on their bags of LTC mined for years.

I think this was their plan all along to sell their LTC with as much profit as possible and at the same time benefit from the fees in BTC.

ViaBTC or other pools signal for SW, it won't matter not until Antpool signals it as well or we really don't need them?

UASF. Or Nuclear Option. Just threatening it will make them activate Segwit before tomorrow.

They could have saved everyone some time and backtracked on their absurd BU or BIP100 support. I have added the result and their statement to the OP. Additionally, this just confirms that they go against any kind of consensus/voting (nodes, economy, twitter, whatever).

Jihad, also know as "Fuck your mother if you want fuck", has not been acting reasonably and the interest of the Bitcoin network for quite some time now. The latest statement from ViaBTC does not make sense at all. Hash power is not any kind of law. If it were, Bitcoin would not be a decentralized system but a miner-controlled-system.

I agree. UASF will saves everyone a lot of time and resources.

Well I think that's what he IS actually arguing and he's not the only one; that bitcoin is a miner controlled system.

I've already written somewhere that UASF is a bit dangerous if there is less than 50% support because it would very likely develop into a chain split if a large part of the opposing pools chose to stay stubborn. And probability for them to accept Segwit is probably negatively correlated with a further polarization of the debate.

It's better to get 50% on board first (the support is now at ~40%, so 50% is not far away. ViaBTC if it really reconsiders its position - the last tweet for me is pointing into that direction - could bring it very very close) and then, if only Bitmain is left opposing, move on with UASF.

For the long term I support the "nuclear option" or a even more radical change (alternative to PoW).

Which is what I've observed to be the belief of BU proponents. Do they not understand that as such, Bitcoin would be a pretty worthless system?

The nuclear option is changing the PoW, which was what the user was referring to IMO. I like the idea of it, and it sets a nice precedent for miners not acting in the best interest of the Bitcoin network. The major downside to it is that it also punishes the honest/good miners/pools (e.g. Bitfury & BTCC).

---

We can do UASF with BIP149 (which supersedes BIP148) if need be: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0149.mediawiki

Their disconnect, IMO, is that they ignore the issues of "mining centralization"
and "ledger centralization" so that they can push for an ideal that failed in 2010.

Essentially, they are repeating the failures of history. They do not care about
the possible pitfalls, they only care about their own self interests. It is so
destructive, that it is more likely that all blocksize raising proponents are likely
funded or created by the miners themselves, and not a band of Satoshi idealists.

Only miners would be so egotistical to think that they can control the whole system.
Some still haven't learned that the economies do not follow them, but vice versa.
They do not understand that "block forming consensus" is not enough to balance
this type of system. There are still pieces missing for full automation.

The BU proponents do not understand this. They believe Satoshi created the
perfect system and that by allowing the miners to act in an unrestricted and
unilateral manner, that we will reach the Bitcoin utopia dreamed about in early
years. Those were children's fantasies then, totally unrealistic based on our
current technological limitations. When Satoshi added the 1MB Cap, it was an
acknowledgment that the technology was still lacking. He didn't propose a
flexable cap for very important reasons. He chose a concrete restriction fix.

They often quote Satoshi out of context and spread the "original vision" bullshit. If we were on about "original visions", we'd never have 1 MB of RAM (if the "Gates quote" actually is true). A lot has been learned over the years, and a lot has changed (the original whitepaper is really outdated on the current status of Bitcoin). 1 CPU = 1 Vote doesn't work; I don't think Satoshi predicted/factored in ASICs.

Pretty much everything that Satoshi has said about POW or miners has an assumption, i.e. miners being honest and acting in the best interest of the network due to certain incentives. After several years of experience, we've learned that this isn't exactly true. This is why miners need to be kept in check, which is also one of the reasons for which we have so many nodes and promote users running them. If you take a look at the centralized ETH, the ViaBTC statement couldn't possibly make sense. If it did make sense, ETH could never move into POS (which is a separate story).

Segwit is the first step towards some of the fixes required to make a higher block size safer.

Yes please, we need Segwitt and side-chains asap!

It´s incomprehensible the statement of Viabtc after the survey of yesterday. Why do a survey if you ignore the results afterwards? Or they don´t want to admit so fast they were wrong before? The centralization of Bitcoin that some miners are looking for lead us to the same old point, selfishness and avarice. However here the miners are ignoring the power of the community. What if one day bitcoin users would feel tired and disgusted and decide to move to another coin? What would happen if they decided to sell all their coins and say goodbye to Bitcoin? Would these miners feel happy about mining a worthless coin singing "Hashpower is the law"? In the end, the miners, although necessary, are replaceable, the community of users, not so much.

Segwit is the first step to great scaling without centralizing the main chain.

For anyone who is sane and not delusional or ignorant, it was obvious that Segwit would be strongly favored in that result.

ViaBTC is a small man, just like Jihan. It takes a great person to admit being wrong right away. Therefore, it will take some time before they realize that they are.

No. This is our coin; no miner is going to hold it hostage. Either Segwit gets activated via UASF or we hard fork a PoW change.