Snorek
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 05:26:24 PM |
|
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
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 05:32:23 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 05:37:41 PM |
|
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.
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
Denker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1016
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 05:38:56 PM |
|
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. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
|
|
|
|
Cuidler
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 05:48:12 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 05:51:48 PM |
|
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?
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
abercrombie
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1159
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 05:57:13 PM |
|
[HKmtg] Finally, the statement done! Will be uploaded to medium soon! 3m
|
|
|
|
Cuidler
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 06:03:10 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3640
Merit: 10098
#1 VIP Crypto Casino
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 06:14:16 PM |
|
Can we finally kick Classic into a 6 foot deep hole & bury her?
|
|
|
|
Denker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1016
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 06:15:51 PM |
|
[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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 06:21:13 PM |
|
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
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 06:26:52 PM |
|
Final nail in Classic' coffin
|
|
|
|
Lauda
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 06:27:51 PM |
|
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.
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
adamstgBit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 06:32:23 PM |
|
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
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 06:34:43 PM |
|
Always knew that the bitcoin community would reach a consensus, i love Game Theory. ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
|
|
|
|
YarkoL
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 996
Merit: 1013
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 06:35:31 PM |
|
No. Diseases should be completely exterminated.
And how do you plan to rid the world of this hideous menace, Herr Doktor?
|
“God does not play dice"
|
|
|
Lauda
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 06:36:18 PM |
|
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.
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
adamstgBit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 06:38:07 PM |
|
let's just drop it, this a calibration
|
|
|
|
Cuidler
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 06:42:03 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3248
Merit: 1070
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 06:44:55 PM |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|