FYI, Bitcoin doesn't care about what most of the 'community' wants.
It's only what most of the miners want that matters.

There was a man on this forum who once said:


Now there is apparently much more men who say:


Isn't that funny?


FYI, I am not against segwit myself - personally, I'd like to see it activated..
But I want to point out that if you try to change protocol with this kind of arrogance, you will fail and end up in the same place as the man before you; at the bitcoin developers' junkyard. Because as ridiculously as it sounds, Bitcoin will simply get rid of you.

Suddenly everyone is a bloody bitcoin expert who knows a way to control the protocol by other means than mining majority.

If Satoshi is still alive he must be having loads of fun watching you idiots trying to break his system. I know I am...

Sorry, I still don't know what "signalling for BU" means in practice.

Although I understand now that they use BU scheme to indicate that they want the max block size to stay at 1MB.

But what is the big deal about it?
Aren't almost all of the other miners also indicating that they want the max block size to stay at 1MB?
Except that they do it without adding "/EB1/" to the coinbase...

Sorry, you must speak English to me, if you want me to understand.

The article says that "EB1" actually means that the pool which made the block wants to use max block size of 1MB.
Or am I not getting something?

Are you kidding me?
What kind of a technical reference some chart on some coin.dance flashy website is?

Please refer me to a spec, or a source code that defines the criteria upon which this specific block is "signalling for BU".

Sorry man.
Which part of the block says that it is "signalling for BU"?

Eeee... what is so "BU" about this specific block?

The only pool I know signalling BIP109 (2MB blocks) is Slush.
Which is also the first pool that started signalling segwit.

Who doesn't?

I have no fear of his business exactly because I know that he just wants profit.
As the owner of (allegedly) the biggest bitcoin mining infrastructure he has the biggest interest in keeping the BTC price high.
Bitcoin devs, Roger Ver, Winklevoss twins, you or me - we can just cash out our stash and move on with our life.
For the owners of the mining infrastructure a drop in the BTC price is a far bigger issue.

Man, this is some really heavy shit, next to which Jihan's recent threats sound like a sincere and friendly advise.

I just wonder who do you actually have in mind while saying "we" and taking such a crazy things.

Can you give me some names, or at least nicknames?

Oh.. right... But what about the miners who are blocking segwit due to other reasons?

Are they free to keep doing their job the way they like, or are you also planing to find some dirt on them?

Well, I have been reading that all his hashing power is signalling support for 2MB blocks...

But I only see 51 blocks (2.5%) with version 0x30000000 in the past 2016 block period.
And it's gone down to 15 (1.5%) inside the last 1000 blocks.

It teaches me to not believe anything that has been posted (and upvoted) on reddit - no mater the sub.

You're talking nonsense, man (check "nonsense" in a dictionary).

Segwit has currently 25% of support among the miners and your symbol of evil Jihan doesn't seem to control more than 20% of the current network's hashing power. It's probably closer to 10%

So enlighten us, please: who and how is "bamboozing and/or bribing" the remaining 55+% of the miners into blocking segwit?
These are mostly people who don't even care to introduce or explain themselves to you, or anyone else.

You're putting a single face behind 75% of the network's miners and then you make up some crazy stories about their evil motives.
What for? In which way doesn't it look like some populist propaganda crap, straight from the books used by your freshly elected president?

Don't be ridiculous. Miners have their own brains and make their own independent decisions. They don't have to and do not follow orders from any 'Americans'.

And it's funny how you see a great development of the small piece of the bitcoin software, but you fail to notice a huge development of the worldwide mining infrastructure.
If you think that what gave bitcoins the value was the core software advancing to version 0.14.x, and not the gigawatts of power burned inside the mining hardware, then you sir obviously know nothing about what the bitcoin phenomenon is, and you are the last who should have a vote on deciding about it's future.
And conveniently, you are the last...

How is he a dictatorship?
Even if he's the only ruler of his corporation, which i doubt,  he has like 20% of the hashing power - today. It's surely going to change tomorrow.
With this he can't change a shit as well.
Which is a good thing - nobody can change it, so nobody can break it.

Just stop whining and start adjusting yourself to the system.
It's working just fine and exactly as had been designed.

Well. You see, the funny thing is that they are them that set the rules how bitcoin network works.
You just don't get it, just like so many other people.

but why without any questions?

what if the developers get corrupted by shadow organisation like NSA,CIA etc?

I wouldn't run a random file from the internet on my PC, so I cannot say

When I remember all the things bitcoin "needed", but has failed to get, it makes me smile.

I remember when bitcoin needed more merchants, although less drug dealers because it was a bad press.

Then bitcoin needed to be much more user friendly - so much that even Gavin's granny could use it.

Then the client needed to be compatible with external hardware wallets, because they were the future.

Then it needed to have a bigger blocks, so it could "scale - or segwit for the same reason.

Then it needed to have tx malleability removed, so some people could deploy their existing side-chain solution.

(that's just from the top of my head, from the past 5+ years)

Today bitcoin needs to get rid of the miners, because... they are endangering its future by doing their job of securing the protocol
Plus nobody is going to admit, but it would not have been such a big issue if the miners had been Americans, or at least white.
Which brings us to: bitcoin needs to be in control of a white people!

Fuck knows what bitcoin is going to need tomorrow, in order to "succeed".
When I think about this, it's actually quite shocking that it has succeeded that far.

It's actually quite funny for me to see all this spectacle on how the miners allegedly stop bitcoin from moving forward.

I consider myself an experienced bitcoin developer.
I understand that the miners don't want the lighting networks and I understand why - because it goes against their interests.
But how is it different for the major core devs preventing the ultimate block chain compression feature from being implemented?
Most people don't realize that their full bitcoin node can be quite functional needing only 3gb of disk and can bootstrap within one hour... And the core devs don't want you to know that. At least not yet...
So how is it different?
For me it isn't at all - they obviously  also have their own self interest in this and they don't have to explain themselves to anyone.
Just like the miners that you hate here so much.


The bottom line is: the miners are obviously  not going to help you in deploying your existing business solution by activating segwit.
Therefore better start rewriting your shit so it could work without it.
C'est la vie - welcome to the fucking club