1. It's represented by the Chain Code portion of your wallet backup (not sure how that's represented in the digital wallet, but it's clearly discernible on paper wallets)

2. Currently slated for version 0.97

But that's not what's happening now.


The miners are threatening these things, not doing them. Let's just see where their big-talk leads, besides, we already have effective ways to defend against these attacks anyway.


I'm increasingly less concerned, more and more people are showing interest in both Flag Day acitvation for Segwit and/or PoW change to Cuckoo Cycle or suchlike ASIC resistant hashing algos. The revolting miners are going into the space heater business, and that's their prerogative.

That's already slightly wrong, BU have already stated they will use 51% if they feel they need to.


And Segwit activation is probably going to change too. It will just activate, period, between October 1st and November 15th, according to the new BIP149

So, the problem is that more on-chain transaction capacity is needed (which is highly debatable, considering there's good evidence it's all spam driven)


So the obvious solution is to make the transactions and their signatures smaller, so that we can have more capacity per block.

I like the sound of that implementation. It squashes a significant argument against a PoW change, avoids a hard fork, and would keep the markets far calmer.

Yes they could, and yes, they would be rejected by clients compatible with Bitcoin Core's code.


I think Flag day would be November 15th 2017 according to BIP 148, IIRC.

Not sure about those actual details, but I would imagine so, yes.


What you could do is enable witness pruning before you downgraded (I believe witness pruning is implemented in 13.1). That would safely sidestep such issues (and you could continue to use 13.1 or greater if you so chose). Note that you're technically not a full node after that, although witness data in all the blocks before the Segwit flag day wouldn't be pruned.

Likely "Flag day" activation, it was accepted as a draft BIP recently (BIP 149 IIRC)


If you're using 0.13.1 equivalent client or higher, do nothing and you'll receive tx/witness original style blocks, and the new form of witness blocks.

If you're using 0.13.0 equivalent client or lower, you'll only receive the tx/witness original style blocks. Witness blocks are an add-on parallel block, older nodes will not receive the witness blocks, Segwit nodes won't relay witness blocks to "0.13.0 or less" nodes.

Likely moot, David.


The possibility of BU forking is increasingly unlikely. There is no community support really, despite loud voices screaming there is.

And one of the loudest voices on Bitcointalk (no, not me) has already begun to promote the next contentious hard fork attempt. It's very likely over, for now.



No, dino. It wouldn't matter if some successful hard fork coup wanted to use the Bitcoin name to "win", they can't win if their software design or code isn't up to standard. The name doesn't matter, the code does

That actually sounds like a good idea.

I've been wanting to take the risk of saying this myself (i.e. "remove/deprecate the use of blocks that accept P2PKH & P2SH") for months now, but the Bitcoin trolls were too likely to start shrieking "TH1EF BAGGINS!!! YOU STEAL SATOSH1S COINS, A THIEF!!!!"


So I've kept my mouth shut.

But Pair is right, the current P2PKH and P2SH key pair types can't stay for ever, not least because they can be abused with Sigops DoS attacks (which are not so serious, but really that sort of thing needs cleaning up)


It should not be done quickly. Giving everyone more than enough time to do so without having to pay extortionate fees would be the ideal (so probably at least 12 months before the 1st soft fork). Then everyone can get a perfectly resonable chance to move their coins to the Segwit address formats, and the truth is, Satoshi really needs to: his BTC are not protected by P2PKH, but to a much older type of address that is insecure from brute forcing: P2PK (i.e. pay to public key only)

If people want to protect Satoshi or whoever else's BTC, creating the incentive to ridding the blockchain of P2PK addresses is vital. If you can't accept that, you're a hypocrite, QED

I have a friendly reminder for you.


Are bigger blocks the only way to increase on-chain capacity? No

Are bigger blocks the most dangerous way to increase on-chain capacity? Yes


Would improving the efficiency of how we use the blocksize that already exists be safe, add more capacity and actually improve Bitcoin's scaling? Yes


@rav3n: Why don't want you want safe capacity increases? Why don't you want true on-chain scaling?

Lauda, I'm breathing a sigh of relief over here. You've always been reasonable IMO, and I'm glad you're seeing sense in what I'm saying.


The truth is: who knows what might happen? It's not at all impossible that geopolitical tensions, and the myriad of threats they pose to the smooth running of and accessibility to the internet, could calm right down tomorrow to negligible levels. But if we really want to keep this network alive, we should be as careful as possible, and that means planning for all plausible possibilities.

Bitcoin might be a big part of what solves geopolitical tensions. It can't do that on it's own, more innovations will be needed. But a free & sound money system for all would be the bedrock or the foundation to keeping the world turning in a co-operative and healthy way, the only way to defeat the trends that take us in the opposite direction.

And the fact is, blocksize increases solve the capacity problem, at the exact same scale. Blocksize increases do not change the scale at all.

Big blockers really don't like this fact, which is why they have never dared refute it.

Just admit it Jonald, for the 3rd time, it's dead.


It will die a 4th death also. Giving it a different name is getting a bit tired, y'know?



You know what never seems to die, no matter how hard people try?

Say it Jonald. Say the name of that which will not die. Say the name. Can you say it. Speak the name

I don't think Core will do that.


rav3n, why do you refuse to understand that blocksize is a very dangerous value to change? The world is becoming a more dangerous place every day, we can't rely on the internet growing the same way it did 1990-2015. It might very plausibly become much slower and more restricted, that is a very serious risk, and not just to Bitcoin.

We can achieve on-chain scaling by making the transactions smaller, or other more intelligent ways. Blocksize changes are stupid when those things do more with less blockspace.

It's a good thing only my rhetoric depended on this particular math example. Corrected, just for you jay

No, Bitmain has publicly stated already that they will alter the BU software to fork at 51% if they consider that to be advantageous. Anywhere between 51% and 75% is the real answer.

Now that BU promoters have begun to promote yet more alternative hard-forks, well, it's possible that the BU camp is in disarray.

Which might not stop Bitmain from just forking anyway, but I'm not quite seeing that happening. I predict they will do the same thing as the last 2 failed coups; abandon the latest failure, and start pushing for the new hard-fork, which will of course will also be much better than Core (and will also die a death).

jonald, exactly how desperate can you get?


This is the Bitcoin wreckers playbook reaching it's latest re-iteration: coup attempt N fails, begin coup attempt N+1


Your current coup hasn't finished jonald, don't you remember? (or has it....  )

Maybe we should just accept that everything will be called an altcoin if BU forks away, there is no objective original when there's no agreement on which it is.


Does it matter? I want the best coin, not the bit coin.

This is likely the reason why certain shills keep endlessly repeating re-definitions of the word "consensus" as part of their regular propaganda.

"consensus" apparently means "everyone disagreeing"