Bitcoin Forum

Interesting graphic. Half a year later, things are pretty much the same...

I heard, SegWit will soon be activated with a Sybil Attack (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack) named UASF. I wish, Core Devs implement that on their own playground, i.e. https://github.com/Bitcoin-Core.

https://github.com/Bitcoin should be left as is due to non-consensus.

In the mean time, BU may keep developing on https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited.

I guess, the bold part in the above comment was originally pitched by core devs with commit access. Now they've backed out from it and forcefully integrated SegWit without consensus.

SegWit is good. But, it could have been built on https://github.com/Bitcoin-Core and then integrated to https://github.com/Bitcoin only when the network was running on SegWit.

Not quite. No signaling changed from 61% to less than 30%, so the majority agrees that something must change. But still no agreement about exactly how.

Segwit will 100% be activated by August either by MASF or UASF.

There are no other options as miners are too damn stubborn to admit that SegWit is the only feasible option to go for.

Miners rather stay in current situation for a long time, than helping Bitcoin finally run larger blocks by activating SegWit. If it was up to me, I would have gone for UASF months ago.

The 95% threshold was doomed to fail knowing that a few larger pools have stated to not like/signal SegWit. Without these pools, there will be no 95% or something even close to that.

FTFY

I think, BU devs may petition Github to freeze https://github.com/Bitcoin. Development should take place on https://github.com/Bitcoin-Core & https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited.

Half a year has passed and yet if we look at the pie chart that the author posted there seems to be no movement and if there is only a little. The title of this topic was somehow confusing and the picture was contradicting the topic. Then I ask this question does the author referring to the downfall of segwit or to its success. I am also confused.

more like blockstream will censor it themselves and then point the finger else where.

EG just like greg and luke make segwit a pool only vote to push segwit then greg pretends to say he doesnt pools having vote power while pointing at pools and blaming pools

EG just like greg employs samson mow to push UASF then greg pretends to say he doesnt support UASF all to make greg look innocent while paying a pawn to do his work

what i hope is that blockstream take a brand.. for their own and not call it the reference client /core / only source.... and then let the independent devs work on any project they want without getting rekt the moment they move away from under greg/lukes thumb.. this allowing independnt devs to per review each others work without fear of being slapped and treated like traitors.

a reference client should be where ALL features are considered and added in the cleanest form
EG if blockstream want 1mb block inside a block 4mb block with cludgy maths, 2 merkles and tier networks
and other brands want 4mb single block

then the reference client would end up with a 4mb single block and then have a policy for real data growth within it (much like the 1mb single block with policy of real data, that grew at 25% policy changes over 2009-2016 within the limit)
where the reference client also has all the keypairs and features that everyone wants.. thus making the reference client the true consensus compromise version
where it doesnt end up relying on keypairs and hope and dreams to get more capacity, but everyone gets capacity growth

In any case, non-consensus code like SegWit or Emergent Consensus should not exist on https://github.com/Bitcoin. They belong to https://github.com/Bitcoin-Core & https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited respectively.

We will end up with Do nothing statement at end   :'(
Seing that nothing has changed with 6months, btc hiting all time high, people trying to get on the train while they can, transactions raising and nobody cares as long as the price moves.

I've heard that MASF and UASF are not perfect either as it can cause the chain to split. If that happens well will  be bad time for btc... The thing is that they don't care they don't plan well for the future, they do the opposite when something bad happens (200k unconfirmed transactions) people are talking about UASF. But why didn't we think for it before to stop this situation from actually happening?

I want to make a prediction that neither SegWit or Bitcoin Unlimited will be signalled and that some other 3rd solution will be suggested that

would be more favourable to everyone from all sides. Bitcoin Core developers know what will happen when they force something, so they would

never opt for that method to get things done. They are already successful with SegWit on LiteCoin... why do they need to prove anything now?

core dev have nothing to do with UASF as far as i know, but i could be wrong, and greg is against it so i think i'm not that wrong on this one, the activation also seems based on time and not on something else is that right?

It all comes down to Antpool. I really do not understand how come these people do not understand how much they hurt BTC by not signaling SegWit. What s the alternative for this? BU is a total shit and noone sane would trust coins to someone who cannot keep up stability of the network.

lol

ivan. do you understand how segwit works or are you only advocating it because you think its the only way or only advocating it because of who wrote it...?

oh and dont even bring litecoin into it.. because even the pools are still using native keys (L) not segwit keys (3) so litecoin is not even really using segwit even today.

also antpool is only 16% care to investigate the other 50% saying nay or abstaining..

what you dont understand is core are following a blockstream roadmap that is cludgy and they are stuck at a red light. they will not divert in a new direction. and refuse to take any advice from anyone.
they will stay at the red light or decide to drive through the red light which could cause an accident to get what they want. rather then thinking there is another safe way that doesnt harm anyone.

they need to stop blaming the red light, stop blaming others for what can cause the accident if they drive through the red light and instead change direction and try a route everyone will be happy with.

this does not mean let everyone get out the core bus and jump in a BU bus. it can mean stay on the core bus and instead detour down a core B road that is upto 4 lanes wide.
not the single lane that uses cludgy math manipulation to fit more side by side..

What is Core's plan B if SW has heavy opposition? I want to see Core as the main version even if miners decided to go with BU which coin dance changed the name to EC. Honestly 200K unconfirmed transactions is hurtful, if miners want something like what unlimited is offering then why not give them the same thing in Core? Community is being divided between other coins, yet miners can't see anything other than their 2.5BTC fee reward.

After a good amount of time, look at diagrams posted by authors who have no movement even though there are only a few.
All the topics are accompanied by the main title.

What is going to happen if the Segwit expires and no consensus is reached?

Will the miners signaling just give up or will there be a hardfork?

Or something else?

On August 1, 2017, there may be an attempt to force feed SegWit using UASF.