mezzomix
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1253
|
 |
March 07, 2017, 08:28:50 AM |
|
Segwit compatible nodes are 51% of the network.
More than 50% of the nodes can use segwit transactions. Nearly 100% of the nodes are segwit compatible. Sorry, "the game" is already lost ...
No. There is no need to allow 3-4 hostile pool owners to block all further development of the system. As a first step the nodes could no longer relay blocks of the hostile pool owners. In the second step it is possible to head for an user activated soft fork. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This isn't the kind of software where we can leave so many unresolved bugs that we need a tracker for them." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3074
|
|
March 07, 2017, 08:31:57 AM |
|
As a first step the nodes could no longer relay blocks of the hostile pool owners. Let's do it. Antminer can get bricked IMO |
Vires in numeris
|
|
|
mezzomix
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1253
|
|
March 07, 2017, 08:53:15 AM |
|
As a first step the nodes could no longer relay blocks of the hostile pool owners. Let's do it. Antminer can get bricked IMO It's not about a certain person/pool. The criteria for relaying or not relaying a new blocks should be the BIP9 support flag. |
|
|
|
|
|
classicsucks
|
|
March 08, 2017, 07:36:26 AM |
|
No. There is no need to allow 3-4 hostile pool owners to block all further development of the system. As a first step the nodes could no longer relay blocks of the hostile pool owners. In the second step it is possible to head for an user activated soft fork. You're treading into very dangerous and contentious territory here... Trying to do a soft fork behind the miners' backs is sure to cause an uproar. I mean, if you're worried about a hard fork, this would be hundreds of times worse. If core goes through with this user-driven soft fork, I think it will be the final end of their credibility, and thus they will be done setting the roadmap for bitcoin. Gavin and Garzik would have to pick up where they left off, and we'd all be registering at a new forum. If this gets bad enough, at some point Satoshi might even come back and bitch-slap the shit out of you fools... |
|
|
|
|
mezzomix
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1253
|
|
March 08, 2017, 09:26:54 AM |
|
If core goes through with this user-driven soft fork, I think it will be the final end of their credibility, ...
Not if a change is user-driven. |
|
|
|
|
DooMAD
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 3106
Leave no FUD unchallenged
|
|
March 08, 2017, 12:45:09 PM |
|
If core goes through with this user-driven soft fork, I think it will be the final end of their credibility
Just to pick up on a technicality, where is the source that confirms this UASF was indeed Core's idea? As far as I could see in the thread, it was just some community members on this forum (albeit prominent ones like the admins). To the best of my knowledge, no developers have commented on it yet, unless they're posting under a username I wasn't aware is one of the devs. |
.
.HUGE. | | | | | | █▀▀▀▀
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█▄▄▄▄ | ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.
CASINO & SPORTSBOOK
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ | ▀▀▀▀█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
▄▄▄▄█ | | |
|
|
|
|
classicsucks
|
|
March 08, 2017, 06:56:24 PM |
|
If core goes through with this user-driven soft fork, I think it will be the final end of their credibility
Just to pick up on a technicality, where is the source that confirms this UASF was indeed Core's idea? As far as I could see in the thread, it was just some community members on this forum (albeit prominent ones like the admins). To the best of my knowledge, no developers have commented on it yet, unless they're posting under a username I wasn't aware is one of the devs. I didn't say that it's Core's idea. It was posted from a brand new account with no post history, so obviously that person seeks to remain somewhat anonymous. Theymos posted a response fairly quickly. that he believes UASF is a good idea. I'm not going to draw any conclusions, but this looks fishy to me. |
|
|
|
|
DooMAD
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 3106
Leave no FUD unchallenged
|
|
March 08, 2017, 07:39:27 PM |
|
If core goes through with this user-driven soft fork, I think it will be the final end of their credibility
Just to pick up on a technicality, where is the source that confirms this UASF was indeed Core's idea? As far as I could see in the thread, it was just some community members on this forum (albeit prominent ones like the admins). To the best of my knowledge, no developers have commented on it yet, unless they're posting under a username I wasn't aware is one of the devs. I didn't say that it's Core's idea. It was posted from a brand new account with no post history, so obviously that person seeks to remain somewhat anonymous. Theymos posted a response fairly quickly. that he believes UASF is a good idea. I'm not going to draw any conclusions, but this looks fishy to me. Shaolinfry appears to be a Litecoin dev, so that's innocuous enough: https://github.com/shaolinfry/litecoinIt's just the way you phrased it, as if Core had any role to play at all in the decision. Their credibility isn't on the line if they aren't involved. Core themselves seem to be either impartial or undecided on the whole idea. No one in Core has made any response at all to it that I can see, so they aren't "going through with" anything. This is all users and node operators looking to play hardball to break the deadlock. |
.
.HUGE. | | | | | | █▀▀▀▀
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█▄▄▄▄ | ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.
CASINO & SPORTSBOOK
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ | ▀▀▀▀█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
▄▄▄▄█ | | |
|
|
|
|
classicsucks
|
|
March 09, 2017, 07:16:03 AM |
|
I didn't say that it's Core's idea. It was posted from a brand new account with no post history, so obviously that person seeks to remain somewhat anonymous. Theymos posted a response fairly quickly. that he believes UASF is a good idea.
I'm not going to draw any conclusions, but this looks fishy to me.
Shaolinfry appears to be a Litecoin dev, so that's innocuous enough: https://github.com/shaolinfry/litecoinIt's just the way you phrased it, as if Core had any role to play at all in the decision. Their credibility isn't on the line if they aren't involved. Core themselves seem to be either impartial or undecided on the whole idea. No one in Core has made any response at all to it that I can see, so they aren't "going through with" anything. This is all users and node operators looking to play hardball to break the deadlock. OK, that seems comforting. Wouldn't a litecoin dev running a github fork have an account on bitcointalk though? Also, who's to say that is the same person? We haven't heard from Core so we don't know their stance. If there is any forward movement on this, I don't think "users and node operators" will be the people who will write the code lol. I think it's an understatement that this one of the most controversial proposals in the past several years. |
|
|
|
|
|
AliceWonderMiscreations
|
|
March 09, 2017, 07:38:45 AM |
|
Honestly I think core is being smart not to say anything. There is very little they could say that wouldn't be taken the wrong way and used as fuel.
I don't believe they are willing to try this.
|
I hereby reserve the right to sometimes be wrong
|
|
|
mezzomix
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1253
|
|
March 09, 2017, 09:45:07 AM |
|
It's always good to know details about a person with technical proposals. Much easier to throw mud. Plus you can start discussing the person instead of the proposal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
classicsucks
|
|
March 09, 2017, 01:18:57 PM |
|
It's always good to know details about a person with technical proposals. Much easier to throw mud. Plus you can start discussing the person instead of the proposal.
The proposal has essentially no redeeming qualities, no need to throw mud. it's contentious and ethically dubious It's technically incompetent and poorly thought out it's downright dangerous to bitcoin as we know it The fact that some anon-troll posted it is just icing on the cake. |
|
|
|
|
|
