F2Pool started signalling Segwit

[iamTom123]

I would like to believe that they are simply pragmatic Is the world really turning into a good one?

Here's another block (although it doesn't answer the question as to why they are signalling so many things; maybe they just support all of those):

Anyway, good news, I think. As F2Pool is a very strong pool, they alone can bring Segwit signalling near 50% - and even some Unlimited supporters (Roger Ver) have stated that they would support it once it achieved support by the majority.

We shall see whether Ver is a man of his word or not. It is clear that the supermajority of users, experts, and companies (economy) are in favor of Segwit and/or against BU.

Personally, I am more inclined towards SegWit than BU. And there is now a mounting consensus that it might really be SegWit that will take the prize for now though we don't know what will the future brings as this will not be the first that a problem can occur on Bitcoin as it continues to evolved and get into the mainstream. I am one of the many who are afraid of the BU scenario lol. Hope this thing can get resolved soon for the best interest of all stakeholders.

[-ck]

Now they've dropped the EXTBLK in their signature but still maintain bit 3 enabled with version 0x20000004. Interestingly they still have the OP_RETURN in their coinbase consistent with segwit.

In other words, it is no longer counting towards Segwit activation?

Yes that's correct, but I'm wondering why they left in the segwit compatible coinbase... here's hoping they're actually planning to signal it for real in the not too distant future.

[iamnotback]

While some of you waste your time trying to figure out what all the irrelevant noise of signaling on Bitcoin doesn't mean, the reality is something that will require re-orienting your thinking.

Bitcoin will never scale without Litecoin. No significant protocol changes will ever be made to Bitcoin. Bitcoiners need to get this nailed into their thick skulls. Read the following:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1663070.msg18424568#msg18424568

Bitcoin will achieve maximum value by enabling SegWit on Litecoin. There is no other option going forward. The above linked post explains why in detail.

Bitcoin was designed by Satoshi such that the vested interests would be that no one can change the protocol. No change is ever coming to Bitcoin. The sooner you realize this, the sooner we can get unstuck from the mud. Those of you who continue to facilitate this illusion of change coming to Bitcoin's protocol are obstacles in the way of progress.

Altcoins are good competitors to Bitcoin and I think it just needs it.

Incorrect. Most of the speculation value from altcoins ends up in BTC, not in the altcoins. Altcoins are complementary to BTC. The reason BTC percentage of market cap is diving lately is because Bitcoiners are trying to force protocol changes to Bitcoin, instead of doing it on Litecoin, and so no progress is being made at all. Stuck in the mud.

Bitcoiners need to re-orient their thinking. Read my prior post and click the link and read more.

[K128kevin2]

and even some Unlimited supporters (Roger Ver) have stated that they would support it once it achieved support by the majority.

Do you have a source for that?

[unamis76]

I see F2pool went from April's fool signaling to no signaling at all. Funny thing is, they're trolling themselves as much (or even more) than they're trolling us. They just did a disservice to everyone.

As F2Pool has signaling for many things maybe to please everyone, just check and BU reach 40,1% but SegWit 30.5% on https://coin.dance/blocks.

Don't use that biased website.

Is there an alternative for coin.dance?

[BrewMaster]

Is there an alternative for coin.dance?

many of the block explorers show similar stats (no charts in most of them) for example the screenshot posted by Lauda seems to be from the block explorer called Blocktrail (https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC)

signalling is just adding a string to the coinbase transaction or the block version. you can even get the block hex and see it yourself.

[-ck]

So here's the answer to the mystery F2pool version 3 soft bit signalling and EXTBLK signature: Extension blocks indeed as mentioned by others with a soft fork associated with it.

http://www.coindesk.com/purse-proposal-touts-extension-blocks-bitcoin-scaling-solution/

[Lauda]

So here's the answer to the mystery F2pool version 3 soft bit signalling and EXTBLK signature: Extension blocks indeed as mentioned by others with a soft fork associated with it.

http://www.coindesk.com/purse-proposal-touts-extension-blocks-bitcoin-scaling-solution/

Let's say they want to deploy some SF in 'secret'. The question that presents itself is, how dangerous can a miner activated soft fork be?

[-ck]

Let's say they want to deploy some SF in 'secret'. The question that presents itself is, how dangerous can a miner activated soft fork be?

Well that's an interesting question. Theoretically if they activate their soft fork rules and make their extblock blocks, the blocks should still appear to be valid to the rest of the network with some kind of non-standard transactions that are not understood by regular nodes? But will we be able to build on those blocks or not until there is another 'standard' block?

As it stands the code for extblocks is apparently public though and - funnily enough - quite complex... It's also my understanding that extblocks are easy to implement with segwit ironically. The article I referenced said that quite a few miners already support the proposal but who knows wtf that really means. It's almost like they just want a miner created option that is neither core nor BU.

[Lauda]

Let's say they want to deploy some SF in 'secret'. The question that presents itself is, how dangerous can a miner activated soft fork be?

Well that's an interesting question. Theoretically if they activate their soft fork rules and make their extblock blocks, the blocks should still appear to be valid to the rest of the network with some kind of non-standard transactions that are not understood by regular nodes? But will we be able to build on those blocks or not until there is another 'standard' block?

My question wasn't directed towards extension blocks in specific, but was rather more general. How dangerous could a *secretly* miner activated soft fork actually be?

As it stands the code for extblocks is apparently public though and - funnily enough - quite complex... It's also my understanding that extblocks are easy to implement with segwit ironically. The article I referenced said that quite a few miners already support the proposal but who knows wtf that really means. It's almost like they just want a miner created option that is neither core nor BU.

Here's an old post as to why Extension blocks aren't a good idea: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-January/013510.html

[-ck]

My question wasn't directed towards extension blocks in specific, but was rather more general. How dangerous could a *secretly* miner activated soft fork actually be?

I actually don't feel qualified to give a definitive answer on that. Not giving core time to act on anticipated changes to the network and dumping a 51+% attack on it (effectively) has got to be potentially very dangerous. On the other hand I'd be hard pressed to imagine sinister motives from miners who have an incentive for the network to keep working properly to knowingly harm the network. A coordinated control attempt on the network with their own future vision is possible though, but I doubt there would be universal agreement to keep such a change secret by all mining parties.

[Quickseller]

The miners can collectively decide to censor any particular described transaction that they wish, and can also orphan any block that contain said described transaction. To anyone that is not aware of this "softfork", it will appear that the miners simply have not chosen to confirm said described transactions, and that any of the blocks that contain said described transactions just so happened to get orphaned. Users of the network are implicitly trusting the miners as they have this ability. This is also why softforks in general are not a good idea.

[iamnotback]

It crossed 70% now!

About 1951 GH/s, or 70.4% of the network (352 out of the last 500 blocks).

The above is for the blocks in the past 21 hours, so it is slightly forward looking as compared to the 24 hour requirement.

The huge jump in price will be when the Bitcoiners realize that Bitcoin is never going to get scaling, thus they won't be able to transact any more on Bitcoin (will be too expensive) and thus Litecoin will become the transaction coin that everybody is using. This still hasn't sunk into their hard heads yet.

[Lauda]

Round 2?


I really can't trust the actions of the pool owner anymore. This may be another attempt at trolling.

[Quickseller]

Round 2?


I really can't trust the actions of the pool owner anymore. This may be another attempt at trolling.

If you follow his twitter, you will be able to reasonably conclude that he was extorted into signaling for SegWit.