Bitcoin Forum

I'm checking Coin.dance since yesterday and I see a really decent increase on the mining power.

https://i.imgur.com/nb3Z82H.png

It seems like It's going to get activated at 80% If I got things right and there is nothing we could do about it, this will also cancel UASF activation. The agreement they made a few weeks ago include most of the mining power so It seems unlikely to me that they would fail to do this.
Is this our way to centralization? I mean this could make the core developers unemployed, right?

They are implementing the exact SegWit version Core made.

So I don't really see the centralization part.

But yes, it looks like if they finish the code before August 1st, they will activate it and UASF will be canceled.

what the F** does this mean?!!
since when developing, coding, contributing to an open source project became a job that you apply so that you get "unemployed" if something happened!

and actually this way of thinking is leading to centralization.

---

p.s. this is activation of SegWit compatible with bip91 (https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/21) (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawiki)

I know that bitcoin is an open source project but what I meant is that there are some developers that are really working on the project more then others. If SegWit2X takes place, we will probably see another repository on GitHub controlled by other people (whoever made the new SegWit proposa) and since they are against Bitcoin core developers this could mean that the core developers suggestions from now on won't be taken seriously.

A change in consensus doesn't mean anyone is excluded unless they can't accept the change.  If SegWit2X takes place, the Core devs can simply add the 2MB part to their own code and carry on like nothing happened.  As long as their code is compatible with the new standard, anyone can continue to develop.  It's only if Core refuse to acknowledge the change and opt to maintain a minority chain that they potentially lose influence, which is beyond unlikely.  It would, however, set what I consider to be a healthy precedent in demonstrating that developers aren't "in control" as such.  Devs can push code, but the users securing the chain (that's both miners AND nodes) choose and enforce the code.  That's the way it should be.

all i'm going to say about this is that there is no core dev, SegWit2x dev, XYZ dev.
there are only a set of rules known as consensus rules (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Consensus) that are enforced by the network, it just happens that core devs have been the best and most dedicated group of people to code for bitcoin and keep it alive and also improve it all these years.

- this doesn't mean core devs are employees and nothing else matters.
- this doesn't mean nobody else can contribute, and even if they do it must be ignored!
- this doesn't mean bitcoin core is THE bitcoin client. bitcoin core (github/bitcoin/bitcoin) is A bitcoin client.

with that said if SegWit2x or any other future proposals about anything in general gained an overwhelming support from the network (not just miners, miners ARE the employees) and if it was really a good and needed change it must be implemented by everyone.
it being good or not remains to be seen though.

the thing you said about not taken seriously is another political matter which i don't even want to get into its discussion.

Whether UASF is good or bad is debatable, or course

But I don't quite like the idea of "if they finish the code before August 1st". Being a developer myself, I know that it takes many months to polish the code and get rid of nasty bugs that may be sitting patiently there and then one day wreak total chaos. We have seen that already with Bugs Unlimited, and now they want to do this again? Whenever there is some deadline, you can be dead sure that the code will be infested with bugs. I'm talking about the 2x part apparently, SegWit itself seems to be pretty consistent after a few years of development and testing. Whoever promotes SegWit2x is obviously out of his mind and seriously looking for trouble


That seems to be the most scary part of the whole shebang

Your post makes me really nervous about the short-term future. If some bug is found in the code, and if it can be exploited by the hackers, then there will be all sort of chaos. I still remember what happened in March 2014, when Mt Gox crashed (although it had nothing to do with software bugs). There were chaos all around and the exchange rate was doing down like a falling knife.

Even if that is the case, it would still get fixed soon and don't be nervous about the short-term future and think about the long term one. There would be chaos all around if that happens but it would still be like Mt Gox, it will wear out soon and just be another part of bitcoin history. For now I hope for the best ever bitcoin proposal to win and I expect it to resolve the slow confirmation times on transactions that we are experiencing now.

Well, the segwit code is actually the same as used by core and has had all the rigorous testing already performed!  The new development will be the extension to larger blocks.  I would assume this is just changing a hard coded value somewhere, if that was the case then it shouldn't be that difficult to code, as most emphasis would be on tweaking existing test procedures to consider the new block size).  Having said that, it probably isn't coded in this way (?) and there are perhaps indirectly affected processes, nothing it seems, is ever easy when programming haha.

On another note, I see BTCC has just started flagging Segwit2x too, so I would expect > 80% for sure by the end of today!

You are certainly not alone

I myself feel quite worried even though I mostly moved my funds to Litecoin and the US dollar by now. I'm afraid that if some vulnerability found and exploited to the full, it may also affect all cryptocurrencies, not just Bitcoin. And the most dreadful thing would be if major exchanges start failing and falling. This SegWit2x thing looks like a Trojan horse to me since exchanges won't be able to decline it unless they choose to delist Bitcoin completely (even if temporarily). Personally, I hope that it will be postponed for at least half a year (if not abandoned altogether)

Even if 100% of miners signal for something, that something is irrelevant if it's not backed by Bitcoin Core devs. Bitcoin Core devs developed all the technology, and they think it's a good idea to fire them and put some random morons in charge instead to maintain and develop Bitcoin. Big mistake. Every miner supporting this instead of BIP141 will soon face bankruptcy if they are stupid enough to run that software.

You certainly don't see how dangerous the current situation is

It is not just about miners going bust, they are basically a waste material anyway (in the sense they can be easily processed and substituted if required). Indeed, this is not how they feel and behave right now but this is how things should be if done right, and this is the crux of the matter. If it were only about them being spent and wiped out, no one would give a goddamn fuck. The real problem is that they have enough power to take Bitcoin down with them if they choose so (or at least, turn Bitcoin into a waste material as well), and I for one have no doubts that they will (I refer to Jihan and his minions, more specifically)

Let's wait until october and see what happens. I suspect there will be fireworks and it will be a failure that will display NYC is a mistake. The rushed hardfork into inferior software is going to be a joke. If they try to attack the legacy chain that sticks with Core we may need a PoW change... I dont know honestly how it will play out.

Hello!

New to this forum, been reading for a few days and trying to educate myself in these issues, but still trying to understand:

Can someone explain, or more likely, link to me, what is so dangerous about the whole SegWit2x issue? For what I know, Litecoin already does SegWit, and as for the 2 MB block, is it really that much or that complex? On the surface it seems rather straightforward. To me it sounds like anything that improves scalability will strengthen BTC. Maybe not its value short-term, but for sure its validity as a currency.

Best regards.

Then we have SegWit activated and no hard fork

Exactly what Core wants, isn't it?

You simply can't take and merge two two different codebases in one project

And hope that there wouldn't be bugs. Now imagine that some dude has a pacemaker implanted, so if its software has a bug and the device malfunctions due to this bug, the poor dude may get instantly killed by an electric discharge. It is the same with forcing such updates on cryptocurrencies. One bug found and exploited may render the whole system totally unusable. And it doesn't really matter how complex the resulting code will be, you can safely assume that it is complex enough to contain a few nasty bugs that may require many months of intensive testing to weed them out. If anything, that has already been proven in practice with BU


This in no way prevents miners from taking revenge on Bitcoin

Miners wont HF with buggy code even the market will refuse it with overwhelming support. Jihan wants to rush it to try to be ahead of the waves of new people after sewitt. Those side-chains will scale Bitcoin beyond expectations wich making a HF unnecessary.

Why Litecoin? If the Bitcoin exchange rates crash, then that is going to affect all the altcoins as well, including Litecoin. And another thing is that when the Bitcoin prices crash, the altcoin exchange rates crash even more (percentage-wise). For example, if Bitcoin prices crash by as much as 50%, then it is possible that the altcoin prices can crash by a massive 95%.

Faulty logic. First, if bitcoin crash 50% in terms of USD, then an altcoin (say coin X) will only crash 50% in terms of USD, if its value in satoshi doesn't change. Second, if if bitcoin crash 50% in terms of USD, and coin X's satoshi price is up by 10 times (because people fleeing from BTC and use it to bid up the price of coin X), then in this case, coin X will go up 5x in terms of USD.

Your scenario only happens when BTC crashes, and at the same time coin X crashes agaisnt BTC.

This is still the lesser of two (or even more) evils

And, as I said, I moved my funds to Litecoin AND the US dollar. Further, if Bitcoin eventually kicks the bucket (or just turns extremely toxic beyond repair and hope), this wouldn't mean that all altcoins are going to end up like that (though some will certainly do, more power to them). As to me, this is exactly where Litecoin has all the chances to take up the lead and replace Bitcoin since it is basically the same Bitcoin but with its issues already efficiently and effectively solved (read no rogue miners, no more Jihan and his evil minions). And finally, Litecoin price is going against Bitcoin's for the second day in a row. Right now Bitcoin goes up while Litecoin goes down. Yesterday, it was the reverse. That could easily mean that people are already considering Litecoin as a genuine alternative to Bitcoin

I think when the time comes the miners are all going to come out and backout out of this due to not really supporting the cause and being unable to support it as a whole. They did this to do something, maybe move the market a bit or stabilize the price but it isn't going to last to AUG 1st when people find out they weren't being serious.

Why would the miners want want to change anything, they could just stay the way they are and reap in the TX fees and just sit here with no change in sight while the fees get higher and higher.

I don't think it's going to get activated, ever.

That's easy to answer: the UASF did its job. The threat made last week to hard fork was quite telling.

Ok lets go through the facts and scenarios.

Segwit by Core activated at 95%, no blocksize increase.

Failed.

Segwit2x by a group (what's their agenda?) activated at 80%, segwit first then 2mb block.

What guarantees is there that 2mb will happen? As far as i know, none.

Thus segwit2x is a fraudulent attempt to activate segwit at 80%, instead of 95% and no blocksize increase at all.

After all why not do segwit and 2mb at the same time?

Or 2mb first then segwit?

Once again i see segwit being forced on users by centralised group of companies acting in their own interest.

The fee system is absolutely bonkers and horrendous idea, design by clueless fuckwits whom don't understand economic.

If by miracle we ever get a blocksize increase, 2mb is not going to be enough.

It's not a decent increase, it's a really, really big increase... Especially comparing to support to other consensus proposals.

Maybe this is what will start scaling for Bitcoin. If so, great! I think this is what pleases most of the crowd...

I am very nervous after reading all the posts in this thread.
Just want to ask to my seniors, experienced bitcoiners, "what should I/we do?"

Should I/we sale all btc and convert into usd? will it be the good decision?  ::)

If the fear spreads all over the community then the btc price will drop a lot? what do you think?

Why in this order is clear, the aim of the Segwit2x is SegWit activated before Aug 1 to prevent Bitcoin split. The second aim, 2MB base blocksize, follows in few months later so everyone outside NYA group have enought time to modify their software to be compatible with Bitcoin 2MB base blocksize. The change with 2MB is pretty straight forward, it activates at certain block height, one transaction is still restricted to 1MB, and weight at 8MB. Nothing complicated.

NYA signers going to run Segwit2x code before it ever activates, and because they represent huge share in Bitcoin economy, there is huge incentive for everone else to follow 2MB to prevent nasty Bitcoin split. Acceptance of  Segwit2x code if activated before Aug 1 from every major exchange outside the NYA group proves this. Probably only few hobbysts and those shorting Bitcoin might oppose the 2MB though, you cant make everyone happy or prevent discruption from those profit seekers.

that is not logic, that is called history! and each time bitcoin price goes down it takes every other altcoin with it except some random tiny altcoin which has been getting pumped from 10 satoshi to 20 satoshi. otherwise all of them get dumped hard.
and it is not just about how much they go down, it is the fact that they will go down. even if an altcoin goes down -10% since nobody has any faith in any of the altcoins they will all start panic selling and crash it to -90%

most of the comments you read here are exaggerating the situation. and they represent their "uneducated assumptions" as hard facts with 100% certainty! specially those who repeat it over and over.

the fact is, it is good to have some doubts and be nervous, selling some is good to manage the risks. but despite what you said about fear, there is no fear. there is a lot of hope and price is rising strongly!

Yeah... I suppose bugs can happen and, depending on the bugs, the outcome can be a disaster. However, I have read that LTC and BTC are built upon the same code, so porting the features should be *relatively* simple, yet still...

I guess I simply don't have enough technical knowledge to make a judgemente on the whole thing. I can see both sides of the discussion, huge upside (better scalability giving BTC higher value), huge downside (bugs could essentially anhihilate BTC as a currency). Heck, even the simple *fear* of a bug can make the price tank.

Either I don't understand this correctly or I'm missing something. Trace Mayer tweeted "#SegWit is coming. Fight w/ your full node #UASF. #BIP148 only has Hobbits & a few Ents. #BIP149 will have all Ents". Why is that? I mean If SegWit2X is going to get activated in the next a few days, what's the point from continuing to run UASF full nodes If UASF was meant to activate SegWit as well.

I guess you refer to SegWit here

Porting is never easy, even porting absolutely the same code which is a little more complicated than "Hello, World!" to another hardware platform or operating system is a hell of a job. Aside from that, Litecoin has never been under the load where SegWit would make the difference (and still less Lightning Network), so we can't say how it will work in practice given Bitcoin numbers. As the saying goes, in theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they are not. And this is only one part of the whole thing, while the other (2M blocks) seems not to have been tested under real load at all. Changing just one variable (constant) may lead to undefined behavior (the regular cause for really nasty bugs) somewhere down the line (e.g. due to integer overflow)

Because IF SegWit2x gets done (a big IF), then the UASF will have no affect as all the blocks will be signalling for SegWit.

If SegWit2x doesn't happen then UASF WILL split off, and only allow SegWit signalling blocks. (Anyone's guess how that plays out..)

Either way - keep running UASF.

...

As I've said in the other thread, the CORE devs have clearly rejected SegWit2x. As far as their concerned it's an ALT coin.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

..

The ONLY way this works out.. is if BIP141 activates SegWit (The one that's been tested and ready for 2 YEARS - not knocked up in a month). And then we fight over the 2MB HardFork block increase, that Again, CORE will not support.

And running the UASF, means you'll need to be signalling BIP141, so again KEEP RUNNING UASF.

..

It is a 'quite-extraordinary-cluster-fuck.'

No clear path ahead at all IMHO.

..

... you've got to lol.

(And in answer to the OP question - no. It's a maybe at best. Just like every other BIP out there..)

I hate this "Let's shoot the arrow into thin air, and hope for the best" approach to this. I would like to see the final product going through Alpha

& Beta testing and excessive peer review, before something is released into the wild. We have seen this "Wild west" approach before {BU} and

look how that turned out.  ::)

wy now segwit2x matter more than segwit? i means why all of sudden segwit2x get the activation, when  in allt his time normal segwit was ignore by miners and everything? is because uasf forcing the activation, or they like better this proposal?

Core don't support UASF either.  Keep peddling double standards and hoping no one will notice, though.  BIP148 hasn't been merged into Core, nor is there any sign that it will be any time soon.  And unlike UASF, SegWit2x has more than ample mining support, so of the two, 'User Anticipated Spectacular Falter' is the one more likely to result in an altcoin.



The concept of UASF is barely 5 months old and the code to trigger it was knocked up in about the same time, so UASF isn't "tested and ready for 2 years" either.  Double standards again.  

Also BIP141's natural deployment needs 95% of miner support.  That was literally NEVER going to happen on its own because there was too much opposition.  The blocksize is the "bribe" apparently needed for miners to push it through.  BIP91 means that SegWit can be activated using either bit1 or bit4 signalling, which is why pools who previously favoured all manner of different proposals can all get together and support SegWit2x.  Plus it only needs 80% which we have already achieved and only need to maintain.  If everyone else moves forward with this, I can assure you Core will follow along for the ride.  They aren't willingly going to relegate themselves to maintaining some lonely minority chain in isolation with a few 1MB zealots to keep them company.

For how long they should maintain the 80% in order to get activated? 1000 blocks? I also don't get http://segwit.co/ is it only checking for bit 4 signals while the SegWit2X is 1 bit because the percentage doesn't look correct to me.

Yes, more than 80% miners support for segwit 2x, i hope it will be impact on bitcoins price will be more expensive
and the comunity of bitcoins never become two side, if it will be succesfull not be found issue on bitcoins network
i am sure bitcoins proggress for next time will be adopted become cryptocurrency.

From what I've seen, there is not a single core developer supporting it... I think they're playing with fire here.

This could not trigger a PoW change?

Nice discussion. The NYA most probably composed majority of bitcoin miners and stake holders. I am more concerned on its price. ;D I wonder what will be the world's reaction on bitcoin if NYA really takes over its blockchain.

I can tell these guys will not takeover Bitcoin and they will also fail to steal the brand!!
Miners and some dummy CEOs with big egos have absolutely nothing to say!!
They will fail pretty big and learn another very hard lesson.
At least the miners should know that they have no power, whatever what type of shenanigens they are doing.
UASF showed those guys twice (first Litecoin, then with Bitcoin) that without the agreement by the users, you won't go anywhere with your "upgrade"!!!
Because when users aren't willing to install and run your crappy and buggy programmed software, well you're the one who looks stupid.
And political plays doesn't work here in that space! This is the reason why we all came here!!! Because we're fed up with the existing system and their lies and empty promises.

I still could imagine the fork getting cancelled in the last minute.
And if not, fine! Let them fork. The market will prove them how wrong they are.
The price may take a hit for a while, but that doesn't really matter. Next year we will see 5 digits anyways. I can wait!!

yes i heard this november bitcoin will again do hardfork and if the amount of bitcoin has hard fork amounted to 3x and it produces a new coin which is very profitable for those who have a bitcoin balance can get free hardfork coin.

The thread is a little bit old but since you brought it up, I thought I should let you know that 38% of companies (http://segwit.party/nya/) who signed NYA already withdrew their support. I expect more to join in the upcoming days left.

SegWit2x cancelled, altcoins on the rise !

Unfortunately, it is clear that we have not built sufficient consensus for
a clean blocksize upgrade at this time. Continuing on the current path
could divide the community and be a setback to Bitcoin’s growth. This was
never the goal of Segwit2x.

As fees rise on the blockchain, we believe it will eventually become
obvious that on-chain capacity increases are necessary. When that happens,
we hope the community will come together and find a solution, possibly with
a blocksize increase. Until then, we are suspending our plans for the
upcoming 2MB upgrade.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000685.html

Well for now it has been cancelled yet again. and it give a good dip to bitcoin prices.

The SegWit2x team failed to implement replay protection, so until they figure that out, it's dead in the water.

Well i hope it stays dead in the water

Looks like SegWit2x may happen after all, albeit as a mostly unsupported fork if these asshats have anything to do with it: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/mysterious-group-bitpico-threatens-to-execute-segwit2x-hard-fork/ (https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/mysterious-group-bitpico-threatens-to-execute-segwit2x-hard-fork/)

With only 30% of supporters from the original numbers? I don't think that it will be that successful
and this 30% are just releasing statement just to hype the people and for them to at least lessen their loss.
Theses people are those who really wants to get free money from the fork.

What i believe is that, with all this haggling back and forth, we might see a compromise to the decentralization of Bitcoin on the long run, sine there cant be a consensus among the main players in the crpto world.

The most probably composed majority of bitcoin miners and stake holders. I am more concerned on its price. Grin I wonder what will be the world's reaction on bitcoin if NYA really takes over its blockchain

Segwit2x will continue but a weaker version which cannot be able to overthrow Bitcoin Core. This means Bitcoin holders will still get free money.  ;D Anyway I am not against this. Let SW2x  work their own version and see if they are really capable of launching a better version of Bitcoin.

Canceling segwit2x its a temporary phenomenon. in the future we seen step bt step new trying do BTC "better".
I am hope bitcoin core anounce something new, which can be increase network speed, and can compete with siblings forks

I basically agree with your stance

I also think that this is no more than hype and deliberate fraud or trickery to get rid of B2X futures which have almost lost their value in a frenzied, last-ditch effort to sell a pig in a poke to bag holders. On the other hand, Bitcoin Cash when it was fist launched in early August had even less support, if I'm not mistaken, and right now it seems to be a competitor for cryptomarket domination (at least, we are made to believe so). Anyway, we have to wait just another two days to actually see how it all pans out in the end

The clock it ticking. We'll see how it pans out in a few hours. In the meantime, Coinbase is locking down transfers, and buy/sell functions. See Coinbase blog for details: https://blog.coinbase.com/bitcoin-segwit2x-update-b69a1c1e5ece (https://blog.coinbase.com/bitcoin-segwit2x-update-b69a1c1e5ece)

It is obviously not about Bitcoin Core anymore

SegWit2x, even unborn, had been competing with Bitcoin Cash, and the pump the latter received recently had been intended for it. If it nevertheless comes about, it will be a competition between it and Bitcoin Cash all over again. Given that Bitcoin Cash has 8M blocks while SegWit2x only 2M blocks, I don't really think it has any chance to succeed, but it is for the market to decide, of course. I'm curious whether and how soon it will be listed at major exchanges (say, Bitfinex), so I could get rid of these coins as soon as possible


Where could we see the countdown clock?

No countdown timers to my knowledge, the group behind it (BitPico) is virtually unknown, have no website, a scarce Twitter profile, yet claim to hold 30% of the mining power. According the Coinbase blog, it's supposed to happen at 6am to 8am tomorrow (morning of the 17th).

morning, according to what time zone?

Their blog post didn't specify, but I'd assume East Coast. Should be done by now. Now we'll just have to wait and see if it has support.