Bitcoin Forum

This should be a fun poll. I want to find out what all of us collectively think is good for Bitcoin overall backed up by our limited knowledge on the issue. So imagine this. If a core developer came up to you right now and asked "What do you support, UASF or Segwit2x?", what would you answer?

It is ok not to read up on the issue, just use what you know now and answer as best as you can.

My answer, I vote for the UASF. The miners should work for the network, not rule and control it.

Segwit2x is better for bitcoin network,because of 2mb blocksizes and lightning network.
UASF with 1mb blocksizes would be problem.with only UASF in the near future we could face the same problem (long awaiting for confirmation,high fees) again.
On the other hand the reasons for why i will never prefer BU is:
It corrupts decentralization in bitcoin which is very harmful for bitcoin network and so bitcoin's monetary value
It gives bitcoin controll to the big mining corporations,because normal user can't download big amounts of data like 100000GB

Thanks for thread !

your poll doesn't have "none of the above" as an option and that is what i would choose.
because so far neither of these proposals have enough support.
UASF has so little hashrate behind it that will fail or end up splitting bitcoin. it also doesn't have enough node support (but not sure about this).
SegWit2x has at least the miners support and it is a very high enough support that won't lead to any split. but the developers are for some reason that i have not yet understood against it!

which is why i say the current bitcoin is my choice and we must not change anything unless it has a big enough support to reduce the risks to a minimum. something like the plans for original SegWit (the 95% and enough time to reach it) there is no rush...

that was not a fail in SegWit2x, that was more like an attack by someone with hashrate who threw at the testnet to force the deadline for hardfork happen faster than planned (on testnet) they mined a ridiculous number of blocks and it was reached fast. and the same problem will NOT happen on the mainnet.

also SegWit2x 2 MB hardfork is not for 6 months after the activation and I believe it is not really needed if SegWit is activated. and on top of that we don't need a 2 MB hard fork since the spam attack stopped.

I don't know if I prefer SegWit2x or not, yet. there are multiple things that I have doubts about when it comes to this.
I prefer SegWit but that didn't go anywhere, the support is stuck at a low percentage!

p.s. however if I have to choose between bad and worse, I will choose bad. because the bad currently has between 85%-90% support from hash power and the risk of splitting is zero.

I think as far as I am concerned, I don't prefer any of them. It is more like being stucked between the devil and the deep blue sea. I would have gone for segwit2x few days back but right now, I am really having doubts!

It's very difficult to be honest. I am a total supporter of having the economical majority agree on something (in this case a proposal). But on the other hand, I am a bit skeptical when it comes to Segwit2x as the lack or proper testing might cover a few *exploitable* bugs here and there. If it wasn't rushed, I would have chosen Segwit2x without a doubt. But right now I am steering towards 40% Segwit2x and 60% UASF. But the thing is that both of them might result in the market to temporarily turn extremely bearish, as certain miners might choose to part ways from that point. We'll see what happens - whatever happens, I am prepared for basically any outcome.

I support SegWit2x but of course like all fear the consequences of the transition. We are already seeing the falling prices of up to $ 2,000 and this is only the beginning. I hope that all these sacrifices are not in vain, and after the update we will get the best bitcoin which will quickly return its value and will keep going up.

A question with either/or in it is a flawed question, when there are more than 2 choices.

I vote neither.

It's not a matter of choice it's a compulsion if I had a choice then I would like to see bitcoin in it's present form without any big changes made to it but since it's not the case it is not going to make any big difference what my choice going to be between the two available ones. So I would say I don't support UASF nor do I support SegWit.

Why you didn't put none on the choices? My reason is none is there is UASF has only small mining support, it will result in chain split or it will fail and segwit2x although they are more organized and they have the majority of support,but their code, it was rushed even the bitcoin core developers critized it so, i think segwit2x may bring problems to us.

So basically, USAF has to hit at least 21% to stop the 80% on segwit2 right?

Then if that happens, bitmain has said it will automatically do a UAHF to the bitcoin network...

so what are folk giving for odds of any of the 2 above happening?

me maybe if generous I think 3% chance


All this FUD imho is just that FUD to drive the price down one more time for whales before the price pumps after an agreement (even if it is just the first 1/2 of the segwit2 +2mb part)

All very familiar

rinse/wash/repeat

MY 'guess' is we will be back about $2,400 usd BTC by Oct 2017 at the worst..this too shall pass

aren't these 2 at different times?
i mean we are sure that UASF of BIP148 is set for Aug 1
but i think SegWit2x is set to start signalling in mid Aug (or July 21) i am not so sure, the news about SegWit2x has always been filled with a lot of drama instead of real discussions!
edit: never mind i got off my lazy ass and googled it :D
according to segwit2x.github.io i am correct about July 21

this can easily mean a fail for UASF because of lack of support and possibly switching to support the other proposal and get a 100% support!

The correct vote would have been BIP91 or BIP148, because "Segwit2x" includes the 2MB hardfork for November.

I'm currently slightly biased towards BIP91 because it has much more miner support than BIP148 and I think it minimizes the chances of a chain split. I think avoiding a chain split is more important than finding the "ideal" solution, as long as it's an acceptable solution.

In October, I will re-evaluate my position: if there is a safe supermajority of miner support, I'll also accept the 2MB hard fork - although I would have liked a much longer period before that fork to be able to include more "goodies". If support is weak (<70%) then I will communicate in this forum/wherever the need for a hardfork-less solution (and so I'll be probably joining the small blockers).

Looking at the track record of Segwit2x developers, I would not be amazed if something huge gets exploited if it succeeds. The UASF solution

seem to have more solid developers, but it lacks the miner support. If Segwit2x succeeds, we will see everything dominated by miner decisions

and if you look at the way that they exploited users with high fees, then the future does not look too bright.  ???

UASF are helping the bitcoin and asking nothing in return

I d generally vote for UASF but these people have simply been unable to deliver what they have promised, considering all the glitches and failures in the code. So I vote SegWit2x, at least that one ll work.

Besides 90% of the miners think so, we ll have SegWit2x.

Not to mention mining safeguard the network, makes your transactions available plus these people have invested millions in BTC. What did you invest since you obviously want to have some kind of saying?

I had gone through some of the Jihan's tweet, not now, when it was the BU propaganda, now Segwit2x, just out of curiosity, biggest manufacturer of mining equipment/owner of the biggest mining pool, not with a predefined notion, but with an open mind, but this guy never fails to portray how egoistic he is, he doesn't give a damn about the technical aspects, being too egoistic to only care about reaping profits from his manufacturing business and by dominating bitcoin mining, thus centralizing the whole network.

Either Segwit2x or UASF, bitcoin would have Segwit activated, that's what matters for me. I am not against bigger blocks, but in my opinion it isn't necessary at this point in time, rule out the spammers from the equation and you still have smooth and fast transaction network. Some wouldn't agree with me and it is understandable, lightening network or side options is centralization in their opinion, but my point is I don't want the network to be forked for the sole reason of getting control over it.

Jihan is a mining equipment manufacturer, Ver has the elite approach, Wright is just a wannabe Satoshi, common sense is more than enough to grasp that these guys don't give a damn about average bitcoin users.

Neither trolling nor I have any strings, just my opinion.

UASF

could you clarify a couple of things you said here for me:
SegWit2x (btc1 (https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/commits/segwit2x)) and bitcoin (bitcoin (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits?author=jl2012)) share many contributors. replace the author with the names of those contributed to first one. it also has J. Garzik who has been a bitcoin core developer for many years.

developers aside, the code is the clone of bitcoin core version 13 which had SegWit and it is activating the same SegWit.
are you saying SegWit code is flawed and exploitable or bitcoin core version 13 is . and note that the part about "2x" or the 2 MB hard fork is not for 6 months after the activation of SegWit...

an who are these more solid developers? I have so far seen no good plan for BIP148 except a rushed crappy plan with an extremely high risk of chain split. and I have seen only one developer support it passionately on reddit. no other person than LukeJr!
other developers are either against it or have not said much.
I remember reading the early days what Gmaxwell said in the mailing list about how he is not supporting it and how it is rushed compered to original SegWit plan.

how come?!!
it is still the same SegWit with only a future plan to do a hard fork to increase the base block size to 2 MB
and what does the "spam attack" have anything to do with SegWit?

SegWit2x is a corporate attempt to take control over the network and get rid off Core Developers.
Never will I support such an attack to the network.
Furthermore for now it's just signaling what we have seen so far. This means nothing! No one of us knows what the certain miners and economic nodes will run when time has come. Imo most of it is game theory! Who bluffs and tricks best?!

http://i63.tinypic.com/2utqbv5.png

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

Spam attack has nothing to do with Segwit, but everything to do with pushing Segwit2x. There is Schnorr signature to prevent such attacks, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnorr_signature, who cares when miners are manipulating the network fee with incentivized spamming (their cost of spamming is lesser than the fees pocketed through a highly congested bitcoin network)

thanks for the link, I did not know that about UASF supports.
also the link you gave about Schnorr signature didn't help me understand how SegWit prevents spam attack but SegWit2x does not. so I need more information than that ::)

Wikipedia knows about everything, but explanation is mostly restricted to who already knows, it gets much tougher when technicalities are involved. Wiki people should split the pedia into basic conversion of the complex knowledge to basics to complex to complicated for who can understand, would be much more helpful for the basic people like us ;D

Here's a much simpler explanation, https://medium.com/@SDWouters/why-schnorr-signatures-will-help-solve-2-of-bitcoins-biggest-problems-today-9b7718e7861c

It is still a bit tough, go through it a couple of times, it is pure cryptography, no dramatics involved.

The first part of Segwit2x, Segwit is just a formality for the second part, no thoughts on how the first would be useful, but on just somehow implement the second part.

Yes! This is the Bitcoin Oligarchy flexing their muscles and imposing their will on everyone in the community. For a public and permissionless network, this should not be.

What would you say to:Its just a fair counter attack, a second mover reaction, against the first move from BScore, not providing consensus solutions first time?

Did you ever get to ponder if the so called million dollar investments was for the love of Bitcoin or it was all about the next viable business venture? Make no mistake of the fact that Bitcoin was made not for miners, but for users, miners are simply to facilitate that. As is, UASF is the voice of users and all the noise about 101% miners support for segwit2x is nothing but castles in the air. Much more important is where the support of users/businesses/investors lies and miners cannot afford to allow their million dollar investments rot in desolation.

How exactly do you get rid of developers in an open source project where anyone can write whatever code they want?  What's preventing them from continuing to produce code in the event of a fork?  Unless you bought that account, I'm severely disappointed with your grasp of the concept of "control over the network".  I'm tired of writing it repeatedly, so get it into your head already (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1928093.msg20026755#msg20026755).  Those securing the chain, both mining and non-mining nodes, control the network and they can run whatever code they wish.  

Corporations can't force the average user to run software they don't want to run, so you have to concede one of two things.  Either:

a) it's not a corporate takeover, or
b) non-mining full nodes are completely irrelevant.  

What's it gonna be?  Choose your answer carefully.

This link nails the whole drama of which protocol imho. It is to the point. Reaffirms my view that segwit2 +2mb will not get it together
fast enough to avoid a split ...even if the split will be healed later..due to ..again...imho ...missed deadline

anyway how this guy puts it out there


https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-miners-miss-first-bip-148-deadline/ (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-miners-miss-first-bip-148-deadline/)

anyway my view of this coming cluster is they just won't get anything done in time by August 1st

hope I am incorrect

Whatever the network decides at this point, I am more interested in seeing the issue resolved and looking at it from behind in a rear view mirror, than in a front view and being worried about it. May as well make the choice now we already have had enough debate and discussion we will execute something and either have regrets later and attempt to fix it, or finally have it addressed in one form or another.