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

[doc12]

Sorry I dont talk to conspiracists, makes no sense.

blockstream $90m is not a free gift, its an investment that needs returns
blockstream are part of the bankers making their closed fiat2.0 - https://www.hyperledger.org/about/members

cant make it up when its true.

You are free to belive whatever you want, that doesnt make it real.

Better take the tiny risk that your conspiracy is real, then hand over bitcoin to a bunch of incompetent noob devs.


EDIT: You forgot 13.99
https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=NODE_WITNESS
Ok sorry its actually 49,8% right now.

[1714659572]

1714659572

[1714659572]

1714659572

[1714659572]

1714659572

[franky1]

You are free to belive whatever you want, that doesnt make it real.
Better take the tiny risk that your conspiracy is real, then hand over bitcoin to a bunch of incompetent noob devs.

you are free to stick head in the sand and only catch a breath to see your friend with the gun warning you of gunfire while he takes aim.

how about do some research and read something. learn. have an open mind and see beyond the small box you want to put yourself in

[doc12]

You are free to belive whatever you want, that doesnt make it real.
Better take the tiny risk that your conspiracy is real, then hand over bitcoin to a bunch of incompetent noob devs.

you are free to stick head in the sand and only catch a breath to see your friend with the gun warning you of gunfire while he takes aim.

how about do some research and read something. learn. have an open mind and see beyond the small box you want to put yourself in

I did. And I made my choice. THX

You know what, actually its funny, its always the same bullshit you conspiracists say when someone does not share your opinion. Something like "you've got to educate yourself, you are blind, you have a closed mind" Bullshit. What about your mind ? maybe you are in the small box ?

[doc12]

and out of that ~48% not all of them are explicitly voting for it. they are implicitly voting for it just by staying upto date.
some are running it to test/examine and bugfind too.

so in context there is no 'majority' or even a marginal majority explicitly in favour of it. hense why high majority is required.

Yeah blablabla .... and the 7% of BU nodes are just some people who installed it by mistake, because they are new to bitcoin and think theres just one client.

“I create the world, how I want it to be”

The truth is in some hours there will be a simple majority of over 50% running a segwit node and adoption not stalling. In a month or two it will be 60 - 70%.

[franky1]

The truth is in some hours there will be a simple majority of over 50% running a segwit node and adoption not stalling. In a month or two it will be 60 - 70%.

i got intrigued by your post history..
hmm monero fanboy. i now see why you are devoted to gmaxwell and not even trying to research beyond gmaxwells centralist mindset
you dont care about bitcoins growth, your hoping for some monero riches.

let me guess you then want to cash out with some fiat riches.

goodluck with that though.

[doc12]

The truth is in some hours there will be a simple majority of over 50% running a segwit node and adoption not stalling. In a month or two it will be 60 - 70%.

i got intrigued by your post history..
hmm monero fanboy. i now see why you are devoted to gmaxwell and not even trying to research beyond gmaxwells centralist mindset
you dont care about bitcoins growth, your hoping for some monero riches.

let me guess you then want to cash out with some fiat riches.

goodluck with that though.

Lol this is pathetic. Never sold a single sathoshi for fiat.

I hold some small amount of monero, but i dont consider myself a fanboy. It's just one of the best altcoins. Nothing wrong about some diversification.

[franky1]

here is where your letting your friend shoot you in the foot.

you have a 30MBit/s upload. (3.75mbyte/s = 2.25gbyte/10minutes)
even you know bitcoin can run on a raspberry pi

and even now there is a raspberry Pi3. and bitcoin has had some efficiency gains since you done your tests last year(5x due to libsecp256k1)

so running on a Raspberry Pi3 is about 20x faster today compared to the tests you done last year.

but instead of that rational thought. you let people tell you 2mb is bad and dynamic blocks are bad and baseblock needs to halt at 1mb.

knowing you can send 2.2gb of data every 10 minutes. you want to ignore that 2.2gbyte figure your able to cope with (37.5mb with 60 connections)
and proclaim 2mb with safe incremental growth based on community node agreement is bad.

simply because someone said so. but your own numbers say the opposite than your friends are telling you.
you then want to proclaim that closing off doors to diversity of 71different implementations should be an option and only connect to one 'brand'

do you even hear yourself advocating for centralization, for no reason.

here is a kicker.. core want 4mb weight. while keeping the 1mb base not for 'data restriction' but for transaction utility restriction
so if you ever argue that non core are 'bigblockers' look at cores 4mb weight. look at non cores 2mb request.

2 or 4 which is 'bigblocker'. simply maths, simple observation. 2 or 4 which is bigger.


oh and please dont throw out the standard script reply your friends shout. "1gb blocks by midnight doomsday"

we both know the rational consensus of 2016-2017 is 2mb and then natural node consensus accepting growth there after

[doc12]

Are you bored or something reading all my posts ?

Yeah, I have 30MB upload connection, but there are many people on that planet that dont.
And basicly I dont even care much about the capacity increase which Segwit brings to the table, more important are the protocol changes which allow things like:  Malleability Fix or Linear scaling of sighash ops.

Making blocks bigger is not scaling. We have to improve the protocol. Just making blocks bigger is like making the battery or fuel tank of a car bigger but refuse to improve the efficiency of the engine.
It makes no sense to waste resources, if there is a solution to fit more Transactions in one block, even if we have the resources left.


Bitcoin will not scale to a world finance system onchain, we have to implement 2nd layer solutions like lightning and improve the protocol.

[franky1]

allow things like:  Malleability Fix or Linear scaling of sighash ops.

malleability fix..
LN does not need it. its a dual signing process. if the TX is malleated. it doesnt get signed. if someone wants to malleate a second tx. they cant as they need the other persons signature for the second tx too, because the data has changed.

and double spending is still an issue because blockstream introduced RBF and CPFP to cause double spends.
also you cannot even confidently trust a confirm tx of funds belong to you if the tx has a CLTV+CSV in it. you have to wait for maturity before declaring 100% immutable

linear scaling..
easy fix dont let a tx have 20,000-80,000 sigops.
if you think linear helps LN work better. you are wrong. an LN is only a 2in 2out 2 signature tx.  thus its sigops is not going to cause seconds/minutes of processing. it remains milliseconds.

again solution to linear is reduce the tx sigops limit.. which also reduces the spam of people trying to make 1mb tx's
funnily blockstream want to allow large transactions. although there is no reason for it

as for

Bitcoin will not scale to a world finance system onchain,

it can actually. please wash away the "1gb blocks by tonight" nonsense you have read somewhere
the mindset of 'Bitcoin will not scale to a world finance system onchain' rhetoric is not original, nor factual..

and go with your other mindset about 10-20year's natural growth you mentioned last year.
bitcoin wont be and rationally shouldnt be the 'one world currency' or the worlds only financial system.. as that would get corrupted.. especially if blockstream becomes the IMF. removing diversity and open choice

instead take a rational 5% populous.. meaning bitcoin ranked in the top 5 'nations' of the world.
then you will see over a couple decades it is easy and manageable.

as for why i checked your post history. its more about understanding am i talking to an empty troll thats just spamming devotion of blockstream in hopes of some recognition and commission from them.. or someone that actually knows a thing or two

[hv_]

Go to 8MB now.  Fees go back down to .0001  Keep building LN until it is fantastic.  revoke Maxwell's commit access as he has shown himself to be corrupt.  

Maxwell does not have commit access anymore the last time I've checked.

Very clever you Blockstream guys are!  hahahahha.  You don't think that we all understand that his puppets do?  Do you really think we are fooled by such clever devices and tricks for fools?  

Hehe, so the code will stay on 1MB for ever, or who dares....?

Huh, did he get now commit keys for BU in exchange to fix the limit there as well?

 

[franky1]

Maxwell does not have commit access anymore the last time I've checked.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master?author=gmaxwell

[Lauda]

Maxwell does not have commit access anymore the last time I've checked.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master

So it was restored sometime since it was revoked? Okay my bad. I haven't noticed it considering the amount being merged by Laan, Sipa and Marco.
Update: This is just a commit written by him.

[franky1]

Maxwell does not have commit access anymore the last time I've checked.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master?author=gmaxwell

So it was restored sometime since it was revoked? Okay my bad. I haven't noticed it considering the amount being merged by Laan, Sipa and Marco.

in the last year the only month he did not 'commit' was march.. he must of taken a vacation that month

[Lauda]

So it was restored sometime since it was revoked? Okay my bad. I haven't noticed it considering the amount being merged by Laan, Sipa and Marco.

in the last year the only month he did not 'commit' was march.. he must of taken a vacation that month

Actually, no. He does not have commit access. These are just commits that were written by him. You should click on it and then the number found here:



Merged by sipa.

[franky1]

So it was restored sometime since it was revoked? Okay my bad. I haven't noticed it considering the amount being merged by Laan, Sipa and Marco.

in the last year the only month he did not 'commit' was march.. he must of taken a vacation that month

Actually, no. He does not have commit access. These are just commits that were written by him. You should click on it and then the number found here:



Merged by sipa.

commits and merges are 2 different things. but Rawdog said revoke maxwells commit access.. not merge access.. commit.
you replied that he already lost his commit access.. again not merge.. commit.

i replied to show he does still have commit access.. not merge.. commit.

so dont twist it like it was always about merge... when it clearly said commit by rawdog, YOU, twice.. and me.

yea he doesnt have merge status. thats something else.. dont divert the point.
but now you know he has commit access and always had it.. rawdogs point about taking maxwells commit access still has relevance again.

[Lauda]

-snip-
yea he doesnt have merge status. thats something else.. dont divert the point.
but now you know he has commit access and always had it.. rawdogs point about taking maxwells commit access still has relevance again.

I was thinking about something else entirely by the word 'commit', not just creating a pull proposal [1]. Anyone can write changes and submit a pull, like he did. Revoking someone's 'commit access', as it preventing him from creating a pull request is an absurd request. AFAIK there is no such thing as 'commit access' in this sense, i.e. no functionality to 'withdraw' the 'access'.
[1] - He does not have 'push access' is what I was aiming at.

[franky1]

-snip-
yea he doesnt have merge status. thats something else.. dont divert the point.
but now you know he has commit access and always had it.. rawdogs point about taking maxwells commit access still has relevance again.

I was thinking about something else entirely by the word 'commit', not just creating a pull proposal. Anyone can write changes and submit a pull, like he did. Revoking someone's 'commit access', as it preventing him from creating a pull request is an absurd request. He does not have 'push access' is what I was aiming at.

but those 'pushing' are in the same camp, they are his colleagues. infact he is Sipa's boss.. which was the other point rawdog was highlighting afterwards that gmaxwell can still control things.
afterall adam back is also pulling the strings even while pretending he does not pull or push..

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

All Bitcoin Judas accomplished was FUDing a perfectly reasonably and innovative soft fork, which is foundational to future scaling, into a controversial object of drama.

Let's all congratulate him on getting kicked off Reddit for brigading, doxing, and monetizing his subreddit.

[freshman777]

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.

All Bitcoin Judas accomplished was FUDing a perfectly reasonably and innovative soft fork, which is foundational to future scaling, into a controversial object of drama.

Let's all congratulate him on getting kicked off Reddit for brigading, doxing, and monetizing his subreddit.

SegWit is a controversial contentious fork which half of the community don't want to subscribe to. Blaming and crucifying Ver for SegWit not happening is finding a scapegoat.

[jbreher]

again solution to linear is reduce the tx sigops limit..

franky1 - I see that you are fighting the good fight here, but this is one point I don't think you've thought through. No new magic constants are required. We do not need to artificially limit sigops size. the problem solves itself.

Consider:

When a miner is working on a block, it is trying to earn the block subsidy + transaction fees for its proposed block. It will abandon its attempt to find the hash for its proposed block if and only if it is provided with proof that another block spending some of the same transactions has been found. So when a potentially solved block is presented, it needs to validate that block. In the case of a block with excessive sig in a single transaction, this validation process will take an excessive amount of time (indeed, this is the supposed 'nightmare scenario' that makes quadratic hashing such a scary issue). So what is a miner to do? Stop everything, and devote all processing to validating the incoming potentially-solved block? Hell no. A rational miner will spawn off a single thread to validate the potentially-solved block, and devote the rest of its resources to trying to find the solution hash to its proposed block. Anything else would be self-defeating.

As all rational miners would engage in this process, it is likely that some miner will find an alternate block solution while is is still trying to validate the incoming possibly-good but large-sig-containing block solved by the first solving miner. It is free to propagate its solved block to the network at large.

Upon receiving such a block, rational miners will devote (e.g.) one thread to validating the new block - even as they are still trying to validate the first possibly-good but large-sig-containing block. Whichever is the first to be validated is the block which they will propagate and the block that they will build atop. This would be the second-arriving block that does not engender the quadratic hashing issue.  The first solution block - containing the large sig transaction - gets orphaned. Problem goes away.

What, me worry?