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

[RawDog]

Wasn't there a thing about a year back when Classic nodes were getting DDOSed by the Core people? Has that stopped?

Core/Blockstream plays dirty.  Very dirty.  They will tilt the table every time.  Bitcoin is the great censorship resistant system - and it is run by GMaxwell/Theymos the greatest censors of all time (not counting fucking China of course).  

[1715119186]

1715119186

[1715119186]

1715119186

[franky1]

he is on record claiming its ok turning bitcoin into paypal 2.0 if that is the result of getting a blocksize thats big enough to guarantee fast cheap onchain transactions.

did you even read the article and calmly understand the context.

he said he would gladly let core have their LN (paypal2.0) if it meant core would let the community have dynamic blocks to grow bitcoins main net naturally.

meaning making LN(paypal2.0) voluntary side service bcause there would be enough room on the mainnet for both..
and not what core wants, which is
a compulsory offchain commercialised service which core want due to core restricting natural scaling of the mainnet to force people offchain.

WAKE THE HELL UP

actually understand the reality of the world.
its core that want to make the commercialised offchain permissioned service. (paypal2.0 aka LN HUBs)

[RawDog]

he is on record claiming its ok turning bitcoin into paypal 2.0 if that is the result of getting a blocksize thats big enough to guarantee fast cheap onchain transactions.

did you even read the article and calmly understand the context.

he said he would gladly let core have their LN (paypal2.0) if it meant core would let the community have dynamic blocks to grow bitcoins main net naturally.

meaning making LN(paypal2.0) voluntary side service bcause there would be enough room on the mainnet for both..
and not what core wants, which is
a compulsory offchain commercialised service which core want due to core restricting natural scaling of the mainnet to force people offchain.

WAKE THE HELL UP

actually understand the reality of the world.
its core that want to make the commercialised offchain permissioned service. (paypal2.0 aka LN HUBs)

Core/Blockstream and their people don't pay attention to such details.  They just like to blindly follow their leaders into the fire and relentlessly defend them to the end.  Understanding any of this is not part of their role.

The whole story about large block causing centralization and the need for some very crazy changes to the entire network (that's an alt) like Lightning is only going to be bought by very blind sheep.

[franky1]

its a shame because SegWit would make Bitcoin a lot better.

have you even read segwit code
have you even run scenarios
have you understood the reality.

...
or have you just looked at someone else who said it was great and trusted them because you think they know whats best, so you simply took it on faith

when sheep follow sheep all they see is the woolly ass infront of them

i dont mean to attack you personally but hopefully it will prompt you to research and see beyond whats been placed infront of you

[calkob]

Although this thread proves that there is no censorship on the forum.........    well unless theymos has taken the night off ? lol

[franky1]

Although this thread proves that there is no censorship on the forum.........    well unless theymos has taken the night off ? lol

he is probably drinking it up with the other centralists in miami

[Cøbra]

I don't like how much we all have to wait around, and campaign, and beg these miners to signal SegWit. In the end, if they delay or reject changes that most of the users and the technical community support, then we need to consider changing the POW and removing them from the network.

If we don't at least seriously consider this option, we might start to see miners more aggressively reject other new features in the future. It makes no sense to give veto power on soft forks to a handful of guys living in some totalitarian hellhole (who knows what their motivations are or will be in future).

[franky1]

I don't like how much we all have to wait around, and campaign, and beg these miners to signal SegWit. In the end, if they delay or reject changes that most of the users and the technical community support, then we need to consider changing the POW and removing them from the network.

If we don't at least seriously consider this option, we might start to see miners more aggressively reject other new features in the future. It makes no sense to give veto power on soft forks to a handful of guys living in some totalitarian hellhole (who knows what their motivations are or will be in future).

LOL
seriously??
i have emboldened the part where it reveals that you are not actually a dev or have technical knowledge or even basic understanding of bitcoin
you sound like just some webmaster that gets other people to code a website. and have nothing to do with bitcoin code

you seriously want to consider doing an intentional controversial split. and not only that. destroy the security of bitcoin .. purely to force a softfork in.

do you even understand what you have proposed. seriously!!

its obvious you are part of theymos's crew of blockstream loving centralists. where you, just like gmaxwell are getting desperate.
im guessing blockstreams next tranche of financing is dependant on getting segwit green lit to start the commercialisation and make returns to the investors.

how about the blockstream centralists stop thinking about your fiat riches and instead think about bitcoin. get the devs to loosen their control of bitcoin and just let consensus decide.

yes i know you are going to rebuttle that if segwit fails then consensus has failed. when in actual fact it has worked by not allowing something that is not needed.
i know blockstream centralists will double down and proclaim that bitcoin needs a human government of force heading up things because they believe consensus cant look after itself. but yet again the opposite is true

[franky1]

here is a mindblowing thought for the centralists

btcc already prioritises its own exchange customers transactions to get into a BTCC block first.
how about blockstream make sure segwit transactions relay to btcc and btcc just add segwit tx's to their block.

after all,
once its in a block, its all *cough* supposedly *cough* backward compatible, right*.. and not going to cause an issue for the network.
so other pools wont reject it and other nodes wont reject it.. right?

wasn't that the promise, segwit blocks being just like legacy blocks. segwit confirmed transactions being passed as ok

so make your damned segwit transactions and get them sent to btcc(and slush) and let btcc(and slush) add them to a block and see what happens.
in blockstreams promise theory. nothing bad, but with the only downside being that segwit transactions have to wait until BTCC(and slush) solves a block. which is roughly once an hour.

atleast then we can see if blocks get orphaned or are accepted as promised. which then shows how soft segwit really is.
that would give confidence to pools more so then proposing an intentional split.

think rationally

*im about a year ahead of most peoples possible scenarios including the anyonecanspend scenario which while they wont admit it, caused core to hold off on releasing a working 'segwit wallet' aspect of a full node until after activation. due to anyonecanspend being an issue

[Quickseller]

I haven't seen any real evidence that Bitcoin users actively want SegWit. I have only seen many businesses getting ready for SegWit, as is the prudent thing to do as if SegWit is activated, businesses need to be ready to know how to handle SegWit transactions. 

I especially do not see why someone in the "technical community" should have any more weight then someone else for the sole reason that they are in the "technical community". Someone can give their opinion, and if they are respected then other users will agree with this person if they give a strong enough argument, backed up with strong enough evidence.

[franky1]

I haven't seen any real evidence that Bitcoin users actively want SegWit. I have only seen many businesses getting ready for SegWit, as is the prudent thing to do as if SegWit is activated, businesses need to be ready to know how to handle SegWit transactions.  

I especially do not see why someone in the "technical community" should have any more weight then someone else for the sole reason that they are in the "technical community". Someone can give their opinion, and if they are respected then other users will agree with this person if they give a strong enough argument, backed up with strong enough evidence.

agreed.
and the only way merchants(businesses) can prepare properly is if they had a proper working segwit codebase. and not just this half-ish release thats just a 'flagger' version0.13.2 (no segwit wallet feature). yep even core are refusing to release the full segwitwallet version. only spoonfeeding a flagger version until they get what they want.

ever wonder why core are going for a pool first user second approach.. especially if everything is suppose to be soft, not dangerous and backward compatible?

[countryfree]

I was thinking about starting such a topic. We cannot hide from reality. SegWit started with a bang, but percentage of blocks supporting it isn't growing any more. It may pick up again, but it seems impossible we'll ever reach the 95% needed. So, what is plan B?

I know many people were thinking was a bad solution, but it was a solution. Blocks are full, and this problem won't go away. Something needs to be done, before we'll experience again delays to confirm transactions.

[MicroGuy]

Although this thread proves that there is no censorship on the forum.........    well unless theymos has taken the night off ? lol

Theymos never checks the forum anymore, I have 16 unanswered PM's sent to him as evidence.  

[Wind_FURY]

Yeah, a 95% support rate is way too good to be true, and it is going to fail, almost guaranteed. You have to be considering something more like 75% at best, considering how divided the community is on this already.

Not because of community divided. There were no human beign that 95% people like. There are always groups that like someone/something and dislike it.
From my experience if 75% of userbase want something, they are right and it should be introduced for the sake of all users even if they disagree.
I trully belive that and thats from my experience personally.
So 95% is a joke really... no way almost everyone will agree on something, some people just disagree to cause chaos or for fun or from boredom etc.

I totally agree with you 95% is a big ask, some people are just there to disrupt things and hinder progress, for me what is happening in case of SegWit is a power tussle between developers and investors who want to have a cut of the pie.

Nope, the tussle is between developers and developers. It has been like this with Core vs Classic and Core vs XT and Core against Alt coins.

Everyone wants the power and the brag rights, to be in charge of the development of the most powerful Crypto currency in the world. Just

imagine your CV if you can pull that off.   It is ALL about the money and the power now.  

It is more than having a good CV. It is also politics. Also imagine if the Bitcoin Unlimited people can pull off a hard fork. That would mean that they have hard forked Bitcoin away from the core developers and are now in control of development to an extent. They gain the moral victory. Roger Ver will finally be the CEO of Bitcoin.

[earonesty]

So what actually happens now? Will the miners go for Bitcoin Classic or Unlimited, or does the bickering continue without being resolved for another year?

... it should have been a node consensus first, pool consensus second strategy.

There's like 4000 nodes running core, and 3000 of them are signaling segwit.   There are about 400 nodes signaling "other things" ... (XT, Classic, BU, etc.).   It's as clear as day on the node side.   Only miners hoping they can delay the fee drop and capacity increase a little longer.

[earonesty]

Blocks are full

What does that even mean?   That's the crazy thing people keep saying.   Ant pool still mines empty blocks every day.   How are they "full"?   Some time in January 2015, zero and 1 satoshi fee transactions started backing up the mem pool.   


If you want to get to $0.01 fees and $5000 coins, you'd need fast and efficient 100MB blocks that can be easily and quickly transmitted to all nodes in the network.   100MB is crazy and can never work.   Networks just don't scale that way.   So let's please stop fooling ourselves and pretend off-chain scaling *isn't* the end game here.

I ran a survey over at reddit.   What percent of Bitcoin transactions are "off chain".   Predictably, big blockers say ZERO.  Because everything else is credit.   Which is true... but that doesn't mean that poor people need cheap ways of moving gold internationally for pennies.

[Quickseller]

So what actually happens now? Will the miners go for Bitcoin Classic or Unlimited, or does the bickering continue without being resolved for another year?

... it should have been a node consensus first, pool consensus second strategy.

There's like 4000 nodes running core, and 3000 of them are signaling segwit.   There are about 400 nodes signaling "other things" ... (XT, Classic, BU, etc.).   It's as clear as day on the node side.   Only miners hoping they can delay the fee drop and capacity increase a little longer.

Node count is a very poor indicator of user support for a number of reasons:

*Not all nodes accept incoming connections, so you will not be able to poll all active nodes what version they are running

*It is trivial to run multiple "fake" nodes (fake by one definition or another) signaling support for one version or another

*A business may be against SegWit, but will still be prudent and run a SegWit compatible node for both testing and preparation purposes in case SegWit activates against their wishes, it is also possible that a business might be against SegWit and be running multiple full nodes for testing/preparation purposes. The same is true for other Bitcoin implementations as a business might be against Unlimited or Classic but still be running an Unlimited node for similar reasons -- although I believe it to be less likely they would be running multiple Unlimited nodes.

*A business may be neutral about SegWit but would still prudently run a SegWit node for reasons discussed above.

*In case you haven't noticed, there is a message at the top of the page displayed to everyone who visits the forum to "upgrade" to 13.2, which IIUC signals support for SegWit, while someone who does not support SegWit, or who supports another implementation would need to actively find another version to run.

you'd need fast and efficient 100MB blocks that can be easily and quickly transmitted to all nodes in the network.   100MB is crazy and can never work.   Networks just don't scale that way.   So let's please stop fooling ourselves and pretend off-chain scaling *isn't* the end game here.

Sure they do. There is no reason to expect technology to stop evolving from where it is today. It was not all that long ago that my family was upgrading to a 56.6kbs modem (<2 decades), and today for about the same price that my family paid for a 56.6kbs internet connect (extra phone line + internet service), I could get 1,000 mbps with google fiber. 

The reason why specific blocks are not full is often because said block was found quickly after the preceding block, and/or the pool operator is having problems with their node software. I think it is fairly reasonable to say that blocks are currently full, based on the growing tx fees attached to found blocks. Look at the attached tx fees to blocks found a few years ago, and look at them now.

[hv_]

Adoption (rates) of new tech is going exponential.

This might happen to BU as well.

Do we see this starting?

[franky1]

So what actually happens now? Will the miners go for Bitcoin Classic or Unlimited, or does the bickering continue without being resolved for another year?

... it should have been a node consensus first, pool consensus second strategy.

and 3000 of them are signaling segwit.  

sorry but there is only
/Satoshi:0.13.2/   895 (16.22%)
/Satoshi:0.13.1/   1631 (29.58%)
truly signalling for segwit
the 0.13.0 doesnt include the flag..

so its 46%(2526).. which others have said maybe running it just to be "prudent" (eg those just running 0.13.1) just to have minimum requirement to retain being full validation of segwit. but not wanting to get to involved in by continually upgrading beyond that.

some dont even understand what they are downloading. they just want to stay uptodate with whatever is pushed out. so they are not actually fully informed and explicitly voting for it. they are just running a node.

so the communities node uptake of say 30% explicit, 46% implicitly voting and pools explicit voting 18% explicitly, 32% implicitly.. both show that there are over 50% explicitly undecided.

[Jet Cash]

Well with my limited knowledge, I think SegWit is a good thing, I've upgraded my node to 0.13.2, and I block classic and unlimited nodes. Do I need to do anything else?

I'm holding back on my use of Bitcoin at the moment, but I want to use it for domain name sales payments in the future, and I want to use the multi-sig option to perform Escrow functions. This has become more urgent now that Escrow.com has started to support PayPal.

So when is it going to be safe to start using SegWit transactions?