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

[-ck]

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.

If you're speaking of 'kanopool' then yes I am not a joint owner nor on any payroll. I don't respond to him because I don't engage trolls. It's why there are quite a few regulars here that I have on ignore as well. You're doing a great job entertaining their nonsense yourself - you seem to enjoy that sort of interchange whereas I find it like arguing with my own kids. I don't have the time or energy to engage them. My ignore list is much bigger courtesy of the main bitcoin discussion section than it ever was from mining/ ironically.

[Carlton Banks]

[snip]

Ignoring them may not work, some of them are pretty skilled propagandists. Bear in mind, there are several who I don't respond to, despite them desperately trying to get my attention (I don't use the ignore feature at all, doesn't mean I have to read the trolls). Anyway, we're in danger of appearing a little diversionary ourselves, this is now way OT

[-ck]

Ignoring them may not work, some of them are pretty skilled propagandists. Bear in mind, there are several who I don't respond to, despite them desperately trying to get my attention (I don't use the ignore feature at all, doesn't mean I have to read the trolls). Anyway, we're in danger of appearing a little diversionary ourselves, this is now way OT

Unfortunately I simply do not have the energy nor intestinal fortitude to tackle the trolls myself. I refuse to let my disgust with peoples' behaviour on this forum affect my mood in the real world. I don't think this is offtopic at all for dealing with FUD regarding segwit is an important part of acceptance and understanding and it's important for people reading this thread to understand there IS a lot of FUD and there ARE massive trolls who seem to make it a full time job to attack it.

[Carlton Banks]

Someone is always going to do it, and I guess I must be more willing to sacrifice my peace of mind, because it's immensely frustrating. I'm not some kind of zen master, I think I've demonstrated that once or twice so far Biting back pretty hard is important IMO, part of the Bitcoin troll's strategy is to inflict psychological pressure on those who contradict them. I think I've shown that some of them respond to being pressurised themselves, while a smaller number of others do not. Which is interesting.

[classicsucks]

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

Concurred.

ZOMG Carlton this is great that we can agree that UASF is trash.  Just when I thought you're arguing just to argue.

Mr. CK: I am not a defender of BU rhetoric. The only reason BU has gotten any further than XT and Classic is the massive opposition to Segwit. Personally I'm in favor of a planned 2MB hard fork of 0.12 that gets just about everyone on board. It's been done before, and we can do it again!

You and Carlton may have to get a room if your love-fest continues much longer... just trolling.

[Shiver]

In trying to understand the two main sides of this impasse (I'm currently for SegWit +LN type layer), but feel it only fair that I explore the BU reasoning to get a balanced view.  I read on the following reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5wnw8p/the_normal_persons_explanation_of_bu_vs_segwit/

It says that  Core reneged on their deal to release in July 2017.  It might be old new to some, but I've never heard of that.  Does anyone have the real story?  I can't understand why they would renege on what looked like a perfectly sensible way forward, and wonder if it is more one sided fluff from the misinformed, or if I truly have no idea what the issues are all about.

[OmegaStarScream]

I asked this question a few weeks back but I didn't receive an answer so, I would like to know, If we ever reach the last (26th activation period-- and how much would that take btw) and we fail to get the 95%, what does that mean?
Does it mean that SegWit will be dropped as a solution and developers will have to think in something else?

[achow101]

In trying to understand the two main sides of this impasse (I'm currently for SegWit +LN type layer), but feel it only fair that I explore the BU reasoning to get a balanced view.  I read on the following reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5wnw8p/the_normal_persons_explanation_of_bu_vs_segwit/

It says that  Core reneged on their deal to release in July 2017.  It might be old new to some, but I've never heard of that.  Does anyone have the real story?  I can't understand why they would renege on what looked like a perfectly sensible way forward, and wonder if it is more one sided fluff from the misinformed, or if I truly have no idea what the issues are all about.

Core did not renege on any deal or agreement, nor was such an agreement made by the group "Bitcoin Core developers". What you are talking about is the Hong Kong Agreement. There, some people who contributed to Bitcoin Core (note that they are contributors and only represent themselves, not the Bitcoin Core project) estimated that Segwit would be ready in April 2016 and agreed to publish a proposal for a hard fork that they could recommend within 3 months of Segwit's release into a version of Bitcoin Core. Note that they estimated Segwit to be ready by April 2016 and the proposal to be published by July 2016. Those were estimates, not hard deadlines.

Unfortunately testing and implementation of Segwit took a lot longer than estimated and it ended up being released in November 2016. However, because April 2016 was not a deadline but rather an estimate, the agreement was not broken. 3 months after Segwit was released, Luke-Jr (one of the contributors who signed the agreement), published a hard fork proposal which he could recommend to Core. The Core contributors who signed the agreement did not renege on their end of the deal, but at this point, I think the some of the miners who signed it have. Note that because the Core contributors who signed the agreement did not and do not represent the entire Bitcoin Core project, Core itself is not bound by the agreement and had no obligation to release on the estimated schedule outlined by the agreement and no obligation to accept and implement the hard fork proposal.

I asked this question a few weeks back but I didn't receive an answer so, I would like to know, If we ever reach the last (26th activation period-- and how much would that take btw) and we fail to get the 95%, what does that mean?
Does it mean that SegWit will be dropped as a solution and developers will have to think in something else?

Either Segwit will be dropped as "the community doesn't want it" or the dates will be changed.

[stereotype]

Note that because the Core contributors who signed the agreement did not and do not represent the entire Bitcoin Core project, Core itself is not bound by the agreement and had no obligation to release on the estimated schedule outlined by the agreement and no obligation to accept and implement the hard fork proposal.

Who does, represent Bitcoin Core? What are Core, bound by?

[achow101]

Who does, represent Bitcoin Core?

No one really represents Core. The closest you could get to "who represents Core" I suppose would be everyone listed on https://bitcoincore.org/en/team/ but any decision about what goes into Core is made by the entire group, plus a number of contributors not listed on that page.

What are Core, bound by?

Nothing really. There is no obligation for Core to do anything and nothing that requires them to do anything. There is a moral obligation for them to do "what is right for Bitcoin", but that is subjective.

[classicsucks]

Who does, represent Bitcoin Core?

No one really represents Core. The closest you could get to "who represents Core" I suppose would be everyone listed on https://bitcoincore.org/en/team/ but any decision about what goes into Core is made by the entire group, plus a number of contributors not listed on that page.

What are Core, bound by?

Nothing really. There is no obligation for Core to do anything and nothing that requires them to do anything. There is a moral obligation for them to do "what is right for Bitcoin", but that is subjective.

This is a ridiculous quote - obviously the leaders of the project represent the team. That would be Adam Back and Greg Maxwell. And they're bound by obligations to Blockstream, who pay their salaries. Implying that they're bound by a moral code is also ridiculous. What, is Blockstream a church now?

Regarding the Hong Kong Agreement, the miners and others in the community have been waiting 4+ years for an increase in the blocksize. The miners felt betrayed because the HK agreement was to support Segwit in exchange for Core submitting a proposal to change the blocksize. When Lukejr finally submitted the proposal, it was to REDUCE the blocksize to 256MB - people felt that was a snarky and dishonest way to adhere to the deal. I guess it's obvious why the miners won't get behind Segwit?

[Carlton Banks]

Implying that they're bound by a moral code is also ridiculous.

We're all bound by a moral code, whether those that choose to act like a pack of wolves like it or not. Marauding wolf packs can be successful, for a limited time.

[xyzzy099]

This is a ridiculous quote - obviously the leaders of the project represent the team. That would be Adam Back and Greg Maxwell.

Adam Back is not, and as far as I can tell, has never been a Bitcoin Core contributor at all, let alone the "Core Leader".  Greg Maxwell is certainly a respected contributor, but he has no authority of leadership, and doesn't even have commit privileges to the source code.

[Shiver]

In an interview on youtube by a guy that was trying to get the 'Ver' name into Dash, Ver stated that the vast percentage of his holdings were in Bitcoin, and he loves Layer 2 and a lot of other things that made me feel "we're on the same page here", then he went back to BU and my head got totally confused.

The impression from an outsider like me is that there are two teams and you support one and hate one.  My understanding is that Core is a diverse group of 100+ developers working mostly for free, and has had submissions from well over 400 developers, so it doesn't sound like a team or political party or anything, just a gang of people with a mutual interest.

One other thing I'd like to know, if BU should become activated because of hashing power (indicating abandonment of the core people), would that make it right for core to then immediately activate SegWit anyhow since the BU people had made their decision and taken a fork?  Then holders of BTC can sit back and see how it turns out without having to move any coin?

Do users (customers) have no role to play in their preferences? as without them no protocol is worth anything.                         

I know there are some new proposals on the table now, but we need a solution now that will get us through the next couple of years to give time to safely implement the next block stage (with LN there may never need to be a new block sizeI, but if it were built with one in mind, then we should be activating asap.  Doubling the block to 2Mb with SegWit as well  right now should keep the majority happy surely? unless they've made a religion out of it.

[JayJuanGee]

In an interview on youtube by a guy that was trying to get the 'Ver' name into Dash, Ver stated that the vast percentage of his holdings were in Bitcoin, and he loves Layer 2 and a lot of other things that made me feel "we're on the same page here", then he went back to BU and my head got totally confused.

The impression from an outsider like me is that there are two teams and you support one and hate one.  My understanding is that Core is a diverse group of 100+ developers working mostly for free, and has had submissions from well over 400 developers, so it doesn't sound like a team or political party or anything, just a gang of people with a mutual interest.

One other thing I'd like to know, if BU should become activated because of hashing power (indicating abandonment of the core people), would that make it right for core to then immediately activate SegWit anyhow since the BU people had made their decision and taken a fork?  Then holders of BTC can sit back and see how it turns out without having to move any coin?

Do users (customers) have no role to play in their preferences? as without them no protocol is worth anything.                         

I know there are some new proposals on the table now, but we need a solution now that will get us through the next couple of years to give time to safely implement the next block stage (with LN there may never need to be a new block sizeI, but if it were built with one in mind, then we should be activating asap.  Doubling the block to 2Mb with SegWit as well  right now should keep the majority happy surely? unless they've made a religion out of it.

I agree with everything you said, Shiver.  Except your last point.

Why double the blocksize limit if it is not necessary, if there is no justification and the costs of such a step may outweigh the benefits?

[classicsucks]

This is a ridiculous quote - obviously the leaders of the project represent the team. That would be Adam Back and Greg Maxwell.

Adam Back is not, and as far as I can tell, has never been a Bitcoin Core contributor at all, let alone the "Core Leader".  Greg Maxwell is certainly a respected contributor, but he has no authority of leadership, and doesn't even have commit privileges to the source code.

Adam Back is CEO of Blockstream, Greg Maxwell is CTO of Blockstream. Blockstream has $75 million in investment from DCG (Digital Currency Group). Obviously 95+% of Blockstream's intellectual capital is in bitcoin development. Adam Back designed his own crypto-currency (Hashcash) and is well-versed in the concepts of bitcoin. Maxwell is the leader of bitcoin core development, and he spearheaded Segwit development. Commit access to source code is an irrelevant metric of leadership.

Is there really any question who the leaders of Core are?

Maybe these "leaders" are embarrassed to step forward and be leaders right now. After all, day by day, they're losing the privilege of influencing bitcoin code development as they continue to ignore the fact that Segwit is done. They've been losing credibility daily over 4+ years for not fixing bitcoin's ongoing issues. The latest whining about Chinese miners is getting really old. All the FUD about hard forks is wearing off. And so we're left with a team of people wedded tightly to some code that just won't work, because people don't want it. And they don't want the vaporware centralized level 2 network being concoted by the same people. The market is not buying.

[stereotype]

Who does, represent Bitcoin Core?

No one really represents Core. The closest you could get to "who represents Core" I suppose would be everyone listed on https://bitcoincore.org/en/team/ but any decision about what goes into Core is made by the entire group, plus a number of contributors not listed on that page.

What are Core, bound by?

Nothing really. There is no obligation for Core to do anything and nothing that requires them to do anything. There is a moral obligation for them to do "what is right for Bitcoin", but that is subjective.

This is how i see it. However, theres just no way this set-up is sustainable......and is now at the heart of whats wrong with Bitcoin going forward. Can we see the discussions/decisions that this 'group' have? Can we see the process where they come to an agreement, on our behalf? Are there minutes we can read and discuss? I bet not. I bet this group of people think they are trail-blazing this brave new world of decentralised consensus.......not while they dont have a way to demonstrate to the many thousands of users, how their checks and balances work, they dont.
I bet the legacy system operators out there, are laughing their heads off, at this embarrassing Bitcoin shitshow, thats played out for too many years. Thanks Back and Maxwell, but your position and approach is now embarrassing, and is revealing how your version of 'consensus' has little value, if any.
Please get over that Hearn and Andresson video in that London pub years ago, and UPGRADE Bitcoin ASAP. Thanks.
 
I cant accept a 'group' of people who dont seem to be accountable to any one else, let alone themselves, are deciding between themselves what Bitcoin should be. And for that reason, Bitcoin has a ceiling of adoption, especially for VC's or angels who would quite rightly consider Core to be an unknown entity, to be associating money with.
 
Got very little to do with HF/SW/miners/etc. now, and all to do with how we get things done/upgraded on the Bitcoin code.

[Manfred Macx]

This is how i see it. However, theres just no way this set-up is sustainable......and is now at the heart of whats wrong with Bitcoin going forward. Can we see the discussions/decisions that this 'group' have? Can we see the process where they come to an agreement, on our behalf? Are there minutes we can read and discuss? I bet not. I bet this group of people think they are trail-blazing this brave new world of decentralised consensus.......not while they dont have a way to demonstrate to the many thousands of users, how their checks and balances work, they dont.
I bet the legacy system operators out there, are laughing their heads off, at this embarrassing Bitcoin shitshow, thats played out for too many years. Thanks Back and Maxwell, but your position and approach is now embarrassing, and is revealing how your version of 'consensus' has little value, if any.
Please get over that Hearn and Andresson video in that London pub years ago, and UPGRADE Bitcoin ASAP. Thanks.
 
I cant accept a 'group' of people who dont seem to be accountable to any one else, let alone themselves, are deciding between themselves what Bitcoin should be. And for that reason, Bitcoin has a ceiling of adoption, especially for VC's or angels who would quite rightly consider Core to be an unknown entity, to be associating money with.
 
Got very little to do with HF/SW/miners/etc. now, and all to do with how we get things done/upgraded on the Bitcoin code.

OT but I had to:

What are you even talking about? Have you tried reading the bitcoin development mailing list which is open to everyone to see what is being discussed? Have you tried connecting to #bitcoin-wizards IRC channel to see any of the discussions or even reading reddit summaries posted by eragmus? Have you tried going to Bitcoin github to see comments on pull requests?

[stereotype]

This is how i see it. However, theres just no way this set-up is sustainable......and is now at the heart of whats wrong with Bitcoin going forward. Can we see the discussions/decisions that this 'group' have? Can we see the process where they come to an agreement, on our behalf? Are there minutes we can read and discuss? I bet not. I bet this group of people think they are trail-blazing this brave new world of decentralised consensus.......not while they dont have a way to demonstrate to the many thousands of users, how their checks and balances work, they dont.
I bet the legacy system operators out there, are laughing their heads off, at this embarrassing Bitcoin shitshow, thats played out for too many years. Thanks Back and Maxwell, but your position and approach is now embarrassing, and is revealing how your version of 'consensus' has little value, if any.
Please get over that Hearn and Andresson video in that London pub years ago, and UPGRADE Bitcoin ASAP. Thanks.
 
I cant accept a 'group' of people who dont seem to be accountable to any one else, let alone themselves, are deciding between themselves what Bitcoin should be. And for that reason, Bitcoin has a ceiling of adoption, especially for VC's or angels who would quite rightly consider Core to be an unknown entity, to be associating money with.
 
Got very little to do with HF/SW/miners/etc. now, and all to do with how we get things done/upgraded on the Bitcoin code.

OT but I had to:

What are you even talking about? Have you tried reading the bitcoin development mailing list which is open to everyone to see what is being discussed? Have you tried connecting to #bitcoin-wizards IRC channel to see any of the discussions or even reading reddit summaries posted by eragmus? Have you tried going to Bitcoin github to see comments on pull requests?

No, and no. Im just a simple Bitcoin user. Reddit and Github is not my world.....and not the world of thousands of Bitcoin users. Thats the point. Its just not good enough, to expect the current set-up of 3, 4, 5 ultra nerdy codey types, to tell us how Bitcoin goes forward. This is simply not sustainable.

So keep on arguing/talking'debating' all you want about blocksize..........this issue of laissez-faire self-governance is the real story, that needs addressing.

Sorry for slightly OT.

[-ck]

Its just not good enough, to expect the current set-up of 3, 4, 5 ultra nerdy codey types, to tell us how Bitcoin goes forward. This is simply not sustainable.

But bitcoin is high technology which requires high level engineering. How would the average Jo ever have come up with what bitcoin has become so far, and then where to take it from here? Why dump the high technology now and treat it like a black box that should never have high level engineering applied to keep advancing it, only to have a few dials and buttons adjusted by users?