UASF was screwed from the beginning and I always thought it too dangerous and aggressive. The only core dev pushing it now with BIP148 is Luke-jr and the rest are distancing themselves from it - this has happened numerous times before with LJR as his motivations are often called into question by the other core devs who repeatedly have to keep him in line. I previously used to work with him and instead of letting him work on my code with his own motivations I threw him out. If LJR's motives are simply to keep pressure on the miners through the threat of UASF then I could see why it would be helpful, but I'm not sure that's the reason. Either way I think BIP148 is dead in the water without more core support - the BIP148 client is NOT part of the core code and is an external fork as much as BU, classic, and XT...

The rhetoric, chest-thumping and circle jerking continues. My prediction remains that we will see a compromise and segwit+2MB will be it. The question that remains now is how it will be deployed. Previously I couldn't see an end in sight but now it has finally appeared on the horizon and I'm hopeful that a fork is becoming far less likely again. Now that core is seriously discussing it as a solution and various ways to implement it and appease the mining consortium in the process, I can't see any other alternative as having a realistic chance.

The stupid forum keeps showing you new posts even for ignored users.

Really? Explain how franky1's endless anti-core, anti-segwit, anti-blockstream mindless diatribe that is debunked over and over has anything to do with the miner agreement this thread is about? Don't worry - you can read thousands of his posts on anything to do with the above in thousands of other threads here if you're that way inclined.

@Franky1, your posts are not welcome on this thread and should you continue to post you might qualify yourself for a well overdue ban the global mods seem reluctant to give you that you so rightly deserve.

They're not blocked. They're redirection notices when he's moderating and relocating threads in wrong forum sections to the correct ones, like this thread should be. It will be moved to meta/ where it belongs and a redirection notice will appear in bitcoin discussion/

Well you've got to have 30BTC in the first place to be able to add that much by mistake

Unless the transaction was never broadcast and was directly inserted into the miner's work for [insert nefarious reason here].

Great, the universe is telling you something then 

Given that the actual number of nodes advertising BIP148 support is less than 12%, and less than half of those are actually uasf enforcing nodes (the rest are just using the comment functionality), the chance of a successful major split from the rest of the network is very slim. Additionally the bulk of the core devs are increasingly opposed to BIP148 as it currently stands. It's my prediction that BIP148 will die a slow painful death without ever becoming popular enough to be relevant while other UASF options are explored, though ultimately I still predict there will be a compromise of some sort and a miner activated change in the end.

That's correct, they would be screwed. Additionally there are even known pools that distribute their reward automatically to all their miners and it would be impossible to get hundreds and possibly thousands of miners to return their proportion of the wrong fee. One should just be appropriately careful with their own money...

Whenever you see something like that it's someone screwing up with their transactions. The biggest one I can remember is someone putting 90BTC in fees instead of output. In most cases like this they contacted the pool who mined the block and provided evidence of them owning the transaction and got refunded.

Indeed, and not only UASF comment nodes but even signalling UASF nodes are more work but still straight forward to sybil. I doubt that's happening though at this stage. The number of core nodes has been surprisingly constant for a long time and a proportion of those have become the UASF nodes.



ckpool.org is a shared pool but still very small. If you find me someone who's willing to dump PHs worth of hashrate just because I convert it to BIP148, I'm all ears, but I doubt you will


I'm not so convinced as BIP148 is not a consensus change that has been put into core's git and tested and approved by all core devs. UASF seems to be gaining in popularity amongst the core devs but a number have already expressed concern with BIP148's approach.

If BIP148 gathers overwhelming support then I'll switch my pools over but I still think we need a mining based consensus forward. Everyone and their damn fork is putting shorter and shorter timelines on their activations and heading us into much more realistic chance of a fork happening as a result. I can't see how a fork is good for bitcoin in any way shape or form.

Yes please


Thanks!

There are now 129 unique users in the payout queue and 239 unique users in total. Assuming people have taken my advice of only using the one username that's a surprising number of users despite a still very modest hashrate. I'm hoping that many of those users are holding more hashrate to their name and waiting for the pool to solve its first block before adding more here. It's also good to see so many small miners anyway since the idea of the pool was to provide a haven for them where otherwise it may be impossible for them to get a payout.

Now hang in there and let's crack this.

The pool itself doesn't really make much profit over the running costs without donations so all tips are much appreciated!

This block is taking a while but then we're "only" at 167% diff which is not unusual. It's just that diff is so ludicrously high that 1PH doesn't amount to much any more. But that best share hasn't shifted from 270G for ages... (doesn't mean anything of course it's just "interesting".)

There isn't enough support as of yet to consider it a realistic possibility but there're still 2 months before its activation date.

Ignore the anomalies of those high spikes, the actual support is sitting only ~12%, and less than half of these are UASF activating nodes; they're mostly just bitcoin node comment. This doesn't even remotely represent the amount of miners that will mine the blocks either so there's a lot more work to be garnered before this is a realistic way forward for bitcoin.

Thanks for the support of solo. Once I get enough hashrate on my new pool ckpool.org I'm hoping it will become a haven for small miners like this that actually do want to get a payout eventually of some sort, even if it's small.

I'm still very concerned about the safety of a UASF fork and about the level of support so I'm watching cautiously. If there is more evidence of overwhelming support then I will be converting my pools over. It's a trivial change to existing pools should they decide to do it.

A small aside: Bitclub Network has moved back to signalling segwit.

Carlton is a fan of uasf+pow change if I'm not mistaken...

These two links are helpful.

https://www.weusecoins.com/uasf-guide/
http://www.uasf.co/

I can see franky1 posting but I can't see what he's saying since he's the number 1 ignore I have on at the moment. If someone feels his posts are pure trolling (as they normally are), point them out and I'll delete them.