The only answer against Miners Mafia is UASF

[unamis76]

The usual question: are these nodes actually supporting UASF or are they... "fake" nodes again?

I support the reasoning behind UASF, but it could be a dangerous experiment if the community is still divided.

I don't think that the community is divided, all community is unanimous in supporting SegWit. I'd not call neither one corrupt chinese with his paid shills the part of the community, nor altcoiner Roger ver.
If we just disregard them, there's no consequence, even if they create their altcoin BTU, noone will support centralized rogercoin with president and secretary.

The community is divided. One just has to spend 5 minutes here to understand that. Many may not like or side with "corrupt chinese" and "altcoiner Roger ver", however they are part of the community and make it move one way or another (fortunately or unfortunately).

I have to admit that this is the first time I'm seeing the 'uacomment' option. I was not aware of it's existence although I have long ago noticed the discrepancies in the client descriptions. That being said, I think that this is a very good idea to show support. I highly recommend spreading the exact command (as found in the main thread) along the main communication channels:

uacomment=UASF-SegWit-BIP148

I shall restart all my clients with this flag soon.

First time I'm seeing this option too, I'll be using it from now on...

There is already 1 coin which has already activated SegWit.

Which coin? Not really paying attention to alts...

[1714507691]

1714507691

[1714507691]

1714507691

[1714507691]

1714507691

[Yakamoto]

I'm glad to see that there's a new (or at least something I haven't heard about) alternative to the base Segwit and BU. This is actually looking like something that might prove itself to be useful, and I think that it is possible for the blocksize debate to be solved with a piece of software that is actually pretty good and can benefit everyone who's involved, from the community to the miners, instead of letting just the miners run away with a ton of power and fees for the next long time to come.

I want to look into this more, but it is seeming to be the alternative I expressed support for.

[unamis76]

I'm glad to see that there's a new (or at least something I haven't heard about) alternative to the base Segwit and BU. This is actually looking like something that might prove itself to be useful, and I think that it is possible for the blocksize debate to be solved with a piece of software that is actually pretty good and can benefit everyone who's involved, from the community to the miners, instead of letting just the miners run away with a ton of power and fees for the next long time to come.

I want to look into this more, but it is seeming to be the alternative I expressed support for.

Not sure I understand your post. UASF just enforces SegWit, it's not a different proposal.

[classicsucks]

I added the UASF-SegWit-BIP148 user agent string to my node.

Of course, I don't support this ridiculous UASF proposal or Segwit, and neither does my node. It could never work!

[unamis76]

I added the UASF-SegWit-BIP148 user agent string to my node.

Of course, I don't support this ridiculous UASF proposal or Segwit, and neither does my node. It could never work!

This is why we unfortunately can't rely on such statistics like the ones in the first post.

[Carlton Banks]

I added the UASF-SegWit-BIP148 user agent string to my node.

Of course, I don't support this ridiculous UASF proposal or Segwit, and neither does my node. It could never work!

I don't get it. Why are you doing it, then

[jonald_fyookball]

I'm glad to see that there's a new (or at least something I haven't heard about) alternative to the base Segwit and BU. This is actually looking like something that might prove itself to be useful, and I think that it is possible for the blocksize debate to be solved with a piece of software that is actually pretty good and can benefit everyone who's involved, from the community to the miners, instead of letting just the miners run away with a ton of power and fees for the next long time to come.

I want to look into this more, but it is seeming to be the alternative I expressed support for.

Not sure I understand your post. UASF just enforces SegWit, it's not a different proposal.

Maybe he means extension blocks / bcoin

[The One]

I added the UASF-SegWit-BIP148 user agent string to my node.

Of course, I don't support this ridiculous UASF proposal or Segwit, and neither does my node. It could never work!

I don't get it. Why are you doing it, then

  Don't ask... don't ask...

[chek2fire]

[wck]

Shows a lack of understanding about how Bitcoin Unlimited would work.   I don't understand these underhanded dirty attacks.

With Bitcoin Unlimited larger blocks could be produced but there is a tradeoff as too large of blocks probably would be orphaned.    The blocksize would settle around the sweat spot of the number of transactions and the transaction fees producing the maximum revenue.   Transactions not including transaction fees would probably not be any better off than they are today.   

It appears the SegWit changes would allow more transactions in the current 1MB block, but it isn't as clear to understand.   Later small transactions would be pushed to the yet to be built lightening network.   It is a fundamental change.   The developers also gain tools for making future changes.

Frankly I'm not very excited by either proposal.   It will be interesting to see how it works out with LTC.   

[franky1]

hi im check2fire. i have read no code,
i do not care about bitcoins ethos, only blockstreams ethos
but i do love the reddit scripts of calling anything not blockstream sanctioned an altcoin.
even if the diverse implementation runs on the mainnet
even if the diverse implementation helps keep bitcoin decentralised
even if the diverse implementation refuses to split off and will only activate with community consensus. i will call anything not gmaxwell approved an altcoin.
purely because i love brown nosing maxwell
when gmaxwell moves on to other projects like hyperledger i will follow him like a obsessed stalker because he is my king

FTFY

[wck]

hi im check2fire. i have read no code,
i do not care about bitcoins ethos, only blockstreams ethos
but i do love the reddit scripts of calling anything not blockstream sanctioned an altcoin.
even if the diverse implementation runs on the mainnet
even if the diverse implementation helps keep bitcoin decentralised
even if the diverse implementation refuses to split off and will only activate with community consensus. i will call anything not gmaxwell approved an altcoin.
purely because i love brown nosing maxwell
when gmaxwell moves on to other projects like hyperledger i will follow him like a obsessed stalker because he is my king

FTFY

Oh, that explains a lot ...

[franky1]

as for chek2fire's image of the trolley growing double the size in half an hour.

the realisty is much more like

nodes set consensus.h at 8mb (calculated as network safe for at the moment)
nodes set policy.h at thier own personal preference amounts BELOW consensus.h

nodes publish their preference in the user agent

...
pools see all the lower preference limits and determine a safe majority of preference.. EG lets say it was 75%-95% say 2mb is ok

pools then make a block that is 1.000250mb and dip thier toe in the water testing the orphan risks or other issues, much like detecting if there was a 2013 leveldb bug when surpassing 500k limit even with a 1mb hard limit
and then progressively grow in small increments which they deem safe, up to the majority PREFERENCE of ~2mb
where by the minority nodes that had 8mb consensus but under 2mb policy preference. would be alerted that their policy preference is going to get dynamically altered up to 2mb

all of which are still blocks well under the main consensus limit of 8mb.
meaning nodes can cope and the blocks dont just go "gigabytes by midnight"

[wck]

Getting back on topic it seems like UASF is just a backdoor way to try and force SegWit.    Seriously if SegWit can't stand on its own then there is a problem.  

This statement is nonsense. UASF is a decent proposal; definitely not a backdoor. SW has near unanimous developer approval, supermajority of users and the economy approval; AntPool is holding the network hostage due to ASICBoost.

AsicBoost is just an improved mining technique, it isn't about blocksize.   

The developer community is divided and no where near unanimous.  If what you claimed was true there wouldn't be so many competing Bitcoin forks.   Even the Bitcoin Core isn't unanimous if you listen to the devs that were kicked out.   

Again I stand by my claim, UASF seems only to function to try and force SegWit.    It is just more confusion being thrown out there.   

Antpool is holding out for a blocksize increase via a hard fork.   At least that is what they have stated.   

[wck]

as for chek2fire's image of the trolley growing double the size in half an hour.

the realisty is much more like

nodes set consensus.h at 8mb (calculated as network safe for at the moment)
nodes set policy.h at thier own personal preference amounts BELOW consensus.h

nodes publish their preference in the user agent

...
pools see all the lower preference limits and determine a safe majority of preference.. EG lets say it was 75%-95% say 2mb is ok

pools then make a block that is 1.000250mb and dip thier toe in the water testing the orphan risks or other issues, much like detecting if there was a 2013 leveldb bug when surpassing 500k limit even with a 1mb hard limit
and then progressively grow in small increments which they deem safe, up to the majority PREFERENCE of ~2mb
where by the minority nodes that had 8mb consensus but under 2mb policy preference. would be alerted that their policy preference is going to get dynamically altered up to 2mb

all of which are still blocks well under the main consensus limit of 8mb.
meaning nodes can cope and the blocks dont just go "gigabytes by midnight"

That is close to what I understood.

[aarturka]

I added the UASF-SegWit-BIP148 user agent string to my node.

Of course, I don't support this ridiculous UASF proposal or Segwit, and neither does my node. It could never work!

This is why we unfortunately can't rely on such statistics like the ones in the first post.

because of one moron? I don't trust anything that says btu shills, never saw 1 trustworthy post from them

[wck]

I added the UASF-SegWit-BIP148 user agent string to my node.

Of course, I don't support this ridiculous UASF proposal or Segwit, and neither does my node. It could never work!

This is why we unfortunately can't rely on such statistics like the ones in the first post.

because of one moron? I don't trust anything that says btu shills, never saw 1 trustworthy post from them

That attitude shows my main objection to SegWit.   I see this a lot from SegWit supporters.   I don't get it.

SegWit and BU are just two possible solutions.   It shouldn't be the cult of SegWit.   

[d5000]

The reason those high profile members support BU is very simple - their money lay Not in bitcoins now, but in some altcoins like Eth, dash etc. Even Buterin (guy with some programming skills) mumbles something against Segwit and LN, he understands what it'd mean for his alt.
Consequently they don't want any good for Bitcoin, because if Bitcoin green all forks are red.

A very balanced view, full of knowledge and love. Genius!

Don't you want to relax a bit? It feels better. Have some beer, some sex.

Apart from that, every time when Bitcoin went down in price altcoins soon followed. So that's not an argument.

And: Let's have UASF. But let's try to bring more people on board. At least, F2Pool.

[Quickseller]

And: Let's have UASF. But let's try to bring more people on board. At least, F2Pool.

The founder of f2pool recently tweeted something that effectively said that he is not going to support SegWit. This was not long after Greg Maxwell made unfounded claims that Bitmain's miners were reverse engineered by himself, and that Bitmain was actively engaging in using ASICBOOST, and that this is why they are against SegWit.

[Warg]

And: Let's have UASF. But let's try to bring more people on board. At least, F2Pool.

The founder of f2pool recently tweeted something that effectively said that he is not going to support SegWit. This was not long after Greg Maxwell made unfounded claims that Bitmain's miners were reverse engineered by himself, and that Bitmain was actively engaging in using ASICBOOST, and that this is why they are against SegWit.

Can you provide a link, very interesting...