Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin!

[Fatman3001]

Then why don't you post it directly on the blog? What a better place to show to everyone that he is wrong?
You can archive it if you are afraid of a possible censorship from him, and show it then to everyone.

I did and it's sitting with "Your comment is awaiting moderation.". I cannot "archive it" because it won't even be displayed in the first place without his permission.

No one not directly involved cares about your ongoing battle with reddit, censorship, or developer in-fighting.  Take your excellent points to the miners and convince them to implement segwit so we can ALL watch Bitcoin grow and prosper.

Well, it's all the rage to by whining about fake news nowadays. But yes, please talk to the miners G.

[Fatman3001]

Ok, some time has passed. So... what's Plan B?

[-ck]

Ok, some time has passed. So... what's Plan B?

Plan B is still plan A. Wait until the activation date is near or has passed.

[amaclin]

Ok, some time has passed. So... what's Plan B?

There is no plan B in decentralized world.
Anyone can do anything.

[aarturka]

Ok, some time has passed. So... what's Plan B?

Plan B is still plan A. Wait until the activation date is near or has passed.

What about UASF? It seems great idea because stubborness of chinese miners are impressive

[classicsucks]

Ok, some time has passed. So... what's Plan B?

Plan B is still plan A. Wait until the activation date is near or has passed.

What about UASF? It seems great idea because stubborness of chinese miners are impressive

I haven't seen any Core dev give the UASF proposal serious consideration. For the record, I think it's a horrible idea.

I believe that if Core were to attempt a UASF, it would effectively end their role as custodians of bitcoin code.

[CyberKuro]

I hate to say that but 95% is unlikely to happen in the next a few months, If we never succeed to reach that percentage , what's going to happen and until when this SegWit signalling process should remain active ? (whatever It takes) ? because It literally could take forever.

SegWit voting will continue till block #491904. U may follow the progress @ http://segwit.co

I see, and If we fail to activate until then (I'm interested in knowing how much months/years this would take), another alternative will proposed for the miners ?

Still don't get it properly and need more time to learn about it, simply because "code, nodes, algorithm" are not my field.
Looks like we need more time, waiting for months or even years to complete this consensus matter.
Honestly, if bitcoin unlimited approved by majority, is it true that bitcoin will divide into 2 coins as ethereum did?
Are they, who support SegWit cannot accept it? Which cause this problem. I mean, whether SegWit or BU win this vote, another side should willing to accept and support it.

[-ck]

Ok, some time has passed. So... what's Plan B?

Plan B is still plan A. Wait until the activation date is near or has passed.

What about UASF? It seems great idea because stubborness of chinese miners are impressive

I haven't seen any Core dev give the UASF proposal serious consideration. For the record, I think it's a horrible idea.

I believe that if Core were to attempt a UASF, it would effectively end their role as custodians of bitcoin code.

UASF is, in my opinion, dangerous and stupid. Funnily enough it resembles the emergent consensus bullshit from BU in many ways...

[Carlton Banks]

UASF is, in my opinion, dangerous and stupid. Funnily enough it resembles the emergent consensus bullshit from BU in many ways...

Concurred.


Making user activation part of the protocol simply invites a different brigading attack instead, having a mechanism to do that invites that strategy.

If user directed action is needed, it's safer in the long-term realised as ad-hoc one-offs, and not turning that concept into a part of the system.

Ultimately, mining needs a decentralising shot in the arm. I doubt you're in favour of that ck, but hey

[-ck]

Ultimately, mining needs a decentralising shot in the arm. I doubt you're in favour of that ck, but hey

Don't be so sure that you know what I want.

[Carlton Banks]

Ultimately, mining needs a decentralising shot in the arm. I doubt you're in favour of that ck, but hey

Don't be so sure that you know what I want.

You're still business partners with someone who's so arrogant that he thinks miners should just directly control the protocol! Unless you've quit that self-contradictory relationship....

You implicitly support the things you explicitly defy. Bit of a mixed message, ck

[-ck]

You're still business partners with someone who's so arrogant that he thinks miners should just directly control the protocol! Unless you've quit that self-contradictory relationship....

You implicitly support the things you explicitly defy. Bit of a mixed message, ck

Actually I'm not. A business partner of his that is.

[freebutcaged]

If bitcoin splits then both chains are open to manipulations in the code, people can always switch to the desired chain but I think besides bitcoin losing it's value by at least %40 after split these are the miners losing, imagine if BU forks then Core miners will successfully activate segwit and any miner from BU wants to switch back to main chain(Core) is switching to segwit activated chain, so why not accept segwit now before damaging the network?

[Fatman3001]

Ok, some time has passed. So... what's Plan B?

Plan B is still plan A. Wait until the activation date is near or has passed.

That's an interesting way of saying there is no plan B. Sounds more assertive. Less resigned.

With the sky high activation threshold Core is basically pushing miners over to BU and everyone is ok with that?

Looking at Segwit, that's a lot of effort just for Core to dig its own grave.

[Carlton Banks]

You're still business partners with someone who's so arrogant that he thinks miners should just directly control the protocol! Unless you've quit that self-contradictory relationship....

You implicitly support the things you explicitly defy. Bit of a mixed message, ck

Actually I'm not. A business partner of his that is.

No longer joint owners of CKpool then? Well, at least that's your major conflict of interest out of the equation. Why do you still post in the same threads as kano without contradicting his lies? It looks like the same implicit approval you used to afford him.

[doesit]

hi im new to this forum 

Anyway not new to btc,and have a question,why do developers just dont push out whatever update they want and ,finish this political debate for good,since clearly giving miners power over mining,fees isnt decentralized option,more like exclusive cartel.

Since devs only need to roll out update and let whoever wants it to implement given theres no flaws with control it will populate itsef,thus people will move to it,it might mean end to current btc,but surely next version would be better in scalling and speed thus new chapter.Seems really simple solution,instead asking people who own monopoly what they want.

[achow101]

hi im new to this forum 

Anyway not new to btc,and have a question,why do developers just dont push out whatever update they want and ,finish this political debate for good,since clearly giving miners power over mining,fees isnt decentralized option,more like exclusive cartel.

Since devs only need to roll out update and let whoever wants it to implement given theres no flaws with control it will populate itsef,thus people will move to it,it might mean end to current btc,but surely next version would be better in scalling and speed thus new chapter.Seems really simple solution,instead asking people who own monopoly what they want.

The developers are not, and cannot be, the ultimate final authority. That would make them a centralized group that has control over Bitcoin, and that is completely antithetical to Bitcoin's ideals. All that the developers can do is to propose a solution, implement it, and make it available to everyone and then the community as a whole must decide whether to adopt that solution or not. That decision is made by people running full nodes and miners choosing to signal readiness for the solution. But the developers cannot and will not force people to adopt a particular solution.

[doesit]

The developers are not, and cannot be, the ultimate final authority. That would make them a centralized group that has control over Bitcoin, and that is completely antithetical to Bitcoin's ideals. All that the developers can do is to propose a solution, implement it, and make it available to everyone and then the community as a whole must decide whether to adopt that solution or not. That decision is made by people running full nodes and miners choosing to signal readiness for the solution. But the developers cannot and will not force people to adopt a particular solution.

you see you say decentralized and miners in same sentence,why do some chinesse miners would have a majority say in it,when devs should be ones making decision,would you think that miners are smarter and know whats better or someone who develops and patches the code ?
Since the way i see developers are independent,miners will chase profits and whatever fill pockets for them.

Since from the get go btc was meant as experiment and grew into industry,but along the way it lost its values to asic miners,those who can exploit it.And if people that mumble all the time how it would be great if btc was adopted globally and everyone should use it,then stuff like miners having majority say and control,cap amounts and transactions,should be fixed,might be some btc fork or whatever,but current system wasnt designed for such scale of users,thus upgrade is needed one way or another.

[achow101]

you see you say decentralized and miners in same sentence,

Chinese miners is not one cohesive group. Not all chinese miners do the same thing, not all miners do the same thing. There is no one cohesive group that defines "chinese miners". The chinese miners are decentralized, each individual person can do whatever they want. On the other hand, developers are a cohesive group as there is really only one software that defines the network. There is only one software, so whatever an individual developer does, the entire cohesive group produces only one thing that represents "the developers". That is centralized, chinese miners are less so.

why do some chinesse miners would have a majority say in it,

They don't. There is no single miner which has a majority say in anything. For any consensus change to be made, there must be consensus, i.e. nearly all miners (not just the majority) must agree to enforce the new rules. Likewise, nearly all full nodes must also enforce those new rules.

when devs should be ones making decision,would you think that miners are smarter and know whats better or someone who develops and patches the code ?

No. No one group should be making and forcing decisions and changes onto everyone else. The miners should not be forcing users to a certain change, devs should not either.

Since the way i see developers are independent,miners will chase profits and whatever fill pockets for them.

Miners are independent as well. Again, there is not one cohesive group of miners that decides what all miners must do. However, by virtue of there being only one software, there is a cohesive group of developers that decides what the developers do.

[doesit]

im not trying to argue with you,but if you look at btc now its mainly centralized by hundreds of small groups,from where you hold your wallet,who develops it,from every exchange and who owns it,to miners that mine it,and people that use it.My perspective is that someone who maintains core could should be able to push updates.its like any other industry you dont let someone who cleans cars,tinker with engine,or dictate how it should be designed or run-you simply look what can be improved for the end user,and push out new design hoping it will be better then last one.

Guess what im saying btc is meant to progress,if it was to reach masses,escape cap limit,transactions bumps,and ease of use.Since otherwise id say btc is actually at its equilibrium now,where you have enough people using it ,and enough supply to cater them needs.thus actually nothing could be changed and it would still work away in closed circle,where everyone seems happy.Thus someone could raise question why bother with fork or bu when keeping it as is,will be sufficient for next couple years.