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

[BiTZeD]

Unlimited and Classic are HARDFORKs. The moment they've been implemented they become altcoins and go to shit like other altcoins and Bitcoin will flourish like always 

They are hardforks, I agree with you on that point, but SegWit is none of them, so I do notunderstand why you are talking about them. SegWit is not an altcoin, this justs changes how blocks' space is used.

[Amph]

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

Sure lets see the other options available:

- Hardfork to allow bigger blocks

Even more impossible, a softfork that slightly "increases" the blocksize would happen faster and with less contention.

ehm segwit is not even a final solution, it's not like you solved the scaling issue when you activate it if ever

you need at some point to increase the block limit regardless of segwit, so why we don't go to that route anyway?

segwit was a temporary solution proposed only to have more time to find another better one in the future

but as the things look it seems that no other solutions will ever be found...

[Ironsides]

Unlimited and Classic are HARDFORKs. The moment they've been implemented they become altcoins and go to shit like other altcoins and Bitcoin will flourish like always 

SegWit is not an altcoin

Right. SegWit is neither alt nor Hardfork. Why this asshole Rawdog keep saying this is alt? he is scheeming something

[nillohit]

will SegWit drive the BTC price high 

[Ironsides]

will SegWit drive the BTC price high 

Of coarse it's a great improvement. I think the price will tripple in 2017

[franky1]

ironside.

be patient, and dont take this as an attack. take this as an experiment of having an open mind.
so, take off your blockstream defensive hat for 2 minutes. dont worry i know its uncomfortable. but for just 2 minutes wear a logical and rational hat for 2 minutes.

ok here goes
many implementations. such as bitcoinJ, BU, etc etc are actually fully operational on bitcoins mainnet right now. people have their blocksize buffer limits set at whatever they choose right now and their is nothing bad happening.
mindblowing right! fully active all rules working implementations running on bitcoins mainnet..

EG having a 2mb or a 4mb setting means that these implementations all accept blocks UNDER those limits. meaning they accept 1mb blocks too.
thus not causing harm. mindblowing thought right!

however segwit, even 0.13.2 is not a full operation release, it does have code to check new transaction types that are not part of the bitcoin 2009-2016 rule..but yep here is the but..
segwit is not actually running new transaction types or segwit features right now.


when it does activate(changes the rules) the other bitcoin nodes of 2009-2016 will not relay these new transactions 'as is' when unconfirmed.. but wont reject them once they are confirmed, not due to segwit being within old rules, but because segwit has found a blindspot where the old rules walk passed them like a ninja(unchecked).

hense why they say the new rules are 'compatible'. because of the stealthy (soft) trick.

lets word it another way bitcoin could in the future include litecoin features... but until its actually part of bitcoin by having an activation. litecoin is an altcoin. only after activation can you actually say that litecoin is part of bitcoin.

now if there is new alternate transaction types, alternative rules and not actually actively operating on bitcoin right now. its not part of bitcoin. thus is an altcoin.
bitcoin core 0.13.1 and 0.13.2 are a hybrid containing old rules and new rules. but as for 0.14 it will be totally different features, transaction types and node connection preferences.

right up until its activated it is an altcoin because until activation.. its not compatible.
eg if you tried to get an unconfirmed segwit transaction relayed by bitcoins 2009-2016 nodes they can mess with it more then you can know.

even blockstream know this because they have not added the use of segwit new keypairs feature to any of the releases. that will be a release after activation.

after activation segwit transactions that are confirmed into blocks are treated not as fully validated by 2009-2016 nodes. but sit in a state that is blindly looked passed.

current releases are just flagging releases just to show desire for. but without containing full use of these alternate features.

what you also need to know is that after activation segwit wont relay unconfirmed transactions through the old2009-2016 nodes due to the unconfirmed tx problem. so segwit nodes will biasedly only connect to other segwit nodes for unconfirmed tx relay. but once confirmed. the pools can then relay the blocks out to any node.

thus the network (imagination needed) instead of being like a bush shape (out in many directions everyone connected to everyone) becomes more like a tree (up in one direction from a segwit node towards a pool and then the pools sprout out like a bush)

[franky1]

viscount

you are listening to the blockstream defense leagues version of intentional splits to give full control to blockstream.. yep gmaxwell wants an intentional split but other implentations want consensus of one network and laughed at gmaxwells centralist rant

 please put a rational hat on and learn consensus.

yes learn consensus

right now non blockstream indoctrinated releases are fully running on bitcoins mainnet and nothing has happened.
if consensus to increase the blocksize is reached. then it does not create an altcoin. it continues on one chain with a larger buffer space by default.
those few minority holding back.. simply cannot sync. they are not the mainnet they are not creating new blocks. they are simply stuck.
again no altcoin for the minority.

if no majority is reached, nothing changes. thus no change.

the only way the minority can create new blocks is to biasedly ban connecting to the mainnet and to avoid consensus of the mainnet to avoid orphans. to then be on their own small network.
this is what ethereum done. biasedly banned the opposition to intentionally create an altcoin
research: --oppose-dao-fork

the minority who ban the majority.. become the altcoin.. not the other way round

[franky1]

i wish all of these blockstream defenders who want blockstream to be central. actually understood what they are actually saying.
by removing diversity of several different implementations and only having one implementation. they are literally calling out for centralisation.

its like they are on autopilot just copy any pasting someone elses blockstream desires. without even thinking about it

[Ironsides]

franky1

     Don't try and con me with your hypocrite lie. All you do is just mixing terrible lie with a tad of truth to make it seem sensible. I must give credit where the credit is due, you seem smarter than Raw Dog with his stupid posts. Anyway you and Rawdog and Roger Ver are just pretending to be Bitcoin's lovers but all you do is trying to impede it.
     What can you suggest except your FUD? Show me your code if you can do something? No you have nothing.
I've read some of RawDog's previous posts where he writes that bitcoin has no future wheater there'll be Unlimited or Segwit.
   Here's some of his posts:
"No scaling solution.  BU and SegWit both failed.  The system is not scalable.  It is falling apart now."
"Bitcoin doesn't scale.  It is broken with many thousands of transactions in the queue.  Price is just a Ponzi effect. Crash coming soon.  Big crash."
"I fucking love the stupidity of bitcoiners.  It is shocking!  So many very dumb people. The system is fucked." 
     And after that this moron trying to make us to believe that he mean no harm for bitcoin.
Similar posts from Ver or Andressen or Hearn one can simply google.

Bitcoin is not afraid of alts. There've been a lot of them. If Unlimited or Classic become another two it won't matter anyway they will cost nothing. Averyone knows what developers like Core team contribute and what did sneaky rats like Roger Ver or Andressen or Hearn

[franky1]

Bitcoin is not afraid of alts. There've been a lot of them. If Unlimited or Classic become another two it won't matter anyway they will cost nothing. Averyone knows what developers like Core team contribute and what did sneaky rats like Roger Ver or Andressen or Hearn

you have no clue.

just because you have read a story from X blockstreamers does not make the story true. nor does it mean everyone.

you have cabin fever. thinking the cabin is decentralised because you see more then one person in it. the issue is that your not allowing yourself to get out of the cabin to see things from the whole world. you want to stay within the cabin because you are confortable.

bitcoin is the outside world not the cabin you have locked yourself into.

please look outside of the box and not subject yourself to only conversations with those locked inside the box.

its gmaxwell that wants to intentionally split to alts.. everyone else wants to stay on the mainnet.

i bet you think ver wants paypal2.0 because you read a TITLE of a post on r/bitcoin. but didnt read the CONTEXT.

its LN that is being described as paypal2.0 and ver simply said he would be happy to let blockstream have their LN if blockstream allow mainnet to dynamically and naturally grow.

in no way did it mean ver was making LN.. as we all know thats what blockstream are doing.
CONTEXT COUNTS

wake up and look passed the propaganda of misinterpreting TITLES of posts and start reading the CONTEXT and then researching from an unbiased and diverse set of sources. otherwise your just circle jerking the same stories in the same small cabin of a few biased people. thinking your all correct because your all hear only one story.

here i will spell it out for you.
here is blockstream gmaxwell trying to get anyone not blockstream to fork away..  and they replied they wont be that dumb to intentionally split the network... and before you reply BullSh*t.. its from the horses mouth himself.

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

gmaxwell is desparate to get blockstream devs to dominate bitcoin by making other teams fork off.. but none of the other teams are listening to him. they are laughing at him.

if there is anything that i could suggest you learn. without bias..
learn consensus (built into bitcoin)
learn the difference between concensus and an intentional split (gmaxwell calls bilateral fork)

oh and yes hardforks are not all bilateral
there are consensus hardforks too(one chain, minority simply cannot sync)

gmaxwell is trying to brush consensus under the carpet and then shine a glowing light on bilateral. simply because he wants the split

please take some time to research outside of the box you have put yourself into

[Ironsides]

franky 1
There's no reason for your FUD by now. If the community feel that someone take over bitcoin and it become centralised everyone can simply vote by his money and move to any of your "decentralised" alts, right? By then stop your useless FUD you can't convince anyone

[franky1]

franky 1
There's no reason for your FUD by now. If the community feel that someone take over bitcoin and it become centralised everyone can simply vote by his money and move to any of your "decentralised" alts, right? By then stop your useless FUD you can't convince anyone

ok now your trolling.
go do some research and learn something.. as all your doing is wasting your own time otherwise

have a nice day

[spartacusrex]

..the minority who ban the majority.. become the altcoin.. not the other way round

Segwit currently at 54%..

http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/services.html

So who is the 'minority' banning the 'majority' ?

It's a total 'no-brainer'. For lots of reasons.. Just tooo tired/bored to go through the whole bloody lot of them - again.. (And before you jump in Franky, I have looked at the code and run a node..)

[DimiZb]

How do you get 5% to deny segwit? I like this, it is soft fork, I don't wanna see hard fork on bitcoin, it is harmful and may damage bitcoin's price

[BillyBobZorton]

Dynamic block size ends up with the same problem: Attackers could exploit it by making the block size too big for normal people to host nodes. You can add dynamic fe but at that point the fee would bee too high and we are back to the same problem.

If it was as easy as that then the dynamic blocksize solution would have been already implemented but pro-dynamic blocksize people never explain the negatives.

How do you differentiate a spam attack from normals transactions? With Bitcoin its simple too see many small transactions from the same address back and forth but for the network they are normal transactions, there is no cheap way to attack a dynamic blocksize system, you still have to pay fees and they will drain you of your tokens eventually and distribute them to the miners, you don't see a solution because like many in Bitcoin you got trapped into thinking transactions should be frictionless and free, with a premise like this it would be very easy to exploit the system, dynamic fees make attacks expensive and the overall fees in the network balanced, I dont expect many bitcoiners to understand the brilliance of a tail emission + dynamic blocks/fees because they are trapped with what Bitcoin has to offer.

Fees are already dynamic in Bitcoin Core as it is now in the protocol. If you want to continually keep the network bloated you will need to pay a ton of money to keep it sustained. The network doesn't become more centralized because the blocksize stays the same.

With dynamic fee, you can stretch the blocksize and make it bigger. An attacker with enough money could make the blocksize huge and destroy all node operators.

[MoinCoin]

Segwit currently at 54%..

http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/services.html

Thats about as much as % user votes on slushpool.

https://slushpool.com/stats/

25 % Don't care
31 % Bitcoin core

Both will be mined as segwit afaik

Wouldn't be surprised if the ratio of ppl running Bitcoin Core nodes which don't care would be even higer.

[franky1]

Segwit currently at 54%..

http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/services.html

Thats about as much as % user votes on slushpool.

https://slushpool.com/stats/

25 % Don't care
31 % Bitcoin core

Both will be mined as segwit afaik

Wouldn't be surprised if the ratio of ppl running Bitcoin Core nodes which don't care would be even higer.

12,234 archive nodes (99.83%)
thats new.. wait.. its wrote by blockstream. grain of salt needed

i wonder out of the segwitnodes if Luke also (stupidly) included 0.13.0. rather than just counting the segwit flaggers (0.13.1 & 0.13.2)
im guessing he also included 0.13.0. and if so.. facepalm required

[BillyBobZorton]

Segwit currently at 54%..

http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/services.html

Thats about as much as % user votes on slushpool.

https://slushpool.com/stats/

25 % Don't care
31 % Bitcoin core

Both will be mined as segwit afaik

Wouldn't be surprised if the ratio of ppl running Bitcoin Core nodes which don't care would be even higer.

Something is clear: nobody cares about Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, and now Bitcoin Unlimited. We all know that Core is the way to go if you still want to have your BTC 10 years from now. The conservative approach is the only way to guarantee the system works in the long term. The rest can keep dreaming about their amateur software that has been proven wrong a million times already.
Sorry, but conservative blocksize + LN is objectively the best we got. Keep trying if you want something better, for now its what we have.

[RawDog]

Segwit currently at 54%..

http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/services.html

Thats about as much as % user votes on slushpool.

https://slushpool.com/stats/

25 % Don't care
31 % Bitcoin core

Both will be mined as segwit afaik

Wouldn't be surprised if the ratio of ppl running Bitcoin Core nodes which don't care would be even higer.

Something is clear: nobody cares about Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, and now Bitcoin Unlimited. We all know that Core is the way to go if you still want to have your BTC 10 years from now. The conservative approach is the only way to guarantee the system works in the long term. The rest can keep dreaming about their amateur software that has been proven wrong a million times already.
Sorry, but conservative blocksize + LN is objectively the best we got. Keep trying if you want something better, for now its what we have.

That asshat GMaxwell should just go fork his altcoin if he wants silly new protocols like SegWit and LN.  Why does he have to destroy the bitcoin blockchain in pushing his Blockstream owned and controlled LN?  

SegWit = big protocol changes = altcoin
LN = big protocol changes = altcoin

BU - just put the blocksize back to where it was in the beginning.  Same protocol!!!! = Bitcoin!!

[hv_]

Segwit currently at 54%..

http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/services.html

Thats about as much as % user votes on slushpool.

https://slushpool.com/stats/

25 % Don't care
31 % Bitcoin core

Both will be mined as segwit afaik

Wouldn't be surprised if the ratio of ppl running Bitcoin Core nodes which don't care would be even higer.

Something is clear: nobody cares about Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, and now Bitcoin Unlimited. We all know that Core is the way to go if you still want to have your BTC 10 years from now. The conservative approach is the only way to guarantee the system works in the long term. The rest can keep dreaming about their amateur software that has been proven wrong a million times already.
Sorry, but conservative blocksize + LN is objectively the best we got. Keep trying if you want something better, for now its what we have.

That asshat GMaxwell should just go fork his altcoin if he wants silly new protocols like SegWit and LN.  Why does he have to destroy the bitcoin blockchain in pushing his Blockstream owned and controlled LN?  

SegWit = big protocol changes = altcoin
LN = big protocol changes = altcoin

BU - just put the blocksize back to where it was in the beginning.  Same protocol!!!! = Bitcoin!!

The simpler the more genius.
But the world can only be controlled if some clever group package simple things into complex presents. The masses will follow those cause it looks more.