Will segwit be activated?

[franky1]

But on the bitcoin side. I would support a hardfork now.

And a BTC hardfork would not split the network in 2 because BTC has a 2 week retarget, and no miner would mine on the minority chain for 2 weeks.

So the majority always wins. It could technically happen with 51%, but just for safety and less drama, let's say 70%.

So if 70% agrees to hardfork now, of a 2mb, then the other 30% will be outnumbered, and then they will later see that it was not a big deal.


It' will not split in 2 like Ethereum vs Eth classic.

to add to this point, (to help explain it)

ethereum was NOT a consensus hard fork... it was a intentional split

some call Ethereums split a controversial split hard fork
some call Ethereums split an altcoin maker
some call Ethereums split a bilateral fork..

but not a consensus hard fork.. because thats a different thing altogether

(note: there's many forms of hard forks that have differing end results/goals/intentions. dont think harkfork=split. its an umbrella term for different possible results)

but ethereum nodes intentionally avoided consensus by actually ignoring each others chain data (google: --oppose-dao-fork) thus causing an altcoin, by disconnecting opposing nodes.

a consensus fork is ONE chain. where the minority dont create new blocks automatically. they are left orphaning what they dont like and never syncing.

in the case of a 95% agreement. of say 5600 nodes... 5300 agree 300 dont... what then happens is pools then do a consensus vote of their own. which gives time for the 300 to upgrade...
when pools get to their 95%. a grace period happens.. whereby both the 300nodes and 1pools not voting still have time to get onboard before being left unsynced and 'stuck'.

ok.. you might be about to rebuttle that losing 1 pools and UNDER 300full nodes is bad,, but..

blockstreams soft fork can lose 1 pool too.. and, would currently have over 2000 nodes no longer at 'full validation status' and demoted to half validation status.

[1714790588]

1714790588

[1714790588]

1714790588

[1714790588]

1714790588

[Viscount]

Well yeah, Ver is an entrepreneur not a programmer, why would he be into technical stuff?

You said yourself Ver is not a programmer then why he tries to compete with programmers in their field? Who do I want to trust programmers or rascals?
Satoshi was a programmer, Core are programmers.
Satoshi set limit to 1 mb.
Roger is a trickster with no competent skills (your words) intending to crush it.

[Viscount]

Ver wants Bitcoin to split by hardfork just like Etherium

[d@nte]

Ver wants Bitcoin to split by hardfork just like Etherium

First I thought it was photoshopped, I had to personally see this on Twitter to know it's real. The fact is that Ethereum had chances of being in a much better position if developers decided not to fork it... and back to Bitcoin, it's hard to believe that this guy is playing in the community's favor with such statements.

[CraigWrightBTC]

Ver wants Bitcoin to split by hardfork just like Etherium

If bitcoins to split by hardfork bitcoin's price will going down like ethereum
 will there are two comunities bitcoin and bitcoin classic, will many people are dissagree with bitcoin's hardfork
it is high risk for bitcoin's alive.
I think before do hardfork bitcoins more wise do soft fork and the segwit is soft fork.

[Uberse]

There's been so much talk about this, but I will risk asking it again: if SegWit fails, will that failure bar a malleability fix not bundled to any other issues such as a larger blocksize?

[Herbert2020]

i have one more hope for SegWit's fate and that is litecoin SegWit. as you may know litecoin is similar to bitcoin in every aspect and they recently added support for SegWit.
according to http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php the start is in 28 days and i really hope the miners accept it and we can see SegWit in action.

that will surely clarify many things, so maybe we can finally make up our mind about SegWit and whether to support it or not. (by we i mostly mean miners )

Ver wants Bitcoin to split by hardfork just like Etherium

well i don't follow these things much and don't really know R.V. but from this tweet is seems to be an idiot who doesn't know how manipulated market cap is.
let met explain for those who may not know it.
ethereum has a huge supply (and this supply is just a number in the code, unlike real commodities this can easily be created and since not all the 80+ million coins are available to public it is a fake supply)
now market cap is just supply * price
when there is two chains, there is two sets of that massive supply. even if price of ETC were $1 its market cap was 80+ million dollar

and not to mention the market he is talking about are pump and dumpers enjoying another altcoin among hundreds of others to pump and dump.

p.s. maybe he is heavily invested in ethereum and wants his payment

[LoyceV]

Fees used to be 80% cheaper just 6 months ago, and if this goes on like this then we might end up with 1-10$ size fees just like banks. What will be the point then of BTC when the fees will be just as high as of banks? Or higher?

Yesterday I was looking at my first Bitcoin transactions, in 2015. I used 0.01 mBTC fee for up to 5 inputs! Nowadays even 20-50 times fee is often not enough to get a decent transaction time.
In my opinion, this is reducing Bitcoin's growth. I don't really care how it will be fixed, as long as it can handle more transactions.

If bitcoins to split by hardfork bitcoin's price will going down like ethereum
 will there are two comunities bitcoin and bitcoin classic, will many people are dissagree with bitcoin's hardfork
it is high risk for bitcoin's alive.

The irony is that a hard fork would instantly double the number of transactions it can handle
To be clear: I'm not in favour of a hard fork. But I do see it as a problem that miners have a financial incentive to keep blocks small (and fees high).

[Xester]

Fees used to be 80% cheaper just 6 months ago, and if this goes on like this then we might end up with 1-10$ size fees just like banks. What will be the point then of BTC when the fees will be just as high as of banks? Or higher?

Yesterday I was looking at my first Bitcoin transactions, in 2015. I used 0.01 mBTC fee for up to 5 inputs! Nowadays even 20-50 times fee is often not enough to get a decent transaction time.
In my opinion, this is reducing Bitcoin's growth. I don't really care how it will be fixed, as long as it can handle more transactions.

If bitcoins to split by hardfork bitcoin's price will going down like ethereum
 will there are two comunities bitcoin and bitcoin classic, will many people are dissagree with bitcoin's hardfork
it is high risk for bitcoin's alive.

The irony is that a hard fork would instantly double the number of transactions it can handle
To be clear: I'm not in favour of a hard fork. But I do see it as a problem that miners have a financial incentive to keep blocks small (and fees high).

That is precisely true there will be a split like ethereum does and bitcoin when split, the price will meltdown and we do not want that to happen. I also do not agree of bitcoin using hard fork. Possibly the only way for bitcoin to make the transactions faster is to add more miners in the market.If many miners will come then the solution for the slow transaction in bitcoin will be solved.

[Slark]

Ver wants Bitcoin to split by hardfork just like Etherium

First I thought it was photoshopped, I had to personally see this on Twitter to know it's real. The fact is that Ethereum had chances of being in a much better position if developers decided not to fork it... and back to Bitcoin, it's hard to believe that this guy is playing in the community's favor with such statements.

Nah, as you said this tweet is legit, here is the source for everyone interested to see the responses of people : https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/761973787294330880?lang=en
I was wondering about it, Roger is very rich bitcoiner, he owns shitload of coins, so do we really think he would want bitcoin to fail? It would destroy his own wealth in the process.

[LoyceV]

Possibly the only way for bitcoin to make the transactions faster is to add more miners in the market.If many miners will come then the solution for the slow transaction in bitcoin will be solved.

Do you have any idea how Bitcoin works? Bitcoin produces exactly the same amount of blocks as it did when Satoshi was the only one mining: 1 block per 10 minutes (on average).

[franky1]

Ver wants Bitcoin to split by hardfork just like Etherium

that tweet was a question, not a statement.

and it is actually gmaxwell that wants to split the network

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.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

even funnier.. gmaxwell also says he willing to intentionally split the chain just to implement the soft fork

If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90%  ... 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.

[cyrixcer]

It will, if people don't activate segwit, hard fork will be done, so soft fork like activating segwit is better than hard fork, hard fork will drive the price dump

[franky1]

It will, if people don't activate segwit, hard fork will be done, so soft fork like activating segwit is better than hard fork, hard fork will drive the price dump

consensus hardfork does not mean splitting the network.
intentional split is not the default end result of a hardfork

hardforks just leave the minority unsynced and stuck.. where by the sensible thing is to join the majority by upgrading with the majority and continue with the majority.. rather than be stuck in limbo..


however, opposers completely adamant to not join the majority.. can add additional code intentionally.
additional code is then needed for the unsynced minority to ignore consensus, ignore the majority, ignore the orphans and start their own network.
meaning they intentionally start their own chain and reboot their own syncing of new blocks from a different source than the majority.

[DooMAD]

It will, if people don't activate segwit, hard fork will be done, so soft fork like activating segwit is better than hard fork, hard fork will drive the price dump

People often worry about a dump in price before a hard fork, but if anything, people should be looking to secure as much coin as possible before a hard fork so that your coins are safely secured on both chains.  Then, whichever chain is successful, you can't lose.  Conversely, if you choose to buy coins immediately after a fork, you'll find many sellers would be looking to dump the coins on the chain they don't approve of, so it's unlikely they'll offer to sell you the coins on both chains.  You'd have to carefully consider which chain to buy on. 

So people panic buying before the fork could offset anyone who doesn't understand this who might be panic selling out of fear. 

[franky1]

It will, if people don't activate segwit, hard fork will be done, so soft fork like activating segwit is better than hard fork, hard fork will drive the price dump

People often worry about a dump in price before a hard fork, but if anything, people should be looking to secure as much coin as possible before a hard fork so that your coins are safely secured on both chains.  Then, whichever chain is successful, you can't lose.  Conversely, if you choose to buy coins immediately after a fork, you'll find many sellers would be looking to dump the coins on the chain they don't approve of, so it's unlikely they'll offer to sell you the coins on both chains.  You'd have to carefully consider which chain to buy on.  

So people panic buying before the fork could offset anyone who doesn't understand this who might be panic selling out of fear.  

try not to use the umbrella term "hardfork" when you actually mean the subcategory of forks which is an intentional split.. because it confuses the sheep into thinking all hardforks=intentional splits

even a soft fork can become an intentional split as gmaxwell himself explained with

If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90%  ... 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.

[talkbitcoin]

Ver wants Bitcoin to split by hardfork just like Etherium

First I thought it was photoshopped, I had to personally see this on Twitter to know it's real. The fact is that Ethereum had chances of being in a much better position if developers decided not to fork it... and back to Bitcoin, it's hard to believe that this guy is playing in the community's favor with such statements.

Nah, as you said this tweet is legit, here is the source for everyone interested to see the responses of people : https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/761973787294330880?lang=en
I was wondering about it, Roger is very rich bitcoiner, he owns shitload of coins, so do we really think he would want bitcoin to fail? It would destroy his own wealth in the process.

just a thought:
someone who calls a non-consensus, centralized fork which was more like a dictatorship from the devs "a good thing" is obviously benefiting from it

[franky1]

just a thought:
someone who calls a non-consensus, centralized fork which was more like a dictatorship from the devs "a good thing" is obviously benefiting from it

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

[CraigWrightBTC]

If bitcoins to split by hardfork bitcoin's price will going down like ethereum
 will there are two comunities bitcoin and bitcoin classic, will many people are dissagree with bitcoin's hardfork
it is high risk for bitcoin's alive.

The irony is that a hard fork would instantly double the number of transactions it can handle
To be clear: I'm not in favour of a hard fork. But I do see it as a problem that miners have a financial incentive to keep blocks small (and fees high).

Well it is still dangerous for bitcoin's hardfork and will become long debating on comunity,
it is mean becomes more other problem for bitcoins because segwit is soft fork and
it is still not be activated yet, you can imagine bitcoin's hardfork will become long debating on comunity
more than segwit's debating. 

[gmaxwell]

segwit nodes 1601 (28.64%)
unlimited 398 (7.12%)

Please don't defraud people here with absurd lies like this.

Right now 61% of reachable nodes have segwit support, some 7565 of them.


Here is a comparison of hashrate that has signaled for segwit activation vs BIP66 (X is number of days since signaling started.)


As you can see, a few people are trying to desperately spin a dishonest narrative in order to promote their bitcoin splitting proposals-- but there isn't any substance there.

Segwit is ahead of BIP66's deployment, and BIP66 activated fine but people here are posting that it's "dead on arrival". Segwit is on most reachable nodes, but posters here are incorrectly telling you that it's only on 1600 nodes.

I was wondering about it, Roger is very rich bitcoiner, he owns shitload of coins, so do we really think he would want bitcoin to fail? It would destroy his own wealth in the process.

We have a lot more evidence of Roger Ver owning altcoins than Bitcoin... just saying.  If you own 1% of ETH, Ripple, Zcash, whatever but 0.01% of all Bitcoin.. you can make a lot of money getting the price of any one of those altcoins to even 1/10th Bitcoin's even if your attacks utterly destroy the price of Bitcoin along the way and even though your Bitcoin holdings are worth a lot more than the altcoin ones pre-attack.  There are also people trying to trash Bitcoin to drop the price because they sold out their positions after being deceived by the Hearn-and-Co claims that Bitcoin was over-- some of the top rbtc posters were bragging about selling all their Bitcoin last year.

Segwit will activate if people want it. The work has been done to get it ready, so it's up to the people who want it to see it activate.  It does make for a nice demonstration of how full of crap the people were who were claiming that Bitcoin desperately needed more capacity-- when in fact they, personally, just desperately needed Bitcoin hobbled by a split in order to promote their altcoin investments.