95% lol. No chance. SegWit is now dead.

[RawDog]

it looks like SegWit has absolutely no chance at all of getting anywhere near 95%.  I doubt they will ever get over 50%.

SegWit is not Bitcoin.  SegWit is an altcoin.  
 

I agree.  and I'm glad.  The blockstream/core stonewalling of a blocksize increase
has been ridiculous.  Wondering how long the great scaling debate can go on
before something gives.

It already 'gave'.  VCs have pick up their interest and left.  Entrepreneur CEOs of many companies have shut the door and quit.  It is impossible to pursue so many of the interesting commercial uses of bitcoin so long as Blockstream/Core continues their stranglehold on the protocol to artificially create demand for side chains. 

So many people are long gone.  Yet the morons keep looking at the price to determine bitcoin is healthy.  The price is set by a bunch of silly speculators in China and a strong motivation for capital flight from an oppressive government - it has nothing at all to do with the health of the network.

[1714679555]

1714679555

[franky1]

So then why do you advocate for an artificial limit upon the size of a single transaction?

the most simplest answer
because 1tx of 1mb.. holds up ~2499tx on average for getting into a block

And what about that is problematic?

seriously!?

so you think one person that makes a megatx deserves special allowable treatment.. more so than 2499 people who are smart and ethical to do lean tx's

im guessing if you go to an airport and see a guy buy up all the planes seats so he can have the plane to himself. you will applaud him and then laugh at the hundreds of passengers being turned away and told to wait another 3-24 hours for the next plane and hope there are spare seats to get a few people in..

im betting you would while applauding the guy shout out to the other passengers "you should have paid more for your seats so you only have yorselves to blame for letting him buy up al the space on the plane"

oh wait. your probably gonna applaud the guy buying up all the seats. and then offer your LN bus hub network charging people to use your bus to get people to where they want. telling them a new bus arrives every 5 minutes so no need to wait 3-24 hours for a "hope" of getting on another plane.

i really hope you were being sarcastic by saying "And what about that is problematic?"

[Wind_FURY]

What I do not like the whole thing is the tasteless name calling from both sides of which I am guilty of sometimes. Chalk that up to human nature again I guess.

Yeah. Maybe as we get older we learn how to better deal with this damn human-ess!  


... now that I'm turning into dust, I seem to be softening up a bit.

That and as we get older we also learn not to do it and criticize another person more constructively thru experience. I tend to be generous with people who sometimes become rash but know they are not retards and give them some space to express their thoughts in their own way. I am confident that sooner or later they will become more wise with the words they use.

[jbreher]

So then why do you advocate for an artificial limit upon the size of a single transaction?

the most simplest answer
because 1tx of 1mb.. holds up ~2499tx on average for getting into a block

And what about that is problematic?

I really hope you were being sarcastic by saying "And what about that is problematic?"

Not at all. Nothing in your tirade answered the question of what you think is problematic about such a thing.

[franky1]

there is no final solution, even with dynamic everything you hit hardware limitations, and in case of Bitcoin there is no easy solution, this coin is so big any kind of hard fork will generate an altcoin like what happened with etherium, a softfork is the "easier" solution but please prove me wrong and hard fork, bigger blocks would be nice but it will generate another coin because it will be contentious, its like Windows, every new version instantly makes the older version its biggest competitor.

it wont activate unless there is consensus.. it wont create an altcoin. please research more and stop reading scripted scare stories by those in the blockstream camp that want intentional splits.

put it this way right now nodes can have any blocksize setting they please. 2mb 4mb 8mb 3.5mb randomnumber, etc etc. and everything carries on
yep all the nodes with upto 8mb in their setting can still happily accept 1mb blocks because the rule is anything below 8mb is acceptable. again for emphasis, they can happily accept 1mb and no rule is broken.

but until the majority of nodes accept X... pools wont even risk agreeing to X.. so there is no contention..
worse case is orphan risk.. but ultimately one chain(after orphan drama subsides) if pools pushed at a low consensus..

again for emphasis
pools wont make changes, unless there is majority consensus that their attempt will be accepted and not rejected by the nodes..

this is why 75% of pools are undecided about softforks. because they can see nodes are not ready.
even though in a softfork, user nodes are not given a vote. the pools(their smart independent brains and eyes) still need to see that nodes wont have a problem, to ensure pools get paid rather than work hard for nothing.

[TKeenan]

this is why 75% of pools are undecided about softforks.

Undecided is what is killing us.  We get no changes if 'undecideds' are allowed to count.  We should only count those who vote.  If a node expresses 'undecided' he is rejected.  Winner take all. 

[numismatist]

this is why 75% of pools are undecided about softforks.

Undecided is what is killing us.  We get no changes if 'undecideds' are allowed to count.  We should only count those who vote.  If a node expresses 'undecided' he is rejected.  Winner take all. 

Wasn't 75% everything needed for LTC adopting Segwit? Maybe Bitcoins small Brother can open a path by example. Bitcoin following once it has become obvious where the future could lead us.

[franky1]

this is why 75% of pools are undecided about softforks.

Undecided is what is killing us.  We get no changes if 'undecideds' are allowed to count.  We should only count those who vote.  If a node expresses 'undecided' he is rejected.  Winner take all.  

seriously.. wanting to ignore a majority to push through a softfork. .. thats a bilateral split (gmaxwells buzzword) where they move off to their minority 25% chain.

foolish notion to intentionally split the network to force a softfork..
a softfork was only proposed to avoid controversy and avoid intentional splits. real funny anyone is proposing to do an intentional split to get a softfork.

if anyone is serious about intentionally splitting.. how about try using real consensus first. and give the community what they want, which will speed up activations of two community desires at same time without controversy or splits.

.. but going from soft straight to intentional split.. shows double irrational thoughts and illogical process


i even said how segwit fans can actually get some real data to show undecided groups to vote for or against..
get a segwit node to be an upstream module(gmaxwells buzzwording) meaning direct connection to a segwit enabled pool. and send a segwit p2wpkh tx to, for instance btcc.. let btcc add it to a block and see how the network reacts.

worse case btcc block gets rejected. in which case blockstream ($90m company) can easily pay btcc $15k for the wasted time for the test... atleast then the network can see how "backward compatible" it really is and see how it actually runs on the network and/or changes the network and/or causes issues to the network.

but nah.. blockstream know the risks of it and know its not as "backward compatible" as they presume.

if you disagree with my assumption that its not backward compatible then go show how harmless it is and get some proof to give to the undecideds.

instead of screaming to the community that anything non-core should fork off.. prove its backward compatible to not need to fork off..
but nah.. blockstream wont do it.
they know they over promised and under delivered

[Meuh6879]

I repeat: a majority of non-mining nodes does not activate The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

yes ... but in the past, the mining part of the Bitcoin network is not the point of flip-flop.
it's the pressure of nodes OVER mining nodes.

see the BIP66 like an example.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5p671q/comparison_of_bip66_activation_to_segwit_so_far/

[jbreher]

I repeat: a majority of non-mining nodes does not activate The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

yes ... but in the past, the mining part of the Bitcoin network is not the point of flip-flop.
it's the pressure of nodes OVER mining nodes.

'In the past' is entirely inapplicable to activation of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. Core decided to package it up as a soft fork. In a soft fork, non-mining nodes don't count for doodley-squat. Only miners can make the choice as to whether or not to include any SegWit transactions in a given block. It is the nature of the soft fork.

The Core-eans made their bed - all that is left is to sleep therein. Fitfully.

[Meuh6879]

Little by little ... like predicted.

[franky1]

meuh:  1   /Satoshi:0.13.2/   1459 (31.4%) ??
not sure where your measuring the under 1500 as being over 30%..

your numbers are so fake that if you do the maths:
divide 1459 by 31.4 then multiply by 100.. 4646
divide 1410 by 30.3 then multiply by 100.. 4653

it wont get the same total infact theres a 100% differential of 6 nodes lost just on bad percentages

oh wait you have cut away some none core nodes from the total count to give FAKE % and still couldn't calculate right so had to tweak the % a bit more aswell.. so much fail

now thats funny

 its better to show the more fairer network of 5884 nodes right now..
not your dwarfed quasi 4650 average nodes which you think there are.

here:
1   /Satoshi:0.13.2/   1485 (25.24%) 5884
2   /Satoshi:0.13.1/   1428 (24.27%) 5884

wait.. if i cut out core devs i could play around and show any percentage i like..
but instead ill just leave the number as is, copied and pasted directly from bitnodes.io at the time of writing this.. without edits

hint: atleast be honest if your going to show stats

[Viscount]

After 2 month we can summarize some intermediary result.
SegWit gathering 28% and it's not bad I suppose, if every 2 month give us 30% then we get Segwit activated in four month from now on...

[RawDog]

if every 2 month give us 30% then we get Segwit activated in four month from now on...

If your aunt had a dick, she'd be your uncle.  But, that isn't going to happen either. 

[cpfreeplz]

if every 2 month give us 30% then we get Segwit activated in four month from now on...

If your aunt had a dick, she'd be your uncle.  But, that isn't going to happen either. 

Not if she still identified as a woman .

It's not going to happen at this point though. I'd be surprised if we ever see 65% let alone 95%.

[RawDog]

if every 2 month give us 30% then we get Segwit activated in four month from now on...

If your aunt had a dick, she'd be your uncle.  But, that isn't going to happen either. 

Not if she still identified as a woman .

Fucking Americans.  lol.  If you 'identify' as a tree, are you a tree?  No.  You are merely a fucking idiot that thinks you are a tree. 

[hv_]

if every 2 month give us 30% then we get Segwit activated in four month from now on...

If your aunt had a dick, she'd be your uncle.  But, that isn't going to happen either. 

Not if she still identified as a woman .

Fucking Americans.  lol.  If you 'identify' as a tree, are you a tree?  No.  You are merely a fucking idiot that thinks you are a tree. 

No

From our five four we three are the two only one!

 

[Meuh6879]

Little by little ... like predicted.

And it's coming ...

[bravehearth0319]

Good job Roger Ver, it looks like SegWit has absolutely no chance at all of getting anywhere near 95%.  I doubt they will ever get over 50%.

SegWit is not Bitcoin.  SegWit is an altcoin.  

I feel it is my duty as a concerned citizen and valuable contributor of the Bitcoin community to declare SegWit dead on arrival. 

I'm a little bit confused about this topic, In my own understanding Segwit is not good to all Bitcoin enthusiast in this industry. Because the number one will  get affect on this matter was the bitcoin community right? or the people who did mine bitcoin using mining rigs is that right? just correct me if I'm wrong,.

[franky1]

real numbers to counter meurs fake numbers

/Satoshi:0.13.2/               1664 (26.11%) where 100% = 6372
/Satoshi:0.13.1/               1323 (20.76%) where 100% = 6372
/Satoshi:0.12.1/               743 (11.66%)    where 100% = 6372
/Satoshi:0.13.0/               382 (5.99%)      where 100% = 6372
/Satoshi:0.14.0/               381 (5.98%)     where 100% = 6372
/BitcoinUnlimited:1.0.0.1/   357 (5.60%)

why is meurs numbers fake you may ask
for instance his numbers
/Satoshi:0.13.2/               1839   37.5% where 100% = 4904
/Satoshi:0.13.1/               1409   28.8% where 100% = 4892.361111
/Satoshi:0.12.1/               740   15.1% where 100% = 4900.662252
/Satoshi:0.13.0/               387   7.9%   where 100% = 4898.734177
/Satoshi:0.14.0/               351   7.2%   where 100% = 4875
/BitcoinUnlimited:1.0.0.1/   173   3.5%   where 100% = 4942.857143

nice fudging of the %%%
major discrepancy in meuhs numbers, because the 100%'s should all equal the same


secondly..
even funnier..

the 'vote' is about BLOCKS not NODES so i see no reason why meur is even trying to fluff the node numbers as they are meaningless

here is what matters (P.S graph is from Sipa himself so dont cry propaganda de to numbers being from segwits own inventor)