Aye. It's an interesting but rarely aired factoid, that. Their very early plans were humming with idealism that closely aligns with crypto's ideas. Then I guess they became rich and evil like everyone else.

David Sacks: After PayPal I never thought I would get interested in payments again. But bitcoin is fulfilling PayPal's original vision to create "the new world currency." We actually had T-shirts printed in 1999 with that mission statement.

A payment is just a credit to one account and a debit to another. That's a database entry. We believed that, if we could get enough people to participate, money would never need to leave the system. PayPal could become the database of money.

We added features like interest and debit cards so you'd never have to withdraw funds to the legacy banking system. When we got acquired by eBay, that project kind of stopped.

So 100 more blocks until segwit is actually activated and then we will have effectively increased the blocksize to around 2MB right?

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img921/2092/IUkDgP.jpg

Segwit is activated : http://segwit.co/

Miners can produce Segwit Boobs Blocks, now.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/

I know is was 200+ more profitable before then after the disiculty changed it went to around 160% and now with the BCH price rise it's now 98% meaning BCH is more profitable by 2%

Right this second according to coin dance bitcoin cash is actually more profitable to mine  

I don't expect it to and hope it don't last

BCH Mempool is 1.6Mbytes, so it's over the 1M threshold to trigger the fork when the block is found.

The block might not even come today due to the low hashrate on the Cash network. Sure, they change difficulty downwards, but I think it'll be a while until they get anything.

That might be the game of some of the crooks, but most of the names on that list have conviction and big bags. I think you underestimate this.

I feel like I am asking a dumb question or I am confused because when I look at https://coin.dance/blocks, I see that in the last 144 blocks everyone is signaling segwit.  100%



In practice, what does the 10% bitcoin.com    20000002 mean?  And, how come it seems to conflict with the coin.dance information.

If  Bitcoin.com were truly signaling something that did not involve segwit, are going to get orphaned per BIP91?

or are they going to be able to hold back the 95% activation of segwit per BIP141?  currently, looks like 100% not 90%?

Or does the 10% of  20000002 mean something else?

If everything goes according to plan, SegWit should activate within 48 hours from now

...(at least until a future HF if core does not deliver) but my theory is that some mining pools are now using standard core software for the BIP141 signaling as there is no need anymore for btc1 nor segsignal (core+BIP91). Safer too.

For small transactions, sure. It's perfectly safe to use lightning networks to make small transactions, only paranoid idiots would cry and moan about not using onchain transaction to pay 5 bucks for some crap. Your 5 bucks are safer in the lightning network than they are in a banking credit card transaction.

For 100+ dollars where you would be pissed if you lost them, then i'll stick to on-chain tx's.

Anyone know what that small percentage of blocks signaling with a 30000000 is about?  I saw one or two blocks with that version number yesterday and I couldn't find any BIPs or docs referencing that number.

The advantage is making a shit ton of money. If I had control of a significant amount of hashrate (2%+) I'd be changing my signalling to manipulate the markets.
It could be just as easy as:

• Turn on signalling
• Signalling goes over 80%
• BTC price increases
• Dump BTC
• Turn off signalling
• Load up on cheaper coins

@Theymos- any chance of allowing people to change their votes due to changing circumstances?

A small miner will often receive his fees in small amounts meaning that to spend it, he will need to use funds from many transactions. A high fee per byte can mean those funds become unprofitable to mine (if you're not a big miner with access to cheap electricity) or even cost more to spend than their value (this is not just true for mining funds. High fees have meant a lot of Bitcoin's total value is now worth less than it would cost to spend). This is especially true for p2pool (a truly decentralized pool) where miners are paid directly from the coinbase.

ETH could have made me a millionaire. If it goes 5X from here I will eat a shoe.

If this thing doesn’t crash down under 300 in the next 28 days I’ll eat a shoe.

I'm really shocked at Maxwell, this eclipses even his worst prior trolling attempts. Good job humbling him. He is now venturing into the "delusional and stupid" realm. I suppose he and his minions can write more code that won't ever get adopted by a majority... at some point I will be concerned that all of this crap code running simultaneously will break something, however.

I do not support the BIP148 UASF for some of the same reasons that I
do support segwit:  Bitcoin is valuable in part because it has high
security and stability, segwit was carefully designed to support and
amplify that engineering integrity that people can count on now and
into the future.

I do not feel the the approach proposed in BIP148 really measures up
to the standard set by segwit itself, or the existing best practices
in protocol development in this community.

The primary flaw in BIP148 is that by forcing the activation of the
existing (non-UASF segwit) nodes it almost guarantees at a minor level
of disruption.

Segwit was carefully engineered so that older unmodified miners could
continue operating _completely_ without interruption after segwit
activates.

Older nodes will not include segwit spends, and so their blocks will
not be invalid even if they do not have segwit support. They can
upgrade to it on their own schedule. The only risk non-participating
miners take after segwit activation is that if someone else mines an
invalid block they would extend it, a risk many miners already
frequently take with spy-mining.

I do not think it is a horrible proposal: it is better engineered than
many things that many altcoins do, but just not up to our normal
standards. I respect the motivations of the authors of BIP 148.  If
your goal is the fastest possible segwit activation then it is very
useful to exploit the >80% of existing nodes that already support the
original version of segwit.

But the fastest support should not be our goal, as a community-- there
is always some reckless altcoin or centralized system that can support
something faster than we can-- trying to match that would only erode
our distinguishing value in being well engineered and stable.

"First do no harm." We should use the least disruptive mechanisms
available, and the BIP148 proposal does not meet that test.  To hear
some people-- non-developers on reddit and such-- a few even see the
forced orphaning of 148 as a virtue, that it's punitive for
misbehaving miners. I could not not disagree with that perspective any
more strongly.

Of course, I do not oppose the general concept of a UASF but
_generally_ a soft-fork (of any kind) does not need to risk disruption
of mining, just as segwit's activation does not.  UASF are the
original kind of soft-fork and were the only kind of fork practiced by
Satoshi. P2SH was activated based on a date, and all prior ones were
based on times or heights.  We introduced miner based activation as
part of a process of making Bitcoin more stable in the common case
where the ecosystem is all in harmony.  It's kind of weird to see UASF
portrayed as something new.

It's important the users not be at the mercy of any one part of the
ecosystem to the extent that we can avoid it-- be it developers,
exchanges, chat forums, or mining hardware makers.  Ultimately the
rules of Bitcoin work because they're enforced by the users
collectively-- that is what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin, it's what makes it
something people can count on: the rules aren't easy to just change.

There have been some other UASF proposals that avoid the forced
disruption-- by just defining a new witness bit and allowing
non-upgraded-to-uasf miners and nodes to continue as non-upgraded, I
think they are vastly superior. They would be slower to deploy, but I
do not think that is a flaw.

We should have patience. Bitcoin is a system that should last for all
ages and power mankind for a long time-- ten years from now a couple
years of dispute will seem like nothing. But the reputation we earn
for stability and integrity, for being a system of money people can
count on will mean everything.

If these discussions come up, they'll come up in the form of reminding
people that Bitcoin isn't easily changed at a whim, even when the
whims are obviously good, and how that protects it from being managed
like all the competing systems of money that the world used to use
were managed.

So have patience, don't take short cuts.  Segwit is a good improvement
and we should respect it by knowing that it's good enough to wait for,
and for however its activated to be done the best way we know how.

I am interested to know their general business plan and how it relates to scaling Bitcoin.