Bitcoin Forum

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/breaking-bitcoin-miners-reach-scaling-agreement/

Now the question is what does that mean for us all as investors. A price crash because people fear hard fork will somehow make their money disappear, or maybe another pump because the network just got improved? Usually a software update makes is better, faster, in other words more valuable, but bitcoin has its own ways. So, buy buy buy or sell sell sell ???

its all whistles in the wind and drama until we actually see some code to review that actually says it does 'what it say on the tin'

anyone can have a meeting. but meetings are meaningless.
code rules.. simple

“The group of signed companies represents a critical mass of the bitcoin ecosystem. As of May 23, this group represents:

56 companies located in 21 countries
83.28% of hashing power
5.1 billion USD monthly on chain transaction volume
20.5 million bitcoin wallets”

Good to see such a big majority number percentage-wise.

But....That is a lot of hashing power for 56 companies to have. I hope we have further innovations to bring back some of that somehow. Would love to see more pools created by regular people and startup invesrments.

Show us the code that will be used for the hard fork in 6 months. That really needs to be put out there so we can really examine it.

With things being faster and bigger blocks I imagine price would go down on transaction fees by a lot. This will bring btc back to being useful in the poorer countries.

good luck to them with their suitcoin
bitcoin otoh will not hard fork

I didn't see any dates as to when they are going to implement Segwit Upgrade. I think this is long overdue. Scaling solution should have been provided to the users because the price is really going up everyday.

That's a million dollar question mate, only time can tell that.

Bitcoin literally has its own ways.

Softfork Segwit THEN increase blocksize after? This is acceptable.

Hardfork Segwit and 2mb blocks at same time? Unacceptable, and UASF is the answer.

This news is misrepresented and its nothing good for bitcoin, they said they will agree on segwit if signalling reaches 80% but bitmain won't signal it they already said it so its already dead. They have however said hardfork within 6 months for 2 mb blocks which will likely split the chain and which Jihan Wu said on his twitter he doesn't mind.

I feel the opposite

Well, if you really want to get the hashing power controlled by so few companies down (considering they each control something like 1.x% of the hashing power presented, each), the best thing that could happen would be taking away massive ASIC farms that push average joes out of the game and go back to GPU mining or something. Even that wouldn't be good since it sparks more GPU sales and the big farms continue to do what they do, but it brings down the barrier to entry for some people.

Looks like code is coming soon.

I am strictly against hard forks. A hard fork must only be done if it is really really necessary like a bug in the code or something. Also they keep pulling back the release time and are trying to release the hard fork as soon as possible which means the code wont be thoroughly tested which is absolutely necessary in case of hard fork. I dont want an early segwit with bugs. A delayed segwit would be better so that more people can go through the code and verify it.

FINALLY! Now, there s nothing to stop BTC from going to $5k+

This issue stalled development of BTC for years. Now it s quite clear how all this will unravel.

Bitcoin has been stalled for years...now you want it stalled more? Those corrupt Core developers really fooled you guys good. Can't wait for miners to take back bitcoin for good.

Bitcoin development was never stalled. New features are released on a regular basis. This problem however does not have a good solution. What the core developers want is a good solution. Increasing the blocksize is a horrible solution. Also there were a lot of bugs in BU's code which were fixed later on which destroys their credibility. Handing over bitcoin to miners lead to centralization which is horrible. If core devs were corrupt, they would have already forced segwit on everyone which they didnt do. Miners however want to force BU on everyone and are asking for hard fork.

Increase blocksize horrible solution? Wow. Again, those slimy Core devs pulled a number on you and so many others.

Are you joking? They've been trying to force it by purposefully stalling scaling. Now you have crazies pushing UASF. Even still people are agreeing to add Segwit garbage to bitcoin just to compromise. Miners fork to big blocks soon is the best possible outcome.

Well, they're the ones forking, we stay on the original chain and we keep the name. :D

Exactly I don't know why the long wait, it's been long overdue and I hope the politicization has ceased because we need a consensus and one mind going forward.

The miners will not implement this. It's a bit like Charlie Brown and Lucy and the football - they will yank it away every time.

The miners are being enriched by the high fees caused by congestion in Bitcoin transaction volumes. Scaling will relieve that pressure causing fees to drop back down to very low levels. So the miners are strongly incentivized to prevent all scaling.

The trick is, they cannot be obvious about it because that would tank the price and kill off Bitcoin. So they have to keep offering "compromises" and "alternatives" like BU's 2MB hardfork, to make it look like they are open to scaling and that a solution is just around the corner. But then there is always some excuse or issue that will come up, leading to more delays.

This is why the UASF BIP148 initiative is so important. It is make-or-break for Bitcoin before the rise of the alt markets overwhelm it. Core has led a principled and conservative opposition to the mining camp, but now it is time for the militia to break camp from the Core devs and launch our own assault on the enemy stronghold, despite Core's remonstrations against the effort.

August 1 is Bitcoin Independence Day.

This is a old announcement and some of these parties have already pulled out of this agreement... right? I have said it before... We are not divided

over the technical aspects of this debate, but rather over the role-players in this debate. If you side with for example : Roger Ver {the

person} ...then you will support whatever he is doing. We should shift our focus away from the people behind the proposals and rather look at the

quality of these proposals.  :P

FTFY

P.S
pools did not ask to be the only electorate.. that was lue JR soft exploit 2015.. research it
pools do not care about fee's as much as ensuring they atleast solve a block.. research empty block.
pools care about ensuring they atleast solve a block.. research blocks getting rejected purely out of UASF bias not due to invalid tx's, just brand bias

core conservative?
what have they conserved.
core removed the fee control mechanisms
core introduced new double spend mechanisms of unconfirmed tx bait/switch techniques
core allow a single tx to take up 10-20% of a block


as for this new proposal.. its all still the same group. DCG is still the BS cartel  (BlockStream Barry Silbert)
its the same empty promises since 2015, just glossed over, but not actually any different
wake up

Come August 1, franky's going to need to find a new line of work. :-)

Enjoy your minority segshit uasf 1mb forever blockscheme settlement shitcoin.

come august first you can have your minority coin.

seems all you care about is double spending and wanting splits. so go be happy in fiat land when you cash out. its people like you that would happily ruin bitcoin for a quick opportunity to double your coin even if the value (tech) becomes less unique.

some people have more smarts to care about bitcoins longevity. not the temporary drama.

P.S no one pays me for my opinion. im self sustainable thanks to knowing more than most and being in earlier than most.

but have a nice cashout day when you fools get the split you been begging for that dosnt offer you the promises sold to you