SegWit yay or nay? come vote here.

[franky1]

So you hold it absolutly impossible that someone is in favour of the Segwit-solution, if he has done research and so on ? Do I get it right?

if they have done the research they would rebuttle with actual lines of code and actual scenarios. they would quote the context in a honourable and meaningful way..

but.. all i see is
rule 1: dont talk about segwit
rule 2: dont talk about leaders of segwit
rule 3: flame anyone negatively talking about segwit
rule 4: flame anyone negatively talking about segwit leaders
rule 5: just vote for segwit blindly

[1714723852]

1714723852

[1714723852]

1714723852

[1714723852]

1714723852

[1714723852]

1714723852

[1714723852]

1714723852

[doc12]

So you hold it absolutly impossible that someone is in favour of the Segwit-solution, if he has done research and so on ? Do I get it right?

if they have done the research they would rebuttle with actual lines of code and actual scenarios. they would quote the context in a honourable and meaningful way..

but.. all i see is
rule 1: dont talk about segwit
rule 2: dont talk about leaders of segwit
rule 3: flame anyone negatively talking about segwit
rule 4: flame anyone negatively talking about segwit leaders
rule 5: just vote for segwit blindly

Sure you can talk about segwit tech, but not about leaders, blockstream and the usual shit...

[franky1]

So you hold it absolutly impossible that someone is in favour of the Segwit-solution, if he has done research and so on ? Do I get it right?

if they have done the research they would rebuttle with actual lines of code and actual scenarios. they would quote the context in a honourable and meaningful way..

but.. all i see is
rule 1: dont talk about segwit
rule 2: dont talk about leaders of segwit
rule 3: flame anyone negatively talking about segwit
rule 4: flame anyone negatively talking about segwit leaders
rule 5: just vote for segwit blindly

Sure you can talk about segwit tech, but not about leaders, blockstream and the usual shit...

i do talk about the tech, but if i mention someones name suddenly the topic meanders into "defend the leader" spam posts, where the tech and explanations get sidelined.

maybe also best that you dont defend the leader and waste time posting stuff unrelated to the tech and spend time reading the tech stuff.. thus everyone benefits.

[Lauda]

blocks should only be rejected if they have bad data. not because of 'brand bias'.
-snip-

You're preaching to the choir. Don't waste your breath on me in this regard.

-snip-
rule 5: just vote for segwit blindly

See, now you understand how you're supposed to roll. Skip all steps and proceed to step 5.

[franky1]

...

i asked you a genuine question before..
when (if) segwit activates, are you going to whitelist old nodes or just connect to segwit nodes and leave it for pools and others to send stripped blocks to old nodes.
be honest. (i dont mean to ask negatively or in any attack i just want an honest open answer)

[Lauda]

i asked you a genuine question before..
when (if) segwit activates, are you going to whitelist old nodes or just connect to segwit nodes and leave it for pools and others to send stripped blocks to old nodes.
be honest. (i dont mean to ask negatively or in any attack i just want an honest open answer)

Sorry, I must have missed it. I don't plan on modifying my node settings unless it is expressively required. I usually do not do that. All I have changed so far is increasing the mempool size to several GB, increasing the dbcache to several GB and increasing the connection limit above the default (125 IIRC).
Why do you ask? Would you do this on your own node?

[franky1]

i asked you a genuine question before..
when (if) segwit activates, are you going to whitelist old nodes or just connect to segwit nodes and leave it for pools and others to send stripped blocks to old nodes.
be honest. (i dont mean to ask negatively or in any attack i just want an honest open answer)

Sorry, I must have missed it. I don't plan on modifying my node settings unless it is expressively required. I usually do not do that. All I have changed so far is increasing the mempool size to several GB, increasing the dbcache to several GB and increasing the connection limit above the default (125 IIRC).
Why do you ask? Would you do this on your own node?

id let old nodes connect yes.
i just hope the POST-activation release has whitelisting turned off so it auto connects to anything and not having it secretly set as on. and needing those that like to tinker, to have to manually whitelist old nodes or disable whitlisting so that it becomes not biased
whiles those that dont tinker, dont realise they are biased by default

[Lauda]

id let old nodes connect yes.
i just hope the POST-activation release has whitelisting turned off so it auto connects to anything and not having it secretly set as on. and needing those that like to tinker, to have to manually whitelist old nodes or disable whitlisting so that it becomes not biased
whiles those that dont tinker, dont realise they are biased by default

AFAIK new nodes do prefer nodes that have updated to 0.13.1 or later. However, they will eventually also connect to old nodes without any problems. My node is connected to several nodes running older versions. I'm not sure why this would become a problem post-activation of Segwit?

[franky1]

I'm not sure why this would become a problem post-activation of Segwit?

left = no biased connecting
right = biased connections )where the pools are left to do the sending of stripped blocks to old nodes)
          (bar a couple purple lines between new and old i didnt add)

[Lauda]

I'm not sure why this would become a problem post-activation of Segwit?

left = no biased connecting
right = biased connections )where the pools are left to do the sending of stripped blocks to old nodes)
          (bar a couple purple lines between new and old i didnt add)

I think that is overly exaggerated. If my node is currently connected to several old nodes, I don't expect that to change post-Segwit activation. However, I know that I may be wrong. I have not looked into it.

[franky1]

I'm not sure why this would become a problem post-activation of Segwit?

left = no biased connecting
right = biased connections )where the pools are left to do the sending of stripped blocks to old nodes)
          (bar a couple purple lines between new and old i didnt add)

I think that is overly exaggerated. If my node is currently connected to several old nodes, I don't expect that to change post-Segwit activation. However, I know that I may be wrong. I have not looked into it.

well w already know the blockstream camp exaggerate their devotion.. people are actively banning and ignoring nodes that are not part of cores group of nodes
EG

I've upgraded my node to 0.13.2, and I block classic and unlimited nodes.

so left image was the utopia expectation of segwit being the (upstream) gatekeepers getting the full data from pools and the sending stripped blocks to old nodes.

the right is the vision which includes the blockstream fanboy phsychy of intentionally blocking anything not core.. as exampled by some naive people

[Lauda]

so left image was the utopia expectation of segwit being the (upstream) gatekeepers getting the full data from pools and the sending stripped blocks to old nodes.

the right is the vision which includes the blockstream fanboy phsychy

I guess I'm not part of the 'blockstream fanboy psychy' then. Whilst I truly hate nodes that are running outdated code (anything prior to 0.12.x and even those version themselves), I have not started banning any connections based on this. I would expect that the majority of node owners aren't doing this either, therefore the left picture is the more likely outcome.

[franky1]

so left image was the utopia expectation of segwit being the (upstream) gatekeepers getting the full data from pools and the sending stripped blocks to old nodes.

the right is the vision which includes the blockstream fanboy phsychy

I guess I'm not part of the 'blockstream fanboy psychy' then. Whilst I truly hate nodes that are running outdated code (anything prior to 0.12.x and even those version themselves), I have not started banning any connections based on this. I would expect that the majority of node owners aren't doing this either, therefore the left picture is the more likely outcome.

my mindset is to not idly sit on my hands hailing people as kings. but to test and check things out and know the risks.

devs should have more critical minds.. like the old
"punch holes in it to see if it breaks"
"hack it and fix the bugs until it cant be easily hacked"
"treat it as broken until you have kicked it a few times and it still stands up"

i see too many glory utopian dreamers, and not many critical thinkers.
i see too many people protecting the devs instead of protecting the network. even going as far as messing with their network connections to give glory to devs (like the jetcash example)

[Viscount]

almost 70% support SegWit and only 16% vote negatively. 

[franky1]

almost 70% support SegWit and only 16% vote negatively.  

/Satoshi:0.13.1/   1502 (26.84%)
/Satoshi:0.13.2/   1168 (20.87%)
/Satoshi:0.13.99/     119 (2%)

nodes: under 50%

try not to include old nodes pre october 2016.. they are not segwit..

pools: 24%

[Wind_FURY]

Segwit will not be activated in Bitcoin so the big blockers have nothing to be afraid of. One interesting development is in Litecoin. It might be a big possibility that Segwit will be activated there and soon they will have their own version of the Lightning Network. Can one now say that Litecoin is more advanced than Bitcoin if Segwit is activated and they have their LN operational? Will Bitcoin see the light and follow their example?

That would be utterly pathetic

I guess if Litecoin adopts SegWit (and LN soon thereafter), it will be hard for Bitcoin to follow its lead since that would show in the open that it has no panties how corrupt and backward Bitcoin itself is, after so many disputes, debates, and quarrels. On the other hand, it will be more interesting to see how these updates will eventually affect the adoption and price of Litecoin. If everything is okay with updating Litecoin to SW and LN, this can't possibly have a negative effect but how much it could boost the price remains to be seen, though. So we should just watch Litecoin closely as it reacts on the news linked to the actual implementation of these proposals

Utterly pathetic or not it is the direction of where Bitcoin is going. Litecoin will get there first and it will either be treat Litecoin like a testnet or the Bitcoin testnet just became Litecoin's testnet. It will very much depend on one's point of view. But in the end Bitcoin could lag behind.

[deisik]

Segwit will not be activated in Bitcoin so the big blockers have nothing to be afraid of. One interesting development is in Litecoin. It might be a big possibility that Segwit will be activated there and soon they will have their own version of the Lightning Network. Can one now say that Litecoin is more advanced than Bitcoin if Segwit is activated and they have their LN operational? Will Bitcoin see the light and follow their example?

That would be utterly pathetic

I guess if Litecoin adopts SegWit (and LN soon thereafter), it will be hard for Bitcoin to follow its lead since that would show in the open that it has no panties how corrupt and backward Bitcoin itself is, after so many disputes, debates, and quarrels. On the other hand, it will be more interesting to see how these updates will eventually affect the adoption and price of Litecoin. If everything is okay with updating Litecoin to SW and LN, this can't possibly have a negative effect but how much it could boost the price remains to be seen, though. So we should just watch Litecoin closely as it reacts on the news linked to the actual implementation of these proposals

Utterly pathetic or not it is the direction of where Bitcoin is going. Litecoin will get there first and it will either be treat Litecoin like a testnet or the Bitcoin testnet just became Litecoin's testnet. It will very much depend on one's point of view. But in the end Bitcoin could lag behind.

This is what you think

In fact, this is what I think myself since neither you nor me have vested interests in all this. But this is not how the other guys which are deeply involved in these affairs might look at such things. They have long ago lost their impartiality and now seem to be very jealous of these developments. Mark my words, when SW and LN get activated in Litecoin people start pointing a finger at Bitcoin. Personally, I'm interested in running an LN node (just don't have enough time to study it at the moment), but if the chances are that LN should get activated in Litecoin first, I will look into this coin

[gmaxwell]

I think that is overly exaggerated. If my node is currently connected to several old nodes, I don't expect that to change post-Segwit activation. However, I know that I may be wrong. I have not looked into it.

Connection behavior is the same pre and post segwit activation.  Having the network topology change all at once would be an unnecessary risk.

[Lauda]

i see too many glory utopian dreamers, and not many critical thinkers.

This has nothing to do with Segwit. The general mindset all around the globe is like that.

i see too many people protecting the devs instead of protecting the network. even going as far as messing with their network connections to give glory to devs (like the jetcash example)

Anyone can do whatever they want with their network connections.

I think that is overly exaggerated. If my node is currently connected to several old nodes, I don't expect that to change post-Segwit activation. However, I know that I may be wrong. I have not looked into it.

Connection behavior is the same pre and post segwit activation.  Having the network topology change all at once would be an unnecessary risk.

That's what I thought as well. It seems like franky's graphs are in case that everyone (?) besides the mining nodes bans old ones.

[Gimpeline]

Almost 70% support to SegWit.
Franky's conspiracy theories doesn't work.
We are doomed