Hashpower is voting for neither BU nor SegWit!

[CoinLearn]

[1715444338]

1715444338

[1715444338]

1715444338

[1715444338]

1715444338

[1715444338]

1715444338

[-ck]

That's just inertia. Pools are going to be slow to get on board with whatever they choose, being conservative...

[Yakamoto]

That's just inertia. Pools are going to be slow to get on board with whatever they choose, being conservative...

Chances are pools will start to move and make their choices at some point soon, but for right now it looks like there is going to be no change, based on the current trend. Neither is likely to reach their required targets unless some pools change up their votes.

We might get a shakeup soon, but for right now there isn't much to consider as a real change.

[franky1]

though segwit doesnt need node network confidence/validation consensus to activate... BU does.

pools wont even flag for BU in droves unless they see the node network is ready
which is a safety feature. why push a new rule if network nodes are not ready.

however segwit doesnt care about network nodes and blockstream have funded a few nice long weekend all inclusive 'meetups' with some pools to sway them.. seems though it has not swayed all the pools. or some of the pools were not invited to the many paid for parties.

so some pools are not going to just run software unless they have evaluated it themselves.
but we know some pools ran ahead and started using it in a timescale that shows they didnt even read the final release code line for line..
which is a safety risk. why push a new rule before checking every line of code

all that can be said is time will tell

[yayayo]

It's much too early to come to such a conclusion, since the vast of hashpower hasn't even voted yet. Judging by the hashpower that already voted there is ample support for Segwit, especially considering that almost all of the UnlimitedCoin hashpower stems from Roger Ver's obstructionist efforts.

The big Chinese pools will join in early 2017. Some of them are not yet being able to support C++11 compilation, that's why they haven't upgraded their mining software yet. SegWit will activate much sooner than UnlimitedCoin trolls like franky1 expect.

ya.ya.yo!

[franky1]

It's much too early to come to such a conclusion, since the vast of hashpower hasn't even voted yet. Judging by the hashpower that already voted there is ample support for Segwit, especially considering that almost all of the UnlimitedCoin hashpower stems from Roger Ver's obstructionist efforts.

The big Chinese pools will join in early 2017. Some of them are not yet being able to support C++11 compilation, that's why they haven't upgraded their mining software yet. SegWit will activate much sooner than UnlimitedCoin trolls like franky1 expect.

ya.ya.yo!

LOL 75% of segwit obstruction is roger vers???

seriously?
if ver had 75% to obstruct segwit. then the unlimited/classic segment would be at 75%.

look at he OP's image 61% is neither side.

get your head out the clouds and stop exaggerating.. atleast be rational and honest

[European Central Bank]

these guys are conservative. i wonder how many of them actually pay minute by minute attention to the wider bitcoin scene as long as the coins keep rolling in. the pool operators will be on the ball, maybe the guys playing video games in noisy warehouses are less so.

[yayayo]

It's much too early to come to such a conclusion, since the vast of hashpower hasn't even voted yet. Judging by the hashpower that already voted there is ample support for Segwit, especially considering that almost all of the UnlimitedCoin hashpower stems from Roger Ver's obstructionist efforts.

The big Chinese pools will join in early 2017. Some of them are not yet being able to support C++11 compilation, that's why they haven't upgraded their mining software yet. SegWit will activate much sooner than UnlimitedCoin trolls like franky1 expect.

ya.ya.yo!

LOL 75% of segwit obstruction is roger vers???

seriously?
if ver had 75% to obstruct segwit. then the unlimited/classic segment would be at 75%.

look at he OP's image 61% is neither side.

get your head out the clouds and stop exaggerating.. atleast be rational and honest

It would really be a great relief for many people in this forum if you could just stop your misreading, misinterpreting and spreading of misinformation. But I know that this won't happen, because it is your job to do that. Regardless your efforts are to no avail.

You can't be taken seriously anyway, because you openly endorse socialist dictatorship (in this case that of Venezuela):

[...]
socialist systems do work.. its when capitalists suck the socialists dry that people then blame socialists.. when its the capitalists that caused it.
[...]

Your delusional ideas are not shared by the vast majority of the Bitcoin community, because Bitcoin was simply not built to establish a socialist dictatorship.

ya.ya.yo!

[franky1]

yaber yabar blah blah troll chatter

im guessing your favorite tv channels are fox news and cnn and you thought that clinton and trump deserved to be the only 2 choices

you got no clue what socialist is
so you attach dictatorship to it (which is more of a capitalist (selfish) sided word) and twist a community concept into a authoritarian concept.

i have rad your posts and where i am a libertarian/socialist. your a capitalist/authoritarian.

your the one twisting things because you have no clue about the difference between a open community and dictatorial authority..
as for this topic.. look at the image the OP made and explain the 61% undecided.. go on
im laughing that you now say its related to c++11.. seriously.. china has been using c++11 before the yanks. think about it.. all major electronics programmed using c++ come from asia...
china is ahead of the electronic/gadget industry of the world, not behind

it makes me laugh
it seems someone is spoon feeding you what to say and you are regurgitating it out, pretending its fresh

[CoinLearn]

That's just inertia. Pools are going to be slow to get on board with whatever they choose, being conservative...

As and when a dominant pool takes a side, it might lose hash power as well.

[franky1]

That's just inertia. Pools are going to be slow to get on board with whatever they choose, being conservative...

As and when a dominant pool takes a side, it might lose hash power as well.

yep

http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png
though it topped 35%(reactive) we have also seen segwit desire drop to under 20%(reactive)..

thus the actual(not instantly reactive) rule metric of 2016 blocks is hovering just under 25%

[calkob]

Yeah abit strange but i think it is early days yet, there is plenty of time to commit to segwit which i am pretty much certain that it will happen.  like seriously we have to give this a chance and see where we go from there. 

[CoinLearn]

That's just inertia. Pools are going to be slow to get on board with whatever they choose, being conservative...

As and when a dominant pool takes a side, it might lose hash power as well.

yep

http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png
though it topped 35%(reactive) we have also seen segwit desire drop to under 20%(reactive)..

thus the actual(not instantly reactive) rule metric of 2016 blocks is hovering just under 25%

Is there a similar graph for BU as well?

[countryfree]

This isn't like an election. There's no election day with results coming in late in the night. For the best or the worse, miners may choose to wait weeks, or even months, before upgrading their system. I agree it's worrying, though. Very unnerving to say the least, as you can't make predictions.

[Lauda]

Welcome to immutability.

im laughing that you now say its related to c++11.. seriously.. china has been using c++11 before the yanks. think about it.. all major electronics programmed using c++ come from asia...
china is ahead of the electronic/gadget industry of the world, not behind

I hope that you do realize that you need upgraded software that supports actually compiling newer revisions of C++?

I agree it's worrying, though.

No, it is not. Bitcoin works fine without any further changes. Surely it would be nice to have more TPS. Would Bitcoin die if it didn't attain that? No. Honey badger doesn't really care.

[franky1]

Is there a similar graph for BU as well?

although BU is one interpretation/bip of dynamic blocks. there are several different ones.
most pools are not even gonna raise a flag unless there is a clear way to implement it that is agreed by the community

and thats part of the issue. core dominate the bip acceptance log. core dominate the mailing list and so they are muddying the water while delaying their own implementation.

because consensus needs the node network to be ready first there needs to be a clear available release by the major implementation 'brands' so core holding back means most pools are just gonna wait it out.

what would be interesting is the core excuses why the delay of segwit happens, afterall they cant blame 75% undecided vote on a 10% opposition.
and it will get to a point where they can no longer blame it on the undecided needing time to review.

after all CSV got accepted in 4 weeks.(purple and green)


interesting to see the CSV initial unreviewed leap was at 40%-45%... taking 4 weeks to activate. where as segwit is 20%-25%

[franky1]

I hope that you do realize that you need upgraded software that supports actually compiling newer revisions of C++?

i hope you realise that china are ahead of the game, but seems some think china's modern industrial culture is actually just mud huts using windows98 sat beside rice fields, running on dialup. where electric is generated from peasants turning a wheel

[lumeire]

This isn't like an election. There's no election day with results coming in late in the night. For the best or the worse, miners may choose to wait weeks, or even months, before upgrading their system. I agree it's worrying, though. Very unnerving to say the least, as you can't make predictions.

Seems at this point, all we can do is wait and hope for the best.

[rapazev]

No, it is not. Bitcoin works fine without any further changes. Surely it would be nice to have more TPS. Would Bitcoin die if it didn't attain that? No. Honey badger doesn't really care.

it works, but not fine... We have had queues that last for hours(10+) to confirm, and if every time that happens we have to raise fee's... give it a year and nobody will be using bitcoin.

[franky1]

No, it is not. Bitcoin works fine without any further changes. Surely it would be nice to have more TPS. Would Bitcoin die if it didn't attain that? No. Honey badger doesn't really care.

it works, but not fine... We have had queues that last for hours(10+) to confirm, and if every time that happens we have to raise fee's... give it a year and nobody will be using bitcoin.

i remember lauda getting very excited about a game "world of tanks" accepting bitcoin as payment.. but soon after he went very quiet and dismissive when reality sunk in, that players would have a headache actually trying to buy things with it.

lauda's mindset is a road with a pot-hole every 100 yards is still a fine and working road because all he can see is cars driving on it. he has no concept of the axel/suspension damage the pot holes can cause or the wheel rim damage. or even just the discomfort to the people in the cars.
to him he would not care about repairing a road. he would rather make people be detoured to a parking lot and then commute by bus(LN)