Does anyone know how much of that Roger Ver has?
Roger Ver still has the last 51% mining pool supports. Roger Ver has his own pool, currently 1.4% of hashpower. ViaBTC, other pool that openly opposed segwit softfork has 7.9%, meaning, if nothing changes, segwit will struggle to get 95% support. gmaxwell has already stated he is ok with causing a network split below 95% just to get his softwork activated If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% ... then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signalled activation.
just to clear the terminology up orphaning off a block not because its invalid but because of which pool sent it. is controversial because its not an invalid block. meaning different nodes are accepting different blocks. this causes orphan drama that then leads to needing to ignore the opposing nodes too.. this is not consensus consensus is agreement to accept the same data and same rules where the majority accept all the valid blocks (without any biased pickyness) leaving the minority simply unable to sync |
|
|
|
At this point I am starting to doubt if bitcoin will ever be successfully forked. Community is so divided over it that eventuality enough to prevent any kind of action.
in late 2015 core devs actually got the community together and laid out a roadmap that actually included dynamic blocks.. AND segwit (consensus 2015) but core later core backtracked and pretended/recanted their statement and acted like the core devs had no coding experience to write any dynamic block code that could be accepted accepted into core.. by saying they are just independants and not the main core guys!!(community facepalmed them) so now core no longer want to play on a level playing field with the other dozen diverse implementations of bitcoin.. and caused the drama of the last year |
|
|
|
If its for the better. Why not give it a try? Its for the improve of bitcoin. I dont really know what can be the effect of this when it happen. I saw many people agree to segwit. But some are not agree. Can anyone tell me why? Theres so much explanation from the comments but i really dont understand. So tell me in a simple.way.
those that want it, are mainly paid devs that NEED it to work due to their investment contracted future features needed to repay investors. or sheep that dont quite understand the exaggerations and over promises made. and dont understand how much has been swept under the carpet and not talked about. the majority that dont care, undecided or dont want it. are risk averting such a change thats only a temporary gesture of temporary benefit. |
|
|
|
You mean fork?
I would just keep using Bitcoin.
o.O
I assume you're basically questioning what would we do if there was a fork that created an altcoin. I'd most likely keep my coins where they are, unless the altcoin in question proved to be significantly better than Bitcoin.
Yes but there would be a lot of panic, and we could end up with 2 coins like ETH and ETC. So where would people put their coins then? The majority coin would be the default solution, but if it drops back to say 50$, then it would be a disaster. So maybe diversify? This is what I am trying to find out here rational hat on. (i dont believe an intentional split should or would happen unless gmaxwell gets desperate to trigger one inteionally). with a hypothetical hat ontop that hat. (but lets play this theory game) if you have 10btc in 1AbCBl4blahblahaddress.. in an intentional split scenario. you then have 10btc in 1AbCBl4blahblahaddress.. on chain A and 10btc in 1AbCBl4blahblahaddress.. on chain B. you cannot make it 20btc in one chain simply by spending it to an address you create on the chain you want.. but the value of the coins in chain A or B may get impacted. and vary.. so its not a "move it to majority chain" because the funds (10btc) are already there.. you could indirectly sell 10coins in chain A for fiat or an altcoin. then move to an exchange that works with chain B and use the fiat/altcoin to buy more chain B bitcoin.. but thats indirect, and no guarantee of what total you will ultimately get, due to the variance of prices between the two different chains |
|
|
|
Franky is talking utter drivel. Whether LN is going to "work" is debatable, but the usual talking points against it (centralisation?! fees?!) are laughably far from reality.
but lets digress to LN seeing as u think its laughable and not what i said it would be have you actually seen the penalties and fee's of LN have you understood how LN multisig works (2 party authorisation) which can lead to hubs setting up to be the second party of everyones contract have you done the maths, run scenarios,? if you ignore using a hub and instead go for the 'hop' idea of LN... the costs are even bigger and penalty risk is higher eg A<->B B<->C C<->D D<->E imagine A wanted to pay E using the 'hop' concept. first A move funds to B.. B wont change his funds with C for free so A has to pay a fee to B to thank him for his involvement next B move funds to C.. C wont change his funds with D for free so A has to pay a fee to C to thank him for his involvement next C move funds to D.. D wont change his funds with E for free so A has to pay a fee to D to thank him for his involvement so to pay E is 4x the fee compared to just trading with B the risks are due to no previous interactions with other hops. all of their locktimes will differ which snowballs into some channels closing earlier than expected. this is what blockstream are hoping for. so this is where they become X (a hub) A - X - E / | \ B C D now everyone only has to pay 2x hop fee but everyone can trade with each other. downside. now X has 50% authorisation permission status with everyone. now X has can be the deciding factor of how long they want to make customers funds mature for after settlements confirm (CLTV) now X has can be the deciding factor of chargbacking their customers funds after settlements confirm (CSV revokes) yea they may get some competition where starbucks or walmart become a hub. and offer a cheaper fee. but thinking that the 'hop' concept will be used dominantly is not a rational end result. oh and its worth people really |
|
|
|
Segwit gives you 1.7-2MB blocks. People telling you otherwise are lying.
and immediately gives us ~2MB blocks (whether that's a good idea is up for debate, but if that's what you want, you get it).
IF 100% of people move funds to segwit p2wpkh/p2wsh keys..if only 50% of people do it. then expect 1.3mb-1.5mb capacity increase. oh and its a 1 time max possibiility.. you cant resegwit a segwit to get upto 3mb.. oh and once people start using different features like CSV CLTV (adding extra bytes) confidential payments(adding upto1kb) even if its the same 2in 2out tx... that will add more data (mb weight) to a block.. but no increase in tx count.. EG we could see 1.0mb=2500tx today 2.1mb=4500tx after activation and IF 100% utility of keys being segwit.. and then 4.0mb=4500tx when using the new features |
|
|
|
Thank you @franky1, I'll read it. I don't consider LN an ideal solution for Bitcoin to scale, too. I think it's over-complicated, but for micropayments it may work (I consider it appropiate for payments where you, using fiat, would use a prepaid/gift card). What I was interested in, however, was an explanation in layman's terms if the Segwit concept itself (not LN and also not the "soft fork" itself as you point out in your other posting) had some negative impact on security or usability of Bitcoin. I know the Bitcoin Core page about Costs and Risks, but it doesn't seem like this list is really a list of "disadvantages" as most of it could be applied to all larger "jumps" in software development. If you or another participant of this discussion have a link for me, I'd be grateful if you share it. as you can see by the post i done with the couple images included up above. say you made a transaction that used segwit keys.. P2WPKH... if you relayed it to an old node. (while network is in current format) the old node see it as an anyonecanspend, which would get rejected and not relayed by an old node (while unconfirmed). but if a pool was to include it. even without segwit working. the pool could confirm it and then spend it. this is why core need pool acceptance predominently and are willing to split off the opposing pools. this is why core want segwit tx relays to be where segwit nodes are a separate layer to the old nodes. where segwit 'translates' the transactions into something old nodes cant mess with. ok explaining the bit after the first picture in last post i made. hopefully the color coding shows how core envision the node connections of the network will change. where the purple line is the "special white listed old nodes".. where the segwit nodes translate the block into standard 1mb block format concentrating on left side below.. the red pool at the centre. going outwards  EDIT:gmaxwell buzzwords downstream(old) <-> upstream(segwit) <-> poolupstream(segwit) <-> pool<-> downstream(old) however not many people will manually want to white list those old nodes and will think 'the pool or someone else can do it', which obviously will be the pools because of them being a segwit node, is able to whitelist some old nodes and so the image on the right is more so what the network would look like by adding in some context of human psychy .. bar maybe a couple purple lines that might go between the segwit nodes and the old nodes from some people who may make the extra effort all because sending a segwit transaction unconfirmed to old nodes and pools not segwit ready has issues. like i said they have not even got intention to release a wallet with segwit keys (p2wpkh p2wsh). and wont release it until the pools are ready and they have some segwit nodes to act as the gate keepers and translate the data to old nodes(in the left utopia) |
|
|
|
Ver wants Bitcoin to split by hardfork just like Etherium
the splitting actually killed etheruem because now the market it's divided on two fork and you say this is a good thing? if bitcoin was going to have the same phate everyone would just dump his coin as usual not to mention he would have double of the coins like it was for etheruem, this can only lead to even more dumping ver was asking a question. if you want someone that made a concrete statement in favour of splitting the community intentionally What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other. I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--even gmaxwell admits ver, gavin and others were against splitting the network.. but gmaxwell loved the idea of splitting it |
|
|
|
b) people are not priced off the main chain or kept waiting too long for space in a block, leaving them with no alternative
c) they remain decentralised and permissionless.
put it this way.. if B was not a problem then we wouldnt need blockstream building sidechains.. as for C.. research LN's use of multisig and hubs.. plleeaassee his 'chainwork' is him just buzzwording terms to make it sound less like satoshi designed bitcoin and all the variables are words he decided on.
'ChainWork' was in Satoshi's code while he was still active, yes chainwork has meaning.. yes its been in bitcoin since early on.. but most people including satoshi concentrated on blockheight as the measure. but gmaxwell is tweaking things to make the term chainwork to become the popular measure because he has plans for it. rather than just a variable.. he wants to make it an important buzzword that has big meaning. bringing less emphasis on block height.. its all part of the twisting sheeps minds into thinking adam backs 'hashcash' was bitcoin 0.0.0.01 you'll soon see it more when blockstream releases some PoW sidechains with a few more buzzwords |
|
|
|
So then why do you advocate for an artificial limit upon the size of a single transaction?
the most simplest answer because 1tx of 1mb.. holds up ~2499tx on average for getting into a block And what about that is problematic? seriously!? so you think one person that makes a megatx deserves special allowable treatment.. more so than 2499 people who are smart and ethical to do lean tx's im guessing if you go to an airport and see a guy buy up all the planes seats so he can have the plane to himself. you will applaud him and then laugh at the hundreds of passengers being turned away and told to wait another 3-24 hours for the next plane and hope there are spare seats to get a few people in.. im betting you would while applauding the guy shout out to the other passengers "you should have paid more for your seats so you only have yorselves to blame for letting him buy up al the space on the plane" oh wait. your probably gonna applaud the guy buying up all the seats. and then offer your LN bus hub network charging people to use your bus to get people to where they want. telling them a new bus arrives every 5 minutes so no need to wait 3-24 hours for a "hope" of getting on another plane. i really hope you were being sarcastic by saying "And what about that is problematic?" |
|
|
|
i'm with segwit as a temporary solution, but i want 2mb as additional solution, unless they come up with something better, but we cannot wait forever bitcoin need to scale asap the price is telling us that the adoption is ready to increase dramatically
and only core are holding proper SCALING consensus up, with their subverted half promise of a temporary one time boost to then a push for their commercial LN hubs to repay their investors the $90m debt via all the fee's and penalties they wish to charge people using LN. they will only do onchain SCALING only when LN settlement lumpy tx's dominate and they need more room to fit in more LN settlements.. not due to any open sense of an open network for normal tx's to flow again |
|
|
|
From a layman's point of view (I'm not a coder) I vote yes, because until now I can see only advantages. If someone of the anti-segwit faction can point me to a text where the disadvantages of Segwit are explained in layman's terms, be welcome!
But I am also in favour of a conservative block size increase which takes into account the worldwide average upstream internet bandwidth growth. Because I think while for real micropayments (<10 USD) off chain solutions like LN might be better, for payments with a little higher amounts I prefer the blockchain.
hmm another guy using the latest script buzzword "conservative" d5000 you do realise the 'fee's and penalties of LN.. you do realise the confirmed tx maturity after LN settlement.. (CLTV aka 3-5 business day funds unavailable) you do realise the confirmed tx revokes after LN settlement.. (CSV aka chargeback penalty) they have already estimated that to open a channel for 10 days requires 0.006btc fee to be deposits to cover all the costs/possib penalties of using LN $4 just to use the LN service. LN has a niche for some users, but is not the solution for all users. even the bitcoin usage stats of 'days destroyed' revealed not everyone is spamming the network multiple times a week.. but core got those stats removed from known public websites to hide that and pretend everyone is spending funds hourly to need LN its techy but if anyone want to read.. scroll down on the link to the 'results' and see their excel sheet of all the penalties and costs of use they intend to have https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2016-November/000648.html |
|
|
|
|
most people with internet will pay for internet whether a full node or not.
so dothebeats $36 a month is $36 a month no matter if he play games, watches porn or is a full node..
also he says he uses a gaming computer thats always online 24/7 anyway.. so electric is no different.. because he already leaves it on already without being a full node. so there is no extra expense..
meaning it costs no more, nothing, ziltch.. for dothebeats to be a full node
whats next..
?try to include his house rent/mortgage as a factor..?
?hire a family member as a node 'administrator'..?
to try adding on fake costs
|
|
|
|
i disagree. it is not a civil war unless we make it one.
currently we are waiting for the miners to decide on the acceptance or denial of SegWit (the proposal they are signalling- BIP141 IIRC)
and users have only nodes to voice their opinion and there are only ~5000 nodes and lot more users. so i want to know out of the 929828 members on bitcointalk and ~2 million daily visits and more other places how many want, don't want or even have no idea about BIP141
and as i said in OP, this the results will just be results.
(so far 126 times read and only 7 votes!)
you do understand segwit right?? you understand that although when confirmed in a block old nodes dont fully validate the tx. but instead blindly look passed it..('compatible backwards' cough cough) BUT before confirmation because it appears as signatureless tx (anyonecanspend) old nodes can cause issues. this is why 0.14(the implementation with p2wpkh and p2wsh key generation wallets) wont be released before activation. and then after activation, 0.14 wont connect with non-segwit nodes for relaying unconfirmed transactions to avoid the silly things that happen at unconfirmed relay level. they could connect to old nodes and just relay old transactions. but lets be honest segwit-node users wont bother doing all the setting changes to mix and match tx's. so will just connect to segwit nodes to make things simpleyes after tx are passed by segwit nodes to a segwit accepting pool, they will then relay block data out to all nodes new and old.. but due to the unconfirmed tx relay part. segwit will divide the network at unconfirmed tx relay level segwit done as non network consensus node activation is going to cause issues.. but core wont tell you about this until after its activated as a strongarm motive for everyone to jump onboard at a rapid pace to join their nodes. or be left ignored. (changing the network) technically its all the 'same network' (due to all nodes connecting to a pool), but the nodes become more biased to only communicate with their own kind. where it becomes more work for a pool to send out 2 different variants of a block. --witness  again core will try to advertise the need to get nodes to upgrade to gain more connections and be more part of their side of the network (although in their half truth twisting of words is one network) this is why it should have been a proper network consensus rather than a emulated consensus of just the pools, so that by being a full network consensus before pools, allows the nodes to be ready and fully compatible rather than just SPV compatible to segwit as you can see by segwits own guide. if not upgrading they want you to set up another node to 'filter' your unupgraded node through a segwit node (facepalm) when sending old tx's but you wont receive new tx's. it also allows segwit nodes to be the controller of what becomes a 'valid block' or not. rather than the old node doing independent checks https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/In this configuration, you set your current Bitcoin Core node (which we’ll call the “older node”) to connect exclusively to a node running Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 or later (which we’ll call the “newer node”). The newer node is connected to the Bitcoin P2P network as usual. Because the newer node knows about the segwit changes to the consensus rules, it won’t relay invalid blocks or transactions to the older node—but it will relay everything else. When using this configuration, please note that the older node, if it uses Bitcoin Core defaults, will not see transactions using segwit features until those transactions are included in a block. Configuration:
For the newer node, start it normally and let it sync the blockchain. At present, you cannot use a pruned node for this purpose because pruned nodes will not act as relay nodes. You may optionally start the newer node with either or both of the following command line parameters so that it treats the older node as special (these options may also be placed in Bitcoin Core’s configuration file): -whitebind=<addr> Bind to given address and whitelist peers connecting to it. Use [host]:port notation for IPv6 -whitelist=<netmask> Whitelist peers connecting from the given netmask or IP address. Can be specified multiple times. Whitelisted peers cannot be DoS banned and their transactions are always relayed, even if they are already in the mempool, useful e.g. for a gateway For the older node, first wait for the newer node to finish syncing the blockchain and then restart the older node with the following command line parameter (this may also be placed in the Bitcoin Core configuration file): -connect=<IP_address_or_DNS_name_of_newer_node>  |
|
|
|
there could be a lot of people that want both or undecided because people are stupidly dividing the communiity by thinking consensus should be ignored and it should only be a one or other decision.. your pool is just going to be a biased civil war whos on whos side vote. rather than a community consensus open choice. |
|
|
|
Banks already have safe deposit box where anyone can put anything valuable that may also include bitcoin paper wallet. Its better not to tell them your bitcoin address, they may report it to government and they may charge you in the name of tax.
An address is not enough to prove an ownership. You could show an address in the bank and then say it doesn't belong to you. How would they prove it?  You'd need a private key, and showing the key to anyone is like giving them your money. If someone gained access just for a few seconds and managed to take a picture of it, or swipe it in front of a camera, your money's gone. you dont show the private key..!! you sign a unique message and pass them the signature to show proof |
|
|
|
|
put in another option.
"yes but only with real consensus onchain scaling beyond the one time boost"
|
|
|
|
but bitcoiners are too paranoid to share their private keys with banks, no matter how safe they are
... says "karpeles" lol who the real karpeles has hundreds of thousands of coins of people that stupidly handed them over to him |
|
|
|
What's the difference between what you just mentioned and people using a cryptocurrency that's made by the banking system and governments ? It wouldn't make any difference as you are not the one controlling. It also wouldn't make sense , banking system wants to control users and while having your private keys stored on the bank , you could have a copy at your home etc... It simply not gonna work as It won't be possible for them to freez , limit your account etc..
by banks having full control of funds they end up storing it in cold store reserves and only offering database mysql balances to customers to pla around with (like exchanges like coinbase have now) by using LN commercial hubs. the hub has code that can even after settlements(onchain withdrawal) get confirmation, prevent funds for being spent (CLTV maturity) for hours/days .. and then while maturing allow chargebacks (CSV revokes). yep LN is trying to emulate banking services (and banking headaches) yep LN becomes like a bank. which is where people compare it to a paypal2.0. blockstream want paypal2.0 |
|
|
|
Because keeping private keys (by yourself) is troublesome, one of bank's services in the future will be keeping private keys for customers. They won't need to create their own currencies if they can convert enough of the population over using this system.
The customer visits bank and is provided a "bank account" which is a managed address on the bitcoin blockchain. The customer can still have personal addresses, but this address will be secured and guaranteed by the bank and have attached banking services.
thats your "theory" the actual reality is blockstream will be the LN hub that holds peoples funds in a multisig of them having 50% permission of funds, so they can 'manage' and set penalties. banks already are investing in blockstream and blockstream have to develop LN commercial hub service to repay bankers investment through the LN fee's. but banks wont actually integrate bitcoin as a bank service direct.. banks wont handle bitcoin. they are going to have their own fiat 2.0 called hyperledger sidechains. also why oh why are people actually advocating to turn bitcoin into a permissioned service that is tethered to banks. indirectly via investment. deluded to want banks to hoard peoples funds directly... seriously!! wake up |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
