Will segwit be activated?

[franky1]

when in fact they, personally, just desperately needed Bitcoin hobbled by a split in order to promote their altcoin investments.

lol your the one that wants to split the network.. no one else

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--

and also hows your monero

and hows meeting your contractual obligations in blockstream to get the next tranche of fiat from investors

oh and hows the satoshi roundtable meeting with the hyperledger guys, going all as planned?

and as funny as it was for you to try and find a different bip that took many months to activate.. to pretend segwit is on track..

i can show a chart from your own colleague that shows another bip that got accepted far sooner.. to show segwit is not on track..

bip 112 took only 2 months to get to 100%. yet segwit is at its second month and still at only ~25%

[pooya87]

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.

can you please explain about how people (aka bitcoin users) can show their wanting SegWit? it is my understanding that hashrate is making the decision (currently about 25% according to bitcoincore website)

also in the link you gave (http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/services.html) there is this thing called archive nodes (which is 12K nodes) what is that and why is it huge?

and also why the number of nodes in that link (each chart) is a lot bigger than other resources
for example: https://coin.dance/nodes total nodes: less than 5000
https://bitnodes.21.co/ total nodes: 5551 nodes

[Amph]

Ver wants Bitcoin to split by hardfork just like Etherium

the splitting actually killed etheruem because now the market it's divided on two fork and you say this is a good thing?

if bitcoin was going to have the same phate everyone would just dump his coin as usual not to mention he would have double of the coins like it was for etheruem, this can only lead to even more dumping

[vlight]

Bitcoin splitting into 2 would be a disaster. BTC is a reserve cryptocurrency, can you imagine there being 2 reserve cryptocurrencies?  It's either not possible or it would be a total mess. 

[RealBitcoin]

Bitcoin splitting into 2 would be a disaster. BTC is a reserve cryptocurrency, can you imagine there being 2 reserve cryptocurrencies?  It's either not possible or it would be a total mess. 

It wont split because the difficulty retarget is 2 weeks. So if a split happens the majority chain will be bitcoin, and everyone will leave the minority chain because they cant make money.

Its a clever design that satoshi did. So I think a hardfork can be safely applies if people are in consensus.

[franky1]

Ver wants Bitcoin to split by hardfork just like Etherium

the splitting actually killed etheruem because now the market it's divided on two fork and you say this is a good thing?

if bitcoin was going to have the same phate everyone would just dump his coin as usual not to mention he would have double of the coins like it was for etheruem, this can only lead to even more dumping

ver was asking a question. if you want someone that made a concrete statement in favour of splitting the community intentionally

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 gmaxwell admits ver, gavin and others were against splitting the network.. but gmaxwell loved the idea of splitting it

[hv_]

Divide and conquer

[RealBitcoin]

Divide and conquer

If we go with that logic then Bitcoin will never have any patches on it, we will just implement weird inefficient bloated "hacks".

What if BTC needs a quantum key derivation system? What if BTC needs a better signature system? What if BTC needs a better consensus system? What if bitcoin needs a better mining system, where nodes will be included in the reward too? What if BTC needs bigger blocks?


BTC can never evolve, if it cant be hardforked, in the proper way. And you know, the survival of the fittest, if you cant adapt to the environment, you will fail.

[jujugoboom]

Ver wants Bitcoin to split by hardfork just like Etherium

the splitting actually killed etheruem because now the market it's divided on two fork and you say this is a good thing?

if bitcoin was going to have the same phate everyone would just dump his coin as usual not to mention he would have double of the coins like it was for etheruem, this can only lead to even more dumping

You are right, and you know there is ETC(ETH classic) after ETH fork, so I wonder the bitcoin whales make the hard fork intentionally so they can create a bitcoin classic to grab people's money again.

[topesis]

Ver wants Bitcoin to split by hardfork just like Etherium

the splitting actually killed etheruem because now the market it's divided on two fork and you say this is a good thing?

if bitcoin was going to have the same phate everyone would just dump his coin as usual not to mention he would have double of the coins like it was for etheruem, this can only lead to even more dumping

You are right, and you know there is ETC(ETH classic) after ETH fork, so I wonder the bitcoin whales make the hard fork intentionally so they can create a bitcoin classic to grab people's money again.

I guess you are right, some people are not contented with the number of BTC that will be in circulation, so they are looking for ways to increase their strong hold on the chain, if they want to fork BTC they can, but we all know the real BTC.

[RealBitcoin]

Segwit support dropped from 24.4% to 21.5%, now the chances are even slimmer. What will happen now?

http://segwit.co/

Is the 2mb hardfork too unthinkable? Or we will push segwit until it gets accepted?

[Red-Apple]

Segwit support dropped from 24.4% to 21.5%, now the chances are even slimmer. What will happen now?

this drop doesn't mean anything because it is a volatile number and because it is based on the number of blocks mined in a certain number of previous blocks (it goes from 24% to 26%) and it is because finding a block is kinda based on luck. so for example if those miners signaling segwit mine a couple of blocks less than before it goes 1% lower and if they find a couple more it goes 1% higher.

this picture may be more helpful (from https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/):



EDIT:
this may also be because of the increase in the hashrate. in the past 2 days hashrate has gone up 100,000 TH/S (source blockchain.info) so maybe the rest of the network is finding more blocks.

[Denker]

Segwit support dropped from 24.4% to 21.5%, now the chances are even slimmer. What will happen now?

this drop doesn't mean anything because it is a volatile number and because it is based on the number of blocks mined in a certain number of previous blocks (it goes from 24% to 26%) and it is because finding a block is kinda based on luck. so for example if those miners signaling segwit mine a couple of blocks less than before it goes 1% lower and if they find a couple more it goes 1% higher.

this picture may be more helpful:

This picture clearly shows that we had a peak in late december as also beginning of january , so far,and since then are constantly going down.
If we would see several up and down swings around the 25% mark I would be more relaxed.But that is not the case.
In 2-3 months I think we will know if we really have to worry or not.

[RealBitcoin]

EDIT:
this may also be because of the increase in the hashrate. in the past 2 days hashrate has gone up 100,000 TH/S (source blockchain.info) so maybe the rest of the network is finding more blocks.

Your picture shows stagnation and a downtrend. It's the same thing.

People are aware of segwit because it has been promoted all the past year. And now that it's out, they just simply dont want it.

So I think people have to think about alternatives because it doesnt look like people want segwit. Or perhaps they are not educated enough to decide.

Either way, having a plan B doesnt hurt.

[dihari]

Why we need segwit? Because we need the size block to increase. Nobody wants they payments delay because of unconfirmed queue. Bitcoin payment is instant, and it is a must.
Sooner or later segwit will be activated.

[Paxful_Marketing]

Its very interesting reading over different perspectives on this. Some claim that Segwit has a lower vote than what reality portrays. I think its a great solution and it seems the most dedicated users on here are supporting it. I would not trust an investors opinion on this (Roger Ver) as they obviously have their own agenda. What ever happens, i really hope this does not follow the same theme as ETH.

This might sounds a bit silly to ask, but why was this not thought about a while back before we had the whole world watching?

[franky1]

I would not trust an investors opinion on this (barry silbert, ownership stake in blockstream, BTCC and coindesk, while being involved in hyperledger(bankers ledger) too) as they obviously have their own agenda. What ever happens, i really hope this does not follow the same theme as ETH.

This might sounds a bit silly to ask, but why was this not thought about a while back before we had the whole world watching?

i edited your post to show another thought you should also be thinking about.. why btcc was instantly waving happy flags for segwit.. even before actually peer reviewing and making their own node that had the rules set in october

[Paxful_Marketing]

I would not trust an investors opinion on this (barry silbert, ownership stake in blockstream, BTCC and coindesk, while being involved in hyperledger(bankers ledger) too) as they obviously have their own agenda. What ever happens, i really hope this does not follow the same theme as ETH.

This might sounds a bit silly to ask, but why was this not thought about a while back before we had the whole world watching?

i edited your post to show another thought you should also be thinking about.. why btcc was instantly waving happy flags for segwit.. even before actually peer reviewing and making their own node that had the rules set in october

Cheers for that. Very interesting actually. I have no idea what to make of it and i will do some research about what you mentioned. If that was the case, then what do you make of it? Do you have any links i could read up on in relation to what you mentioned?

[franky1]

I would not trust an investors opinion on this (barry silbert, ownership stake in blockstream, BTCC and coindesk, while being involved in hyperledger(bankers ledger) too) as they obviously have their own agenda. What ever happens, i really hope this does not follow the same theme as ETH.

This might sounds a bit silly to ask, but why was this not thought about a while back before we had the whole world watching?

i edited your post to show another thought you should also be thinking about.. why btcc was instantly waving happy flags for segwit.. even before actually peer reviewing and making their own node that had the rules set in october

Cheers for that. Very interesting actually. I have no idea what to make of it and i will do some research about what you mentioned. If that was the case, then what do you make of it? Do you have any links i could read up on in relation to what you mentioned?

google: barry silbert blockstream - top answer
Thrilled to invest in @Blockstream alongside a fantastic group of forward thinking global investors

google: barry silbert BTCC

to put it short. the whole list of his 'stakes'/investment
http://dcg.co/network/

barry silbert owns DCG (digital currency group) which then has investment/advisory/chairman board seat demands of many groups
you will see he is the guy behind "consensus 2016"

Consensus 2016 Hackathon will be held during Consensus 2016, a 2nd annual blockchain technology summit, in collaboration with Digital Currency Group (DCG), the blockchain industry’s most active investor.

this is why coindesk is very biased and in favour of companies owned by barry silbert(DCG) because coindesk is ownd by him

then check out DCG hyperledger

barry silbert to bitcoin/blockchain world.. is like rupert murdock to the fiat world

[RealBitcoin]

Its very interesting reading over different perspectives on this. Some claim that Segwit has a lower vote than what reality portrays. I think its a great solution and it seems the most dedicated users on here are supporting it. I would not trust an investors opinion on this (Roger Ver) as they obviously have their own agenda. What ever happens, i really hope this does not follow the same theme as ETH.

This might sounds a bit silly to ask, but why was this not thought about a while back before we had the whole world watching?

Quite frankly I would personally trust Roger Ver more than the bad boys from ETH with all the failures like the DAO and such.

Bitcoin hasn't failed, yet. But if people dont fix this fucking fee problem in the next 1 year or maximum 1.5 years, then it's toast.

I will have to consider abandoning BTC then, although I have been here for more than 3 years, it will be a very sad day for me when I will have to leave BTC.

So 1.5 years is the maximum you have until this issue doesnt become critical, because the fees are already increasing, and with this pace it will be like the banking fees.


Nobody will use BTC.