Segwit on Bitcoin has Failed , BTC Core has Lost , The Miners have Won

[kiklo]

Segwit needs 95% to activate.

Current Numbers
https://coin.dance/blocks

Explicit Mining Pool Support by Proposal
SegWit                        24.6%
Bitcoin Unlimited          18.3%
8 MB Blocks                   7.5%

If the current Voters for Bitcoin Unlimited and 8 MB Blocks do not change their votes, (either alone is enough to block segwit)
Segwit will NEVER ATTAIN the 95% needed.

Segwit is DEAD!

Suggest BTC core start working on a blocksize increase solution ASAP, because no matter what else happens Segwit is Dead on Arrival. 


 

[1715239664]

1715239664

[1715239664]

1715239664

[1715239664]

1715239664

[1715239664]

1715239664

[calkob]

Do you realise that segwit has until Nov to activate ?  i think you are a little premature.   

[kiklo]

Do you realise that segwit has until Nov to activate ?  i think you are a little premature.   

And I think many of you can't do math.

8 MB Blocks                   7.5% =>   100%- 7.5% =  92.5%   SEGWIT FAIL
or
Bitcoin Unlimited          18.3% =>   100%-18.3% =  81.7%   SEGWIT FAIL

Combined                    25.8%  =>   100%-25.8% = 74.2%   SEGWIT FAIL


Segwit has failed, Game Over it will never reach 95%.


 

[Searing]

Do you realise that segwit has until Nov to activate ?  i think you are a little premature.   

And I think many of you can't do math.

8 MB Blocks                   7.5% =>   100%- 7.5% =  92.5%   SEGWIT FAIL
or
Bitcoin Unlimited          18.3% =>   100%-18.3% =  81.7%   SEGWIT FAIL

Combined                    25.8%  =>   100%-25.8% = 74.2%   SEGWIT FAIL


Segwit has failed, Game Over it will never reach 95%.


 

But Bitcoin Core does not care. They will run this out till November, no issue. They see BTC as a 'store of value' not a currency. So they really don't care
if the block size increases or not. Thus it is more of an issue to the miners. The bitcoin core people could care less as long as it acts as a store of value
and they keep control and the more the value of BTC goes up, the more entrenched they are that they are correct. Thus bitcoin core wins.
They have no real reason to do anything to increase block size, if they don't seem to care about mining
nor bitcoin being used as a currency. They are fine imho, just keeping it as a digital gold store of value and as such, keep the power to themselves.

Set/Win

[kiklo]

But Bitcoin Core does not care. They will run this out till November, no issue. They see BTC as a 'store of value' not a currency. So they really don't care
if the block size increases or not. Thus it is more of an issue to the miners. The bitcoin core people could care less as long as it acts as a store of value
and they keep control and the more the value of BTC goes up, the more entrenched they are that they are correct. Thus bitcoin core wins.
They have no real reason to do anything to increase block size, if they don't seem to care about mining
nor bitcoin being used as a currency. They are fine imho, just keeping it as a digital gold store of value and as such, keep the power to themselves.

Set/Win

Segwit & LN are the Power Grap, if that fails then BTC Core fails.
Core refuses to update, there is nothing stopping the miners from updating BTC code and releasing it and taking future development away from the core team completely. 


 

[Searing]

But Bitcoin Core does not care. They will run this out till November, no issue. They see BTC as a 'store of value' not a currency. So they really don't care
if the block size increases or not. Thus it is more of an issue to the miners. The bitcoin core people could care less as long as it acts as a store of value
and they keep control and the more the value of BTC goes up, the more entrenched they are that they are correct. Thus bitcoin core wins.
They have no real reason to do anything to increase block size, if they don't seem to care about mining
nor bitcoin being used as a currency. They are fine imho, just keeping it as a digital gold store of value and as such, keep the power to themselves.

Set/Win

Segwit & LN are the Power Grap, if that fails then BTC Core fails.
Core refuses to update, there is nothing stopping the miners from updating BTC code and releasing it and taking future development away from the core team completely. 


 

Yeah but I just see stalemate in the other direction with bitcoin core digging their heels in. So no way forward for either camp without comprise. Thus again imho bitcoin core
wins because they are perfectly happy with BTC price going up and current block size without the possibility of a hard fork.

Again if BTC continues to go up in a speculative manner and act as a store of value. From bitcoin core's point of view, anything that takes power away from China miners
is a good thing. They plan to just outlast mining imho. In 2018 80% of all coin will have been mined. Thus, if adoption happens and price is 2k plus....no one will be doing
NEW mining farms imho......thus miners will be cut off at the knees. AT that point, imho. if a combo of adoption and price pumps....better off just buying coin. Those in
mining can stick it out, but at that point more power will shift to bitcoin core. Again, may not work. But what I see, if I was bitcoin core. Set/Game/Match.

Seems WAY TO DELIBERATE NOT to compromise on bitcoin cores part. They have to have some angle they are working. (or think they do) Thus my guess from watching
this cluster from the bleachers.


 

[btcash]

Roger Ver and ViaBTC have signalled that they will support segwit if the majority does. They don't want to be the hold up. So all it takes are F2Pool and Antpool. F2Pool already said that they will support it but not any time soon.

BTW: No one wins if segwit fails.

Core refuses to update, there is nothing stopping the miners from updating BTC code and releasing it and taking future development away from the core team completely.

That is an illusion. Chinese miners (besides BTCC) haven't invested any resources in the general development of bitcoin. I highly doubt that this will change. Who is going to take over? BU only has a handful of programmers that support it. Most supporters are reddit users, Chinese miners and investors.

[kiklo]

Yeah but I just see stalemate in the other direction with bitcoin core digging their heels in. So no way forward for either camp without comprise. Thus again imho bitcoin core
wins because they are perfectly happy with BTC price going up and current block size without the possibility of a hard fork.

Again if BTC continues to go up in a speculative manner and act as a store of value. From bitcoin core's point of view, anything that takes power away from China miners
is a good thing. They plan to just outlast mining imho. In 2018 80% of all coin will have been mined. Thus, if adoption happens and price is 2k plus....no one will be doing
NEW mining farms imho......thus miners will be cut off at the knees. AT that point, imho. if a combo of adoption and price pumps....better off just buying coin. Those in
mining can stick it out, but at that point more power will shift to bitcoin core. Again, may not work. But what I see, if I was bitcoin core. Set/Game/Match.

Seems WAY TO DELIBERATE NOT to compromise on bitcoin cores part. They have to have some angle they are working. (or think they do) Thus my guess from watching
this cluster from the bleachers.

Hardly a Stalemate,
Core is not doing their jobs, all the miners have to do is fund a New Dev Team that actually want to see BTC improve.
Problem Solved.  


 

[kiklo]

Roger Ver and ViaBTC have signalled that they will support segwit if the majority does. They don't want to be the hold up. So all it takes are F2Pool and Antpool. F2Pool already said that they will support it but not any time soon.

BTW: No one wins if segwit fails.

See your BTW is just bullshit, the miners win if segwit fails.

Segwit & LN will directly eat into their profits from transaction fees.
LN is a competing service to the miners.

1 Pool with 6% alone could block segwit, it will never reach 95%.

 

FYI:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1788448.msg17834376#msg17834376

[Searing]

Yeah but I just see stalemate in the other direction with bitcoin core digging their heels in. So no way forward for either camp without comprise. Thus again imho bitcoin core
wins because they are perfectly happy with BTC price going up and current block size without the possibility of a hard fork.

Again if BTC continues to go up in a speculative manner and act as a store of value. From bitcoin core's point of view, anything that takes power away from China miners
is a good thing. They plan to just outlast mining imho. In 2018 80% of all coin will have been mined. Thus, if adoption happens and price is 2k plus....no one will be doing
NEW mining farms imho......thus miners will be cut off at the knees. AT that point, imho. if a combo of adoption and price pumps....better off just buying coin. Those in
mining can stick it out, but at that point more power will shift to bitcoin core. Again, may not work. But what I see, if I was bitcoin core. Set/Game/Match.

Seems WAY TO DELIBERATE NOT to compromise on bitcoin cores part. They have to have some angle they are working. (or think they do) Thus my guess from watching
this cluster from the bleachers.

Hardly a Stalemate,
Core is not doing their jobs, all the miners have to do is fund a New Dev Team that actually want to see BTC improve.
Problem Solved.  


 

I don't see it happening....bitcoin core would just be in the same position as miners are now....have enough of a % to stop adoption in the other direction.

My fear is a 'perfect stalemate' as an open source project theme. HOPE I am wrong. But seems like a trend.

Again, such a stalemate the other way around would be just fine with bitcoin core imho. IF as I suspect that is their 'long game' to stay in control.

Not saying I like it. Just saying, from bitcoin cores actions seems to be true. Remember all they had to do was PROMISE looking into a hard fork AFTER

segregated witness was approved. They even backed out of that somewhat cloudy promise.

Again, I hope you are completely correct. But damn, this has been dragging on for 2 frigging years now. Starting to get the mind set of a WWI Trench soldier. ie no hope

[NeuroticFish]

Segwit is DEAD!

You are right, with current settings about consensus, SegWit has (unfortunately?) no chance to come to life.
I feel like the devs should have somehow enforced this (with the risk of ETH fiasco, I know).

You talk about blocksize increase and you are right. Maybe they do. There are quite a couple of options they have and I hope that they will implement the best one, even if it may take some time.
Yesterday I had to make a payment where the time factor was important and.. uh oh, the tx fee was nearly 3$ (!). I didn't like that and I understand now much better why people want something to be done fast.

I still have the feeling that somebody spams the network deliberately... 

[Wendigo]

I can feel your pain mate. That's the reason I am forced to move some of my coins to other payment processors where I can eat the initial depositing fees but I don't have to pay any fees for purchasing things onward. I have even resorted to using gambling wallets for sending smaller frequent tx because they are covering the fees. Yesterday I had to pay $1 for 90$ moved out of my normal Bitcoin wallet. And this is the suggested median fee. Wtf?

[jbreher]

with current settings about consensus, SegWit has (unfortunately?) no chance to come to life.
I feel like the devs should have somehow enforced this

Perhaps Blockstream never wanted SegWit adoption. That 95% activation level seems to have been designed to fail from the get-go.

[franky1]

with current settings about consensus, SegWit has (unfortunately?) no chance to come to life.
I feel like the devs should have somehow enforced this

Perhaps Blockstream never wanted SegWit adoption. That 95% activation level seems to have been designed to fail from the get-go.

blockstream want it. they even let bip9 actively ignore opposing pools to reach 95% if they choose.

read between the lines of what the code is actually doing

BIP9 changed to a new quorum sensing approach that is MUCH less vulnerable to false triggering, so 95% under it is more like 99.9% under the old approach.  But we saw no reason to lower the criteria:  basically when it activates the 95% will have to be willing to potentially orphan the blocks of the 5% that remain if they happen to mine invalid blocks.   If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90%  (e.g. lets just imagine some altcoin publicly raised money to block an important improvement to Bitcoin) 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.

and when active. segwit pools will still actively ignore non-segwit pools
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/28/segwit-costs/

Miners could simply use software that does not recognise segwit rules (such as earlier versions of Bitcoin Core) to mine blocks on top of a chain that has activated segwit. This would be a hard-fork as far as segwit-aware software is concerned, and those blocks would consequently be ignored by Bitcoin users using segwit-aware validating nodes. If there are sufficiently many users using segwit nodes, such a hard-fork would be no more effective than introducing a new alt coin.

these are straight from the horses mouth about defending and enforcing segwit.. not native nodes, not bitcoin consensus.

where blockstream failed is by not letting nodes have consensus first, to give pools confidence that the nodes can work with the pools.
instead blockstream dont care about native nodes as they have already set up the gatekeeper nodes (fibre ring network) to accept segwit pools and filter data down.

[franky1]

95% is impossible in Bitcoin, the community is far too combative, something is definitely up. Any future changes with a 95% goal will never make it either.

it can work. if what is offered to nodes is what node users really want.. rather than just a temporary gesture.

smart node users know the only way to see segwit benefits is to wait for activation and then download yet another implementation weeks after activation. and then move funds over to segwit keys (EG exchanges need to change all their customers deposit addresses and re-audit the holdings(headache))

smart node users know that malicious users wont use segwit keys, so the malicious users can still quadratic spam and malleate transactions after activation simply by not moving to segwit key types

smart pools wont vote unless there was node consensus to validate FULLY, so even if nodes dont get official vote privelidge, they should have got official vote privileges.
but again what the nodes would be given should be more than just a temporary/empty gesture.

thats where blockstream failed.. not realising the importance of nodes task in the network.
not realising that spammers will just use native keytypes and keep spamming

[Viscount]

Another one pool updated it's software to support Segwit. Others are coming soon... 

[shinratensei_]

Another one pool updated it's software to support Segwit. Others are coming soon... 

Slush pool has divided his poll into the both of SegWit and BU. With 95% of the target and that's really impossible. Although the other will be coming soon to supporting SegWit.

[ImHash]

What miners need to do is to take a leap of faith towards one solution be it segwit or BU and I hope they all realize that whether BU or Core it will still be open source and they can update to whatever software majority is using, bitcoin will be still bitcoin and nothing changes for end users other than either paying higher fees or lower fees, think about it would you like to pay more fees? if yes then don't support BU.

[Risackwpsp]

That be great see SW is dead.

[Kakmakr]

with current settings about consensus, SegWit has (unfortunately?) no chance to come to life.
I feel like the devs should have somehow enforced this

Perhaps Blockstream never wanted SegWit adoption. That 95% activation level seems to have been designed to fail from the get-go.

Why would they spend all that money and time on this, if they intended this to fail? Nobody willingly enter into a work contract to work on a project that are aimed at failure. I think they underestimated the support they had, just like Gavin & Hearn did with Bitcoin XT.

The backdoor is always there for them to implement it with other technologies on other coins or Blockchain based technologies.