Should We be Afraid of BIP 148?

[iamTom123]

The day is nearing -- August One -- when the so-called BIP 148 can be implemented and right now there seems to be a feeling of fear what can really happen on that specific date. Some are afraid that there can be a split but many are also confident that things would work out fine for Bitcoin as stakeholders may not risk the reason why they are here...or they will not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, so to speak.

Are you afraid of the coming BIP 148 or you are sure that things will work out fine for all of us?

[classicsucks]

I think it's gonna be pretty sad. As in, an even bigger fail than Classic and XT.

The timing is way too soon, the code barely compiles, the concept is deeply flawed, and the devs are dopes.

[Iranus]

IMO you can expect a lot of drama, and not a lot to actually be worried about.  Core devs are largely against it, it's rushed as hell, it wouldn't have a lot of hashrate support or potentially even business support, and it just seems like a big empty threat.

It could end up really being irrelevant after a split.

[Kprawn]

I just hope the code is solid and not rushed like Bitcoin Unlimited. The worst thing that can happen, would be for BIP 148 to be badly coded like

BU and for them to drop the ball. {BugCoin} We do not need instances where Peer review was rushed and exploits created to make Bitcoin

ownership vulnerable to exploits by hackers. I doubt that this might be the case, but it is one of my fears.  

[TechPriest]

IMO you can expect a lot of drama, and not a lot to actually be worried about.  Core devs are largely against it, it's rushed as hell, it wouldn't have a lot of hashrate support or potentially even business support, and it just seems like a big empty threat.

It could end up really being irrelevant after a split.

Lol, as i know Core devs for this way. Only large miner pool against it.
Segwitt2x (segwitt + hardfork) will be much worse decision for Bitcoin community.

[eordano]

On the one hand, the reference contentious fork would be the Ethereum/Ethereum Classic. It's possible to think that the Bitcoin brand will have some trouble trying to survive this, but whatever fork the Bitcoin Core implementation follows will eventually become the accepted one.

I don't see the hard fork proposed by bitmain getting much adoption. Even if they have a very large amount of hashing power, I think if this is expected, then it will lead to many miners to signal for SegWit in the next few days, before August 1st.

Hold on to your private keys.

[cr1776]

On the one hand, the reference contentious fork would be the Ethereum/Ethereum Classic. It's possible to think that the Bitcoin brand will have some trouble trying to survive this, but whatever fork the Bitcoin Core implementation follows will eventually become the accepted one.

I don't see the hard fork proposed by bitmain getting much adoption. Even if they have a very large amount of hashing power, I think if this is expected, then it will lead to many miners to signal for SegWit in the next few days, before August 1st.

Hold on to your private keys.

The terms that Bitmain is going to use assures its failure, including:
1. "exactly 12 hours and 20 minutes after the UASF activation...a block must be included in the blockchain that’s bigger than one megabyte. " ... which will be rejected by the rest of the network

2. "Bitmain will first mine on Bitmain’s Bitcoin chain privately for three days." - so they'll do a pre-mine, mid-stream.  What other miner will choose to switch to a chain that they (a) couldn't mine for three days, and (b) therefore got no income from for three days while (c) having to throw away any income they had generated on the main bitcoin chain for three days?  If I were mining this would be sufficient to not mine that chain.

3. "Second, there must be strong market demand for Bitmain’s Bitcoin. "  For the reasons above this is unlikely and why would anyone want a chain that is centralized to ONE miner/developer etc?  If someone is stupid enough to want that, why not use fiat? Or any number of other alt-coins?

Seems like Bitmain hasn't thought this out at all.  Which may have been the intent if they really wanted to tank the fiat price.  Even Bitmain doesn't seem dumb enough to actually do this because it only would result in a loss for them.

Really, if they do this, they'll be creating an alt-coin quiet simply.


* Quotes from here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1967580.0

[Kprawn]

On the one hand, the reference contentious fork would be the Ethereum/Ethereum Classic. It's possible to think that the Bitcoin brand will have some trouble trying to survive this, but whatever fork the Bitcoin Core implementation follows will eventually become the accepted one.

I don't see the hard fork proposed by bitmain getting much adoption. Even if they have a very large amount of hashing power, I think if this is expected, then it will lead to many miners to signal for SegWit in the next few days, before August 1st.

Hold on to your private keys.

The terms that Bitmain is going to use assures its failure, including:
1. "exactly 12 hours and 20 minutes after the UASF activation...a block must be included in the blockchain that’s bigger than one megabyte. " ... which will be rejected by the rest of the network

2. "Bitmain will first mine on Bitmain’s Bitcoin chain privately for three days." - so they'll do a pre-mine, mid-stream.  What other miner will choose to switch to a chain that they (a) couldn't mine for three days, and (b) therefore got no income from for three days while (c) having to throw away any income they had generated on the main bitcoin chain for three days?  If I were mining this would be sufficient to not mine that chain.

3. "Second, there must be strong market demand for Bitmain’s Bitcoin. "  For the reasons above this is unlikely and why would anyone want a chain that is centralized to ONE miner/developer etc?  If someone is stupid enough to want that, why not use fiat? Or any number of other alt-coins?

Seems like Bitmain hasn't thought this out at all.  Which may have been the intent if they really wanted to tank the fiat price.  Even Bitmain doesn't seem dumb enough to actually do this because it only would result in a loss for them.

Really, if they do this, they'll be creating an alt-coin quiet simply.


* Quotes from here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1967580.0

Well the ShitCoin they create is actually good news for us. I doubt if anyone are going to back a miner takeover of Bitcoin, no matter how much

you hate Core developers. One of the weak points of some Alt coins are the centralized control people have. Let's take Ethereum as an example,

Vitalik and the rest of the founders are clear targets for governments and hackers to attack. If you want to take it down, you start with the people

behind it. {Bitcoin has no centralized control or ownership} 

[TetraFugolini]

And will old wallets work after 1. Of August?
How do i know it's my wallet going to be compatible?

[mk4]

I fear for the hard fork. I honestly hate and am against bitcoin splitting into two. Even just for the publicity itself, people who aren't tech savvy will lose hope on bitcoin. The price will definitely drop no doubt.

But the problem is we need a solution; and we need it FAST. Bitcoin is very not worth using as of now.

[coin@coin]

And will old wallets work after 1. Of August?
How do i know it's my wallet going to be compatible?

Make sure you take note of your private keys, you can use them in any other wallet that allows you to import BTC addresses via private keys.

[elkrisi]

Going through bitcoincore.org, you can see that Segwit is included in version 0.13 and we are now at 0.14.2, so Segwit not only is supported by core developers but it is thoroughly tested and already present in all current versions.

It is the activation of segwit that causes all that uncertainty as the activation is user initiated by UASF and has met with opposition by miners, most notably bitmain, who even threat with hard forking.

A smooth, soft fork transition to segwit will significantly strengthen bitcoin and will drive prices much higher.
A hard fork by a significant percentage of hash power will create two coins and a long period of uncertainty.

This uncertainty will quickly drop prices so that the two new bitcoins (the legacy/segwit one and the bitmain/bitcoin) together will have a much less value than the old bitcoin has now.

I believe soft fork segwit will dominate and bitcoin will smoothly continue its course.

Having activated segwit, the scaling / fees issues are NOT resolved but certainly relieved a lot.

This fact, along with opening the road to Lighting in a year or so and other Layer 2 applications, is going to sustain and increase the value of bitcoin and the role it plays as crypto-gold.

Signal for UASF segwit!

[spartacusrex]

UASF has ALREADY worked..

Simple as that.

From a position of 'nothing happening' to 'Shit - start running'.

[AK47-]

I am a SegWit supporter. I do not feel the approach proposed in BIP148 really measures up to the standard set by segwit itself. The primary flaw in BIP148 is that by forcing the activation of the existing nodes it almost guarantees at a minor level of disruption. I don't know what gonna happen on 1st August. It is very unpredictable as for now.

[JGoRed]

Me, I'm really not to afraid; I'm expecting the UASF to go well and us to finally get better confirmations. The community will figure this out and survive. The worst that could happen is we see some instability and a decrease in price for a month or two and then it returns to what it is now.

[mindrust]

There is nothing to afraid. Just withdraw your coins into your desktop/paper wallet before Aug 1 and wait for things to settle.

UASF is a Mexican standoff between the miners and the users.

It is going to make sure of that segwit to be activated till Aug1 either UASF's way or the other.

Since UASF became popular, nobody is even talking about BU anymore. UASF killed BU for good. Even if UASF fails, I'll be grateful just for that