If you mean me, I haven't gone too far. I am just currently soloing some alts that are paying me the bitcoin equivalent of ~170-180% PPS, and only the odd hour or 2 in the pool for now. Hopefully this will offset the long-haul overhead of what it takes to be involved in the wait of finding blocks and I can get back to a longer duration in the pool some time soon.
I did mean you, so:  |
|
|
|
|
Well it's no great surprise but it looks like lack of growth has failed to keep the genie in the bottle and scared him off leaving only all the small miners. It's not like it's even bad luck since we haven't even had 100% diff at any stage yet, it's just that it'll take forever on average to find a block. Never fear, the rest of us are all in it for the long haul and there is always the possibility I may be able to convince someone of decent hashrate to join us.
|
|
|
|
OK well then maybe you can explain to me how Segwit2x will be adopted with 40% BU/EC miner support? And 37.5% of the blocks supporting EC? And no outreach to the public whatsoever? With complete silence from Core devs?
Next, what's to prevent Core fanbois from convincing everyone to run the hastily prepared Segwit2x, then after Segwit is adopted, drop another release that doesn't hard fork to 2MB? Do you think the miners will fall for the "bait and switch" tactic used in Hong Kong again? Finally, what makes you think that the miners won't just flag this Segwit 2x support in their headers (it took 10 seconds of work) until the UASF guys lose all of their steam?
I'm starting to think this forum is just an echo chamber for bickering... there must be a better source of information elsewhere.
I tried. You seem incapable or not interested in understanding so I'll just add you to my list of "faith" people incapable of understanding basic logic worth putting on ignore (done). You don't like this forum? Great! Go elsewhere and find the wisdom you seek which will support your faith. I suggest r/btc . |
|
|
|
From my perspective (no need to correct me on this), it seems that the well-funded actors in this drama are sticking to their guns. Core/Blockstream is stuck on "waiting forever for Segwit, which will likely never come", Bitmain is advocating for "increase blocksize or else", and the Lukejr army is opting for "we willz force Segwit through no matter what". Unlimited is quietly chugging along with 40%+ support, with no recent major drama.
There is plenty of need to correct you on this since you're completely wrong. You're really missing the significance of segwit2x. There is no doubt that the main players advertising segwit2x will adopt it. The code already does exist and is complete and they're calling it alpha simply because it hasn't undergone full testing yet. There is at least one pool that has activated its segwit enabling component from the code and is signalling bit4. There is no reason to believe they will back out now barring a major bug showing up. The reason for the rushed schedule for the segwit component is that they're determined to undermine BIP148 from functioning which is why they all start signalling one diff period before BIP148's activation date. Lukejr's army is a mixture of people who actually believe in BIP148 being a workable mechanism and people who just know they must keep pressure on to not let the miners back out of the segwit component of segwit2x. Core is going to get its BIP141 original segwit activation through a fucked up convoluted secondary and tertiary messaging approach invented by the mining consortium so saying "waiting forever for segwit which will likely never come" is completely missing the point of segwit2x since it definitely WILL come and almost certainly hopeful thinking from a BU supporter. The fact you're reproducing my words for what the significance of BU is in light of the current situation and applying them to segwit says it all. Thinking otherwise now is nothing short of faith against all logic and reason. Either way if you keep believing otherwise you can see for yourself come mid-July. As I said before, what core IS facing that goes against its plans that they have no contingency for is the 2MB hard fork after segwit activation months later. I have no idea how that's going to play out. A fixed 2MB hard fork in the segwit2x code however goes against EC as well so if you still think EC is relevant based on the 40% coinbase signatures at present then you're saying they will adopt the emergent approach to block size after 2MB is locked in to allow even larger blocks, or maybe switch back to smaller ones. Not sure why they'd bother with a hard fork to 2MB if they planned to switch to a flexible block size hard fork as well... Furthermore once segwit is locked in, the code is completely incompatible with BU. |
|
|
|
All said and done, if SegWit2x is implemented, how much does it increase the current network capacity? 2x? 4x? How much?
The most pessimistic estimates put segwit alone as averaging 1.7MB and then 2x will double it. The most possible would be 4MB from segwit (with all segwit transactions) and then 2x doubling that. |
|
|
|
|
Locking this thread since it's been asked a billion times before and just attracts offtopic discussion and sigspammers.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin has been around 8 years establishing its worth. How do the others compare considering how long they've been around?
|
|
|
|
Forget about 80% consensus, we are now nearing 90% support, with SegWit2x being supported by 89.6% right now. In just around 24 hours, the support levels have increased from less than 80% to around 90%. Among the major mining pools, as far as I know only Slush Pool and GB Miners are resisting the implementation of SegWit2x.
GBminers is already signalling segwit so even if they don't explicitly support segwit2x, they'll be fine once the segwit component activates, as will all other segwit signalling pools like mine. Slush is a quick mover and is offering segwit signalling anyway as one of his options and is currently talking about considering signalling segwit2x as well on his feeds so there's no way he'll be left with orphaned blocks come the actual activation time. That only leaves a handful of smaller pools that aren't signalling anything yet. No doubt once segwit is being signalled they'll simply see they have no choice but to come on board. |
|
|
|
|
If you guys tell me he's not trolling any more I'll reconsider.
|
|
|
|
...yea yea i expect my post to get deleted even though it contains content about segwit2x
Maybe if you quit posting dumbass comments like that, then you'd stop pissing off the guy that can delete them?  Actually it doesn't really matter what he says any more since I told him he is forbidden from posting on this thread and I have him on ignore so I can't even see what he's posting, just that he's posting and delete his posts on sight. He's done too much trolling for too long on too many threads to be able to redeem himself as far as I'm concerned. He is the no. 1 reason I made this thread self-moderated. |
|
|
|
83.3% support now with NYA in their coinbase so it's reached activation levels. This has been helped by bitclubnetwork joining them, however they've also actually started the real signalling on bit4/1 that activates it in mid-july. The reason is that the admin of that pool is the one that defined BIP91 and wrote the code for it so he's the first to use it as more than just proof of concept.
Well this is good news for a change! You know, at this point Segwit2x is better than a chain split. Let's hope for the best. With the segwit component assured now, indeed it is at this point, until we get to the 2x part of it. That's when the next battle begins. |
|
|
|
I guess it actually doesn't matter since this sig spam cesspool of a sub already has half the fucking threads in it pertaining to Alt coin mining and the mods don't seem to care at this point.
Could have fooled me, I aggressively move altcoin threads out of here. Provided there is *some* discussion of bitcoin I let the threads remain, but as soon as the bulk of the discussion is aimed at altcoins I move them. Note the opening poster hasn't responded and hasn't shown an interest in altcoins... yet. Depending on what happens to the direction of the thread by the opening poster I leave it or move it. If they don't return I lock them. |
|
|
|
|
83.3% support now with NYA in their coinbase so it's reached activation levels. This has been helped by bitclubnetwork joining them, however they've also actually started the real signalling on bit4/1 that activates it in mid-july. The reason is that the admin of that pool is the one that defined BIP91 and wrote the code for it so he's the first to use it as more than just proof of concept.
|
|
|
|
the emergent consensus will get ... Emergent consensus has nothing to do with this. Forget anything to do with BU, that's been long forgotten by the power players. Any reference to EC in their block signature is there for legacy reasons and doesn't remotely mean they're interested in BU any more. BU supporters will insist this isn't the end for them and that it's still compatible with segwit2x, but then so is XT, classic and any other defunct attempt at a takeover from the past that never activates and stays on the current chain waiting to take it over at some unforeseen parallel universe future. Forget EC. |
|
|
|
I continue to wonder why there are so many folks who continue to assert that 2mb is needed and a kind of must and a kind of emergency, without even verifying how segwit plays out. Causes me to tentatively conclude that there is likely some hidden agenda in regards to such a desire to implement something that really seems to be unnecessary - and whether the implementation of unnecessary is for governance reasons or just some kind of big business reasons seems to escape me.
One major one is the belief that segwit provides "discounted" transactions because the fee is only related to their block space usage and not the segregated witness component which is not stored in the block. In some regards this is somewhat true as the resources required to store and transmit the data for a segwit transaction are slightly larger than an equivalent classic transaction. The argument against this is that the data need not be stored long term and that the actual computational complexity of segwit transactions is less than that of traditional transactions. Pools are hoping that a rapid change to 2MB blocks means most people will continue to use traditional transactions and the accompanying fee schedule. There was a lot of debate about what block weight and segwit transaction weighting should mean if core implemented 2MB+segwit themselves, but because they felt the argument for 2MB+segwit was a bait and switch exercise by miners they abandoned it. Which means the miners are implementing their own segwit2x without even really thinking about it, and leaving the alleged discounted transactions in. Funny... The second major reason is that they've been arguing for so long that a bigger block is an easy, simple, safe way to scale that they can't change their minds now. It's hard to know if they're aware it's unnecessary and it's a massive saving-face exercise, or they still believe they're right about it, but the end result is the same. Finally there's the concern that if they don't strike while the iron's hot, then we'll be stuck with 1MB+segwit only as a transaction expansion mechanism for the foreseeable future. Since there is no other hard scaling solution committed to the development timeline, in some respects this is also partially true. If we wait till another scaling solution comes around, and yet again it provides more discounted ways of increasing transaction capacity without a concomitant rise in fees, then rising fees as an incentive to miners are once again at risk. In essence it's primarily about fees and secondarily about saving face. |
|
|
|
So, there seems to be two fairly obvious ways that the 2mb part of the implementation can fail. 1) fail to pass tests and 2) fail to achieve consensus ...
so we already got a lot of folks out there screaming that segwit2x is a kind of package, when the first part of segwit seems to be agreed upon; however, the second part of the deal (the 2mb aspect) seems to have contingencies. So, if it ends up that the second part does not go through, then then a large number of folks will be whining that Core broke the agreement, blah blah blah.. and the 2mb aspect was supposed to be "guaranteed", just like (and maybe even worse) they were mischaracterising and whining about the Hong Kong agreement.
Well assuming the segwit2x code is ready before mid July and the 80+% that are advertising NYA go ahead and adopt the code, then they will be actively dropping any blocks not signalling segwit at that time, and those running BIP141 nodes will automatically end up on the longest chain regardless since it will be >80% of the hashrate. Since all of the blocks on that branch must advertise segwit, it is guaranteed that segwit will activate after the two diff periods - one lock in period and then the one to activate it - since it will be 100% segwit signalling and >95% required by BIP141. As for what happens after that, as you have correctly surmised, if core never adopts the 2MB hard fork code from segwit2x, then the bulk of the users using core's client will end up on a very low hashrate fork of bitcoin if the miners go ahead with their fork regardless. Claiming that "core broke the agreement" is likely on their part, but then - core never agreed to segwit2x in the first place! It is the segwit2x miners that agreed indirectly to activate segwit, not the other way around. Once segwit activates, there is also nothing preventing miners from going back to the core client as well and maintain the status quo, though the signed agreement is a contract of sorts. What is likely to happen is after segwit gets activated, the pressure on transactions will no longer seem present; especially since there doesn't appear to truly be a transaction crisis at all since transaction spam suddenly and magically disappeared after the segwit2x agreement. If we reach a new deadlock there (and there's a good chance we will) then I suspect the transaction spam will magically appear again, larger than ever, and there will be cries that we desperately need the 2MB expansion as well. As I've said before, most of core has said they'd support a block size increase but at a less frantic pace. I suspect the miners will maintain their pressure of their own hard fork claiming that core will backpedal on their agreement if they don't (as you said they claimed about the HK agreement - none of which actually happened.) |
|
|
|
Except NYA coinbase signal means both BIP141 and 2MB base blocksize. The point of the SegWit2x is prevent the possible Aug 1 Bitcoin split and the code is similar to what was expected from early 2016 HK roundtable meeting between Core representatives and miners. If Core was any good, we would already have SegWit activated 6 months ago and the 2MB base blocksize later this year as well. But whatever, it works without Core as well, which is positive signal to me.
It does mean both indeed and it is just a vote not a signal at this stage, however it does mean there is enough commitment for segwit to get activated. I don't really understand the sentiment of "If core was any good" when segwit not getting activated by the original mechanism was for social reasons, not technological, and ultimately miners will be activating core's designed and implemented segwit technology through this, just through their own signalling mechanism which was a disastrous incompatible design originally and James Hilliard made it compatible through the multiple bit communication mechanism. Once segwit activates through the convoluted bit mechanism, all the user nodes out there will still be accepting and activating segwit through the original BIP141. If the users don't move off core nodes, that's when the real battle comes indeed because without core code supporting the 2MB hard fork we'll be really facing a split. Let's worry about that hurdle when we come to it. As I've said before, I'm not personally against a 2MB base blocksize increase either, I just believe that any split can only be bad for bitcoin. Having to force someone's hand to adopt a position is again purely for social reasons and it would be nice if people just agreed but that's fairytale thinking now. The stakes are so high and everyone doesn't want to relinquish what control they (think they) have. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
