Hashpower is voting for neither BU nor SegWit!

[Lauda]

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

That's exaggerating with nonsense when you know very well that I'm right in this case.

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.

Nonsense. If you want to skip the line, you pay the miners more. If you can / want to wait, then you pay less. That's how the intended fee market works.

.. give it a year and nobody will be using bitcoin.

If you genuinely believe that right now, then may be impaired in one way or another.

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.

As previously said, providing the right fee will always make you jump in line and will most surely not cause any 'headaches''. I have never had a problem transacting in any of the waves of TX spam. It's not my problem that others may be technologically inept to do the same.

[CoinLearn]

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

So, u r supporting SegWit now?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5kdrlx/solockpoolorg_has_started_signalling_segwit/

Is there anyway a person mining at your pool can support BU?

[DooMAD]

especially considering that almost all of the UnlimitedCoin hashpower stems from Roger Ver's obstructionist efforts.

Do you talk about Roger Ver in every thread?  Or is it just, like, half of them?  Do you briefly see his face in a crowd and then do a doubletake to realise he isn't really there?  Does he haunt you in your dreams too?  You come across as a little bit obsessed with the guy.  It's not healthy.  

gmaxwell isn't concerned with anyone's "obstructionist efforts", so calm your delicate little nerves already:

Why was 95% adoption rate selected for activation as oppossed to 80% or 50% or even 5%?

So that the soft fork deploys with supermajority. It will essentially have consensus when it deploys. This ensures that the new rules will be deployed and enforced by the miners. The 95% rule has been used for all previous soft forks, no reason to change that now.

Not all-- we've increased it over time in response to prior instability and as we all learned better the implications.  BIP30 just used a 'past this time' decree. BIP16 was based on 55% and just used a time for the actual activation, and resulted in months of low levels of orphaned blocks being produced.  Satoshi used several hard cut softforks that were just triggered on blockheights.  BIP34 was the first to use 95% but it actually started enforcing the rules for a subset of blocks at 75%.

BIP9 changed to a new quorum sensing approach that is MUCH less vulnerable to false triggering, so 95% under it is more like 99.9% under the old approach.  But we saw no reason to lower the criteria:  basically when it activates the 95% will have to be willing to potentially orphan the blocks of the 5% that remain if they happen to mine invalid blocks.   If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90%  (e.g. lets just imagine some altcoin publicly raised money to block an important improvement to Bitcoin) then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

So basically setting the criteria high protects the stability of the network in the common case, but never ties anyone's hands against something not activating. By default the safest thing happens, but no one can exploit this in an attack.

Because of this, the trade-offs favor a high threshold.

Like many, it seems like the complaint isn't with alternative developers or the code they release, because the code itself is completely inert if no one runs it.  Users will always have the option of running Core's code if they so choose.  So it stands to reason that your complaint is with the very fact that people have a choice and some of them don't share your views.  But since you can't admit something that innocuous being true, there has to be a boogeyman who is ultimately responsible for this outrage.  

"How dare people have free will!  It's all Roger Ver's fault!  He's basically the devil!"  

Does the authoritarian fanboyism ever end?

[franky1]

BIP9 changed to a new quorum sensing approach that is MUCH less vulnerable to false triggering, so 95% under it is more like 99.9% under the old approach.  But we saw no reason to lower the criteria:  basically when it activates the 95% will have to be willing to potentially orphan the blocks of the 5% that remain if they happen to mine invalid blocks.   If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90%  (e.g. lets just imagine some altcoin publicly raised money to block an important improvement to Bitcoin) then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

im laughing
firstly
gmaxwell is still pushing the anything not core is an altcoin. yet he doesnt realise if they were an altcoin they would already be on a separate network. so the altcoin wont be part of bitcoins network or concensus

but here is the kicker.. gmaxwells mindset is this twisted because he has an agenda..
he wants to intentionally ignore those opposing.. thus forcing an activation by denying other non-favoring blocks

what a sore loser.
first not releasing a version of core to let users even choose dynamic blocks. thus making a self fulfilling prophecy that his flock of sheep hate dynamic blocks.. not due to giving them the option.. but denying them an option and thus using no choice to fulfil his rhetoric for his flock of sheep
seems he is too afraid to release code that includes dynamic blocks because he fears people will download and use it, ruining his rhetoric

next telling non-core code to stop running on bitcoin main net and telling them to F**K off.. ofcourse thats not gonna happen, but yet maxwell is again scared that the consensus mechanism can ruin his rhetoric if his sheep decided they had enough of cores antics.

lastly he wants to intentionally and biasedly ignore opposition.. not because block data is invalid, but because he wants to twist the numbers to his favour to force his favoured code into activation. thus not using true consensus.

what a loser maxwell has become. im starting to think he has lost all care and understanding of bitcoin ethos and is willing to do anything to meet some corporate target to release the next tranche of investment

seriously he has lost grip of bitcoins ethos and has become a fiat money man. only thinking of the commercial services to make returns for his investors.

such a corrupt loser maxwell has become

[-ck]

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

So, u r supporting SegWit now?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5kdrlx/solockpoolorg_has_started_signalling_segwit/

Is there anyway a person mining at your pool can support BU?

That's correct I am supporting segwit and always planned to. On the other hand Kano and I differ on our opinion on this and he does not plan to signal support for it in kano.is unless segwit gets close to activating and ultimately that is his pool and I am technical support for ckpool which he runs.

No there is no way to support BU on my pool. That would defeat the purpose of showing my support for segwit and contributing to its activation.

Note also that bitminter is signalling segwit too.

On the other hand my pool is a tiny entity and will not be the deciding factor in segwit activating it or not, however as a visible member of the community showing my support serves another purpose.

[franky1]

however as a visible member of the community showing my support serves another purpose.

free weekend all inclusive at blockstream sponsored next roundtable?

[-ck]

however as a visible member of the community showing my support serves another purpose.

free weekend all inclusive at blockstream sponsored next roundtable?

You forgot the hookers and blowjobs.

[franky1]

however as a visible member of the community showing my support serves another purpose.

free weekend all inclusive at blockstream sponsored next roundtable?

You forgot the hookers and blowjobs.

nah. i said all inclusive, im sure adam back and his playboy matt corallo will be there to supply those.. oops did i just out them
and yes i have noticed that at a few events even when only one is set to make a speech, the other is nearby with a weird eerie shadowing for emotional support body language, kinda not subtle.

im 50% thinking its the booze hookers and blowjob weekend you are choosing..
and 50% fear that core will blacklist your blocks out of spite if you opposed core. not due to any bad data, but just not going with them you'll lose income.

[-ck]

nah. i said all inclusive, im sure adam back and his playboy matt corallo will be there to supply those.. oops did i just out them
and yes i have noticed that at a few events even when only one is set to make a speech, the other is nearby with a weird eerie shadowing for emotional support body language, kinda not subtle.

im 50% thinking its the booze hookers and blowjob weekend you are choosing..
and 50% fear that core will blacklist your blocks out of spite if you opposed core. not due to any bad data, but just not going with them you'll lose income.

Considering I have nothing to do with bitcoin core devs, blockstream, blockchain, blocktrail and whoever else you want to try and lump me in with, am not employed by any bitcoin related entity, have never attended a single bitcoin related function, roundtable or whatever, and am a specialist anaesthesiologist by trade that hacks on bitcoin mining related software in his spare time, I'm not even sure why you're attacking me or what the purpose of your attack is apart from continuing your usual tirade of nonsense trolling. So at this point I'm quite content to disengage any further communication with you as others have already done since you are clearly a full time btctalk troll.

[DooMAD]

BIP9 changed to a new quorum sensing approach that is MUCH less vulnerable to false triggering, so 95% under it is more like 99.9% under the old approach.  But we saw no reason to lower the criteria:  basically when it activates the 95% will have to be willing to potentially orphan the blocks of the 5% that remain if they happen to mine invalid blocks.   If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90%  (e.g. lets just imagine some altcoin publicly raised money to block an important improvement to Bitcoin) then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

im laughing
firstly
gmaxwell is still pushing the anything not core is an altcoin. yet he doesnt realise if they were an altcoin they would already be on a separate network. so the altcoin wont be part of bitcoins network or concensus

but here is the kicker.. gmaxwells mindset is this twisted because he has an agenda..
he wants to intentionally ignore those opposing.. thus forcing an activation by denying other non-favoring blocks

what a sore loser.
first not releasing a version of core to let users even choose dynamic blocks. thus making a self fulfilling prophecy that his flock of sheep hate dynamic blocks.. not due to giving them the option.. but denying them an option and thus using no choice to fulfil his rhetoric for his flock of sheep
seems he is too afraid to release code that includes dynamic blocks because he fears people will download and use it, ruining his rhetoric

next telling non-core code to stop running on bitcoin main net and telling them to F**K off.. ofcourse thats not gonna happen, but yet maxwell is again scared that the consensus mechanism can ruin his rhetoric if his sheep decided they had enough of cores antics.

lastly he wants to intentionally and biasedly ignore opposition.. not because block data is invalid, but because he wants to twist the numbers to his favour to force his favoured code into activation. thus not using true consensus.

what a loser maxwell has become. im starting to think he has lost all care and understanding of bitcoin ethos and is willing to do anything to meet some corporate target to release the next tranche of investment

seriously he has lost grip of bitcoins ethos and has become a fiat money man. only thinking of the commercial services to make returns for his investors.

such a corrupt loser maxwell has become

Maybe it's just me, but personally I don't take issue with the way Core are implementing SegWit.  Although, yes, clearly the wording should be "alternative client" and not "altcoin".  The open market arguments I constantly feel the need to repeat cut both ways, so at the end of the day, Core are free to release any code they see fit and it's entirely the decision of those securing the network if they accept that code or not.  I really don't see the point in arguing whether it should be 95% or 90% or whatever.  As long as there's a clear and decisive sway towards activation, that's good enough for me.  Obviously if it's not so clear-cut and people try to force it unnaturally, that's entirely another matter.  But that's not what I'm seeing in gmaxwell's post.

Believe me when I say that I'd love to see a dynamic blocksize too, but I don't think it's right to block SegWit or hold it to ransom in order to enact a dynamic blocksize.  Whether you like it or not, it isn't your decision.  Either the network activates it, or it doesn't.  There has to be a better approach to this discussion and not the constant bashing by both sides of anyone they disagree with.  That means the approach shouldn't include constantly painting Blockstream as the boogeymen, since that's no better in reality than yayayo's foolishness earlier in the thread, or any of the other doomsayers constantly raving about "coups", "takeovers" and "benevolent dictators".  Every time I read that nonsense, it just makes me think people don't understand this stuff at all.

This should be the 101 stuff.  The absolute basics.  Bitcoin has no central authority.  There's no one person who can abuse the system.  It doesn't rely on a "trusted" third party to make it work.  As such, there can be no takeovers.  There is only the code run by those securing the network.  That's it.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Why does everything have to be some nefarious conspiracy on both sides?  I swear people need to find something better to do with their time.  Everyone's losing the fucking plot.

[alyssa85]

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.

I don't think they pay attention at all. As you say, as long as the coins keep rolling in, they're happy.

[franky1]

I really don't see the point in arguing whether it should be 95% or 90% or whatever.  As long as there's a clear and decisive sway towards activation, that's good enough for me.  Obviously if it's not so clear-cut and people try to force it unnaturally, that's entirely another matter.  But that's not what I'm seeing in gmaxwell's post.

by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

there i even made it red..
strange thing is that other clients are not just going to reject core positive blocks purely because they are core positive.
other clients are just not going to want segwit by not flagging desire.

even funnier is that this intentional orphaning and blacklisting opposition is the controversial chain splitting thing they cried doomsday.
gmaxwell actually wants to intentionally split the pools just to activate a soft fork.
thats pure desperation to the Nth degree.
not only is it an intentional split. but its also mining collusion by getting them to ignore other competing pools.

if your still defending maxwell even with this announcement by him.. then you have definitely been led down the rabbit hole

if you cant see the difference between voting no vs trying to write off an opposition from the ballot sheet. then your not seeing the corruption.
also core are trying to activate segwit without using node consensus. they bypassed it by going soft. all they need is to bribe a few pool owners with a few free weekend all inclusive vacations/parties/social events.
so please dont try assuming cores methodology is consensus or the peoples choice

This should be the 101 stuff.  The absolute basics.  Bitcoin has no central authority.  There's no one person who can abuse the system.  It doesn't rely on a "trusted" third party to make it work.  As such, there can be no takeovers.  There is only the code run by those securing the network.  That's it.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Why does everything have to be some nefarious conspiracy on both sides?  I swear people need to find something better to do with their time.  Everyone's losing the fucking plot.

lol..
yet you "trust" gmaxwell and sipa.. and think core deserve to dominate, thus giving core the power to do what they like.
we are no longer in the days of true diversity. even gmaxwell knows this. and this is why he calls anything not core an altcoin because he wants his codebase to be "the bitcoin". and be at the CORE of what bitcoin becomes. hence why they chose the name in 2013. they want to be the engine that drives bitcoin. maxwell has been very public about that

imagine it this way. lets use the american presidential elections as an analogy
other implementations want a public vote by citizens (full nodes) not for a president. but for a set of laws and human rights.. that each state senator and citizen should obide by

core want only senators(mining pools) to vote and will shred the ballot papers of senators that vote for hillary to ensure that trump gets a 95% victory, before the citizens even get to see the reality of what trump wants to push next

[DooMAD]

by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

there i even made it red..
strange thing is that other clients are not just going to reject core positive blocks purely because they are core positive.
other clients are just not going to want segwit by not flagging desire.

You can certainly place the emphasis on that part, but you're leaving out the part I'd emphasise, which is

the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

He isn't saying that Core will unilaterally take the decision to start orphaning blocks.  He's saying that the network participants, miners and nodes, have the power, if they really wanted, to force activation of SegWit by orphaning blocks.  But it's also equally possible the network participants won't elect to do that.  The option is there.  That's all he's saying.  The users make the decision, not Core.

But in fairness, I suppose if anyone proposed the same tactic in an attempt to active a hard fork, it's pretty clear that the people in the other camp would overreact in equal fashion.  

This should be the 101 stuff.  The absolute basics.  Bitcoin has no central authority.  There's no one person who can abuse the system.  It doesn't rely on a "trusted" third party to make it work.  As such, there can be no takeovers.  There is only the code run by those securing the network.  That's it.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Why does everything have to be some nefarious conspiracy on both sides?  I swear people need to find something better to do with their time.  Everyone's losing the fucking plot.

lol..
yet you "trust" gmaxwell and sipa.. and think core deserve to dominate, thus giving core the power to do what they like.
we are no longer in the days of true diversity. even gmaxwell knows this. and this is why he calls anything not core an altcoin because he wants his codebase to be "the bitcoin". and be at the CORE of what bitcoin becomes. hence why they chose the name in 2013. they want to be the engine that drives bitcoin. maxwell has been very public about that

It's possible I've gone a bit "zen philosophy" over the matter of consensus.  I simply trust the network as a whole and will happily let the cards fall where they may.  Everyone places far too much emphasis on individuals and personalities and what their supposed motives are, which is where the majority of largely pointless and irrelevant arguments stem from.  I do still question the issue of centralised development and wish the community would adopt a more mature attitude towards competition from other developers.  Even the fact that we seemingly have to refer to them as "alternative developers" irks me somewhat and strikes me as a failure to set the narrative correctly from the offset, which means almost everyone sees it the wrong way as a result.  It somehow became an "us and them" mentality, which isn't conducive to healthy discussion.  And you'll see me continue to call out the absurdity of it every time I notice someone calling an alternative client an altcoin.  That's just bullshit.  I point blank won't abide users proclaiming that Core possess any kind of ownership over the project as a whole.  They have their repo and that's the extent of it.

There will always be concerns and things that I believe could be done better, but let's be honest, none of these things are a showstopper.  There's nothing catastrophically imminent that's going to bring down the network.  Just a load of forum drama that makes it look that way.

[franky1]

He isn't saying that Core will unilaterally take the decision to start orphaning blocks.  He's saying that the network participants, miners and nodes, have the power, if they really wanted, to force activation of SegWit by orphaning blocks.  But it's also equally possible the network participants won't elect to do that.  The option is there.  That's all he's saying.  The users make the decision, not Core.

But in fairness, I suppose if anyone proposed the same tactic in an attempt to active a hard fork, it's pretty clear that the people in the other camp would overreact in equal fashion.  

bip9 is a core invention that bypasses users choice.
its purely a pool election. not a full node election.

they went soft to avoid user choice. and if pools dont go for core code those pools loving core can ignore those pools not voting for core.
thus creating an intentionally splitting hardfork to activate a softfork
 thus again no user choice and no pool choice. core can blacklist if they got anything above 75% to force it in but prefer to wait for 90% to force it in or hope for 95% to not need to force it in

as for my mindset.
although core do their own spoonfeeding. there needs to be open discussion from those not core.. otherwise its just circle jerking the flock of sheep down a single path.

in an open network there needs to be diversity. i personally think that the only 2 options are core or BU is bad. there needs to be more diversity and that all implementations should have releases of eachothers 'bips' and let the networks have a true free choice related to which bandcamp they prefer

EG BU have a dynamic block release and a segwit+dynamic block release
EG core have a segwit release and a segwit +dynamic block release.

then its true free choice
but like i said only 2 'bandcamps' that dont support open choice is bad

[rajasumi3]

some of them will turn out to be scammers in the  end .it is better to less expect and i guess u have heard about segwit ,just what happpened .noting more to tell.

[Angelina Jolie]

Almost one month has passed since this thread was created. Still, SegWit+BU is less than 50% of the total hash power.

https://coin.dance/blocks

[CoinLearn]

Almost one month has passed since this thread was created. Still, SegWit+BU is less than 50% of the total hash power.

https://coin.dance/blocks

After one month, here is the current stat...

[RawDog]

what a loser maxwell has become. im starting to think he has lost all care and understanding of bitcoin ethos and is willing to do anything to meet some corporate target to release the next tranche of investment

seriously he has lost grip of bitcoins ethos and has become a fiat money man. only thinking of the commercial services to make returns for his investors.

such a corrupt loser maxwell has become

It is insane that a single guy managed to get so much power.  So much for 'decentralizaion'.  It doesn't exist in actuality.  Besides the fact that GMax is a punk bitch pushing his own altcoin onto the bitcoin blockchain.

SegWit is an altcoin.  LN is an altcoin. 
These are not Bitcoin!