Consensus Reached

[Snorek]

This is not 100% confirmed info yet but seeing how community is reacting positively I have no doubt that consensus in that form will be reached.
Technicalities apart, this amount of positive news should take bitcoin price higher as we speak!

[Cuidler]

Here's the draft (this is not the final version):

• The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016.
• If there is strong community support, the hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017.

Does not look good, it seems the 2 MB will be activated 1 year after 95% of miners agree. Deffinitively too late, it might be not even in 2017 when just 5% of miners continue vetoing.

• This hard-fork is expected to include features which are currently being discussed within technical communities, including an increase in the maximum effective block size, to more than 2 MB and less than 4 MB, and will only be adopted with a broad support across the entire Bitcoin community.

Seems sketchy, HF SegWit could be considered more than 2 MB and less than 4 MB, unless they define 2 MB blocksize limit with up to 4 MB with SegWit signature part, it might be misinterpreted

[Lauda]

Does not look good, it seems the 2 MB will be activated 1 year after 95% of miners agree. Deffinitively too late, it might be not even in 2017 when just 5% of miners continue vetoing.

It is not late. It took us years to get close to filling up 2 MB blocks. How do you think that an additional 1 MB (provided by Segwit) is going to filled within 1 year? Do you expect a 100% year-on-year growth to occur?

Seems sketchy, HF SegWit could be considered more than 2 MB and less than 4 MB, unless they define 2 MB blocksize limit with up to 4 MB with SegWit signature part, it might be misinterpreted

It isn't. Wait for the final statement and elaborations.

[Denker]

This is not 100% confirmed info yet but seeing how community is reacting positively I have no doubt that consensus in that form will be reached.
Technicalities apart, this amount of positive news should take bitcoin price higher as we speak!

I give you that.We still have to wait for the official announcement.But it's looking really good imo.
And yes while we are writing price is indeed showing some response.

[Cuidler]

Does not look good, it seems the 2 MB will be activated 1 year after 95% of miners agree. Deffinitively too late, it might be not even in 2017 when just 5% of miners continue vetoing.

It is not late. It took us years to get close to filling up 2 MB blocks. How do you think that an additional 1 MB (provided by Segwit) is going to filled within 1 year? Do you expect a 100% year-on-year growth to occur?

With SegWit your looking for additional 0.5 MB at best, if you aim aditional 1 MB instead, a higher than today percentage of transactions must be multisig instead.

So realistically we get 0.5 MB for almost 2 years, definitively not enought even if Bitcoin adoption continues just with current trends...

[Lauda]

With SegWit your looking for aditional 0.5 MB at best, if you aim aditional 1 MB instead, a higher than today percentage of transactions must be multisig instead. So realistically we get 0.5 MB for almost 2 years, definitively not enought even if Bitcoin adoption continues with current trends...

No. This is false. Calculations have been done and we are looking at a realistic 2 - 2.5 MB (forgot the exact number) increase. So it should be enough. The increase does not happen over night though, the growth will happen slowly over time. It's not "almost 2 years" it is 1 and a half year. Where is your data that proves the '0.5MB at best' claim?

[abercrombie]

[HKmtg] Finally, the statement done! Will be uploaded to medium soon! 3m

[Cuidler]

No. This is false. Calculations have been done and we are looking at a realistic 2 - 2.5 MB (forgot the exact number) increase. So it should be enough. The increase does not happen over night though, the growth will happen slowly over time. It's not "almost 2 years" it is 1 and a half year. Where is your data that proves the '0.5MB at best' claim?

Given the current distribution of normal and multisig transactions, and given the fact not every one will use SegWit transactions even after 1 year of deployment. There will always be people who preffer high value transactions to be sent as normal ones and not as "anyone can spend" ones

Edit:
Realistic 2 - 2.5 MB increase to 3 - 3.5 MB from 1 MB base just with SegWit ? Only in dream land...

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Can we finally kick Classic into a 6 foot deep hole & bury her?

[Denker]

[HKmtg] Finally, the statement done! Will be uploaded to medium soon! 3m

Thanks for the info.
I'm really curious and excited to read it like a small kid awaits it's candy!

[adamstgBit]

Can we finally kick Classic into a 6 foot deep hole & bury her?

what a wast

Classic should be OK with the agreement

It should stick around as a competing impl.

[watashi-kokoto]

Final nail in Classic' coffin

[Lauda]

Given the current distribution of normal and multisig transactions, and given the fact not every one will use SegWit transactions even after 1 year of deployment. There will always be people who preffer high value transactions to be sent as normal ones and not as "anyone can spend" ones

You've provided no data, no calculations. You're basing everything on speculation and thus your argument has no merit.

Realistic 2 - 2.5 MB increase to 3 - 3.5 MB from 1 MB base just with SegWit ? Only in dream land...

I never said anything about "3 - 3.5 MB".

Classic should be OK with the agreement

It should stick around as a competing impl.

No. Diseases should be completely exterminated.

[adamstgBit]

Given the current distribution of normal and multisig transactions, and given the fact not every one will use SegWit transactions even after 1 year of deployment. There will always be people who preffer high value transactions to be sent as normal ones and not as "anyone can spend" ones

You've provided no data, no calculations. You're basing everything on speculation and thus your argument has no merit.

Realistic 2 - 2.5 MB increase to 3 - 3.5 MB from 1 MB base just with SegWit ? Only in dream land...

I never said anything about "3 - 3.5 MB".

Classic should be OK with the agreement

It should stick around as a competing impl.

No. Diseases should be completely exterminated.

No

this agreement is made possible by the credible threat classic represented

we NEED a competing impl

[calkob]

Always knew that the bitcoin community would reach a consensus,  i love Game Theory.   

[YarkoL]

No. Diseases should be completely exterminated.

And how do you plan to rid the world of this
hideous menace, Herr Doktor?

[Lauda]

this agreement is made possible by the credible threat classic represented

we NEED a competing impl

No. Things that I have anticipated have been 'officially' signed. The only thing that Classic might have influenced was the speed of this process, it was inevitable. The people behind Core are reasonable, the people being contentious HF's aren't. What could be useful is a real competing implementation with a real group of developers behind it. We don't need nonsense like Classic.

Can we finally kick Classic into a 6 foot deep hole & bury her?

It was DOA (dead on arrival). We've been saying this since the release of the implementation.

And how do you plan to rid the world of this
hideous menace, Herr Doktor?

Consensus gets rid of these diseases.

[adamstgBit]

let's just drop it, this a calibration 

[Cuidler]

Given the current distribution of normal and multisig transactions, and given the fact not every one will use SegWit transactions even after 1 year of deployment. There will always be people who preffer high value transactions to be sent as normal ones and not as "anyone can spend" ones

You've provided no data, no calculations. You're basing everything on speculation and thus your argument has no merit.

Realistic 2 - 2.5 MB increase to 3 - 3.5 MB from 1 MB base just with SegWit ? Only in dream land...

I never said anything about "3 - 3.5 MB".

You have provided no data and no calculations eighter, thus your argument has no merit as well by your logic.

Realistic 2 - 2.5 MB increase means effective 3 - 3.5 MB blocksizes (1 MB + 2 - 2.5 MB signatures). But even effective  2 - 2.5 MB blocksizes (1 MB + 1 - 1.5 MB signatures) are unrealistic unless you increase multisig usage + everyone just using SegWit - which is unrealistic

[Amph]

Given the current distribution of normal and multisig transactions, and given the fact not every one will use SegWit transactions even after 1 year of deployment. There will always be people who preffer high value transactions to be sent as normal ones and not as "anyone can spend" ones

You've provided no data, no calculations. You're basing everything on speculation and thus your argument has no merit.

Realistic 2 - 2.5 MB increase to 3 - 3.5 MB from 1 MB base just with SegWit ? Only in dream land...

I never said anything about "3 - 3.5 MB".

You have provided no data and no calculations eighter, thus your argument has no merit as well by your logic.

Realistic 2 - 2.5 MB increase means effective 3 - 3.5 MB blocksizes (1 MB + 2 - 2.5 MB signatures). But even effective  2 - 2.5 MB blocksizes (1 MB + 1 - 1.5 MB signatures) are unrealistic unless you increase multisig usage + everyone just using SegWit - which is unrealistic

in fact it will be only 1.8 as a effective increase, there is no 2.5 mb ever

segwit is not even a double of the limit currently implemented, they will need to increase it anyway to 2mb, in a non-distant future

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/012248.html