The only answer against Miners Mafia is UASF

[Lauda]

i would rather see a split network than one that buckled to UASF.  At least then I'd own both coins and we could see what the market really wants over time.

UASF is the market deciding that it wants to upgrade.

If segwit is forced, i'll still hold some bitcoin but i'll slowly sell it off for ethers or whatever is the main competitor.

If BU is forced, you are all settled. If Segwit is forced, you are preaching doomsday. I wonder why the implanted bias exists.

You are comparing apples with pears. The two solutions don't have to be mutually exclusive, and could be used complimentary. What is the best technical method of implementing these solutions?

No. I'm comparing healthy apples to rotten ones. You need a soft fork + hard fork or a hard fork that incorporates both at the same time. This is the project that you're looking for: https://bitcoinec.info/

[1713561630]

1713561630

[1713561630]

1713561630

[AngryDwarf]

You are comparing apples with pears. The two solutions don't have to be mutually exclusive, and could be used complimentary. What is the best technical method of implementing these solutions?

No. I'm comparing healthy apples to rotten ones. You need a soft fork + hard fork or a hard fork that incorporates both at the same time. This is the project that you're looking for: https://bitcoinec.info/

Do you not think segwit could be a better implementation as a hard fork? Perhaps it could even learn some lessons from classic's flextrans features. And BU's implementation of EC could be considered over complicated, and a better KISS solution could be used.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1864477.msg18541674#msg18541674

[X7]

"Miner Mafia"?  please.

Bitcoin was always a miner vote system, if you read and understand
Satoshi's whitepaper, but somehow the miners
(70% of them) not signaling for Core's roadmap
is a now a mafia. right...

Bitmain would support Segwit WITH a HF block increase,
but Core will not compromise.  They would rather
not have segwit than increase the blocksize.
They are the obstructionists.

What's it like to spend all of your time with some imaginary grudge against "Core" - do you even know what core is?

[Killerpotleaf]

soft fork + hard fork or a hard fork that incorporates both at the same time. This is the project that you're looking for: https://bitcoinec.info/

this is almost perfect. almost...
its needs to revert all of segwit's "blockweight" aspects, and let EC determine the blocksize exclusively.
however their reasoning for letting segwit in AS IS, is a pretty Fing good reason...
I like this project.

[jonald_fyookball]

"Miner Mafia"?  please.

Bitcoin was always a miner vote system, if you read and understand
Satoshi's whitepaper, but somehow the miners
(70% of them) not signaling for Core's roadmap
is a now a mafia. right...

Bitmain would support Segwit WITH a HF block increase,
but Core will not compromise.  They would rather
not have segwit than increase the blocksize.
They are the obstructionists.

What's it like to spend all of your time with some imaginary grudge against "Core" - do you even know what core is?

I spend far too much time on this forum.

I can assure you my grudge is real.

Yes.

[Killerpotleaf]

You are comparing apples with pears. The two solutions don't have to be mutually exclusive, and could be used complimentary. What is the best technical method of implementing these solutions?

No. I'm comparing healthy apples to rotten ones. You need a soft fork + hard fork or a hard fork that incorporates both at the same time. This is the project that you're looking for: https://bitcoinec.info/

Do you not think segwit could be a better implementation as a hard fork? Perhaps it could even learn some lessons from classic's flextrans features. And BU's implementation of EC could be considered over complicated, and a better KISS solution could be used.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1864477.msg18541674#msg18541674

poeple think EC is complicated, because the crazy scenarios in which EC could be leveraged to attack the network, are complicated as hell.
EC is itself is quite simple...

[Killerpotleaf]

do you even know what core is?

core is 2 things.

1) master of bitcoin
2) slave of blockstream

 

[Carlton Banks]

i would rather see a split network than one that buckled to UASF.  At least then I'd own both coins and we could see what the market really wants over time.

UASF is the market deciding that it wants to upgrade.

Jonald: "We the market, should choose BU"

We the Market: "Uhhhh, no, let's use the same power of choice to user activate Segwit instead"

Jonald: "Bu... bu... bu.... bu.... bu..... but that's buckling! Your choice is called buckling, when I want you to choose something, it's called choosing"


Take the hint Jonald, fuck off

[franky1]

UASF is the market deciding that it wants to upgrade.

UASF is just any random node throwing a comment into the useragent but still waiting for weeks after 'activation' to actually get an implementation that does anything more than the tier network.

where as using the implementations that have dynamics actually start allowing blocks over1mb to be built without needing to be spoonfed yet another release download.
where everyone thats part of the network are all on the same level playing field of a peer network, not tier network

(understand the difference between peer and tier)
 learn the consequences of the tier network, the dilution of full nodes that are not equally syncable to each other, where the downstream cesspit of prunned, stripped, nodes that cant sync and become RELIANT on upstream nodes.
think about it (using the bitcoin network hat, not the blockstream defender hat)

peer networks is where people dont need to move funds to new keypairs and everyone can benefit from real extra space even using native keys and everyone is equal full node.

[jonald_fyookball]

Franky,  I wonder if you're worrying about the wrong thing.  Either segwit is going to be used fully
by the network or its not.

I'm much more interested about tier network implications for the LN and how we can
create decentralized routing.

[franky1]

Franky,  I wonder if you're worrying about the wrong thing.  Either segwit is going to be used fully
by the network or its not.

sgwit is not a yes or no. the activation is meaningless in relation to the "fixes"
the activation just changes who's ontop as a seeder(upstream filter) and who's a leacher(downstream cesspit, not full node) while actually opening up more attack vectors.

the end user 'benefit' / functionality gesture of segwit is about the keypair utility, but even this does not 'fix' things at a whole network level. it only affects those who voluntarily disarm themselves
if you think that the 46m outputs of native keys will all happily be segwit outputs magically without causing issues .. then please run some scenarios

I'm much more interested about tier network implications for the LN and how we can
create decentralized routing.

segwit is not really about LN. (its just 'sold' as needed as one of many last ditch plea's to get their way)
anyone at any time can set up a multisig and then have many ways to communicate to another person to agree on who owes who what

ive been doing it for a couple years. even escrows have been doing it for a couple years.

my fear of LN is more about who controls the DNS seed as i can see a few attack vectors/control issues with it.
my fear of LN is more about who controls hubs and how blackmail and CSV(real world chargeback) as i can see a few attack vectors/control issues with it.

yes LN has a place in the bitcoin eco system as a voluntary side service for the niche users that need it (day traders/gamblers/faucets) but should not be treated as the end goal of bitcoin solutions because even LN has limits

[jonald_fyookball]

my fear of LN is more about who controls the DNS seed as i can see a few attack vectors/control issues with it.
my fear of LN is more about who controls hubs and how blackmail and CSV(real world chargeback) as i can see a few attack vectors/control issues with it.
 

What makes you think there's only one 'DNS seed'.  Anyone can theoretically create a routing system and there could easily be many ways to route.

[Lauda]

Do you not think segwit could be a better implementation as a hard fork? Perhaps it could even learn some lessons from classic's flextrans features. And BU's implementation of EC could be considered over complicated, and a better KISS solution could be used.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1864477.msg18541674#msg18541674

A HF doesn't make Segwit more than trivially simpler than it already is. EC is actually the bigger problem when it comes to KISS. Flextrans is garbage FYI, just an attempted copycat of Segwit which was riddled with tons of bugs.

UASF is just any random node throwing a comment into the useragent but still waiting for weeks after 'activation' to actually get an implementation that does anything more than the tier network.

Wrong. You don't even understand it, yet you are attempting to spread "knowledge" to others.

where as using the implementations that have dynamics actually start allowing blocks over1mb to be built without needing to be spoonfed yet another release download.
where everyone thats part of the network are all on the same level playing field of a peer network, not tier network

Stop subversively promoting BU. If you care about decentralization, you'd be running away from BU not towards it.

I'm much more interested about tier network implications for the LN and how we can
create decentralized routing.

Relevance to Segwit? None. Relevance to UASF? None. #Tactics.

[European Central Bank]

how many people actually know what the ins and outs of a uasf would look like? there seems to be a tendency to jump on new ideas without knowing enough. has it actually been pored over properly?

[jonald_fyookball]

Relevance to Segwit? None. Relevance to UASF? None. #Tactics.

dont get your panties in a wad, Lauda... its not like every thread stays perfectly on topic 100% of the time now does it 

You should be happy I told Franky not to worry about tier networks if segwit is activated.  Don't worry, be happy.

[franky1]

UASF is just any random node throwing a comment into the useragent but still waiting for weeks after 'activation' to actually get an implementation that does anything more than the tier network.

Wrong. You don't even understand it, yet you are attempting to spread "knowledge" to others.

lol i know your cencentration span is only 2 paragraphs. but please try reading more.

here.. even from the docs of your overlord
http://www.uasf.co/

A new “SegWit UASF” deployment would require all nodes to upgrade again which will take considerable time. For this reason, the shortened route to SegWit activation is to require blocks to signal for SegWit activation.

translation. instead of waiting for nodes to upgrade, they just need to signal desire (hence: UASF is just any random node throwing a comment)

BIP148 was created to avoid having to force most users to upgrade their software. BIP148 is designed to motivate miners to signal for SegWit so that it is activated in a way that even users who are not running BIP148 will get the benefits

again. its about just signalling by any random implementation throwing a comment.

the real end user ability to actually move funds to segwit keys and disarm themselves will come later. weeks/month after 'activation'
https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_wallet_dev/

Upgrade Safety
    End users MUST NOT be allowed to generate any P2SH-P2WPKH or other segwit addresses before segwit is fully activated on the network. Before activation, using P2SH-P2WPKH or other segwit addresses may lead to permanent fund loss
    Similarly, change MUST NOT be sent to a segwit output before activation
    Activation of segwit is defined by BIP9. After 15 Nov 2016 and before 15 Nov 2017 UTC, if in a full retarget cycle at least 1916 out of 2016 blocks is signaling readiness, segwit will be activated in the retarget cycle after the next one
    If a wallet does not have the ability to follow the BIP9 signal, the upgraded version should not be released to end users until it is activated

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/

The wallet provided with Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 will continue to only generate non-segwit P2PKH addresses for receiving payment by default. Later releases are expected to allow users to choose to receive payments to segwit addresses.

Stop subversively promoting BU. If you care about decentralization, you'd be running away from BU not towards it.

by thinking its just core vs BU. shows your lack of understanding of BITCOIN NETWORK

things you dont realise.
many people have a bitcoin-core node but have set the consensus.h much higher than 1mb. they just dont advertise it to avoid DDoS by your clan
many people running bitcoin-core are not actually advocating for segwit.

[jonald_fyookball]

how many people actually know what the ins and outs of a uasf would look like? there seems to be a tendency to jump on new ideas without knowing enough. has it actually been pored over properly?

One thing is for sure.  If some miners activate segwit and don't have 51% of the hashpower, it will cause a network split (unless they give up , orphan their blocks, and rejoin the main chain)

[wck]

do you even know what core is?

core is 2 things.

1) master of bitcoin
2) slave of blockstream

 

What!?!  I just looked at the blockstream site.  Most or all of the "core" devs seemed to be employed by blockstream.   Wow!   Huge blatant conflict of interest.   I'm even more out of touch than I realized.   I didn't realize that Bitcoin was being hijacked.    

[franky1]

do you even know what core is?

core is 2 things.

1) master of bitcoin
2) slave of blockstream

 

What!?!  I just looked at the blockstream site.  Most or all of the "core" devs seemed to be employed by blockstream.   Wow!   Huge blatant conflict of interest.   I'm even more out of touch than I realized.   I didn't realize that Bitcoin was being hijacked.    

look deeper down the rabbit hole about the new drama of segwit getting into litecoin
names to look out for
charlie lee - litecoin master.. employed by coinbase
bobby lee BTCC pool (charlies brother)

now check out
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
blockstream
BTCC
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c
coinbase

even another drama event of bcoin made by purse..
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#p
purse

all the segwit news buzz
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c
coindesk

the 'economic majority in favour of segwit'
http://dcg.co/portfolio they are all under the dcg VC list.

yep blockstream are IN DEBT to a tune of $70m+ and they are really needing segwit to be pushed to get controlling interest in bitcoin so that the debts can be repaid via trading and LN hub fee's (how else do you think blockstream will relay the "loan")

then ask yourself with segwits release in october. BTCC was first to jump on the band wagon without even giving themselves a couple weeks to even review the code. they jumped in full on instantly. and are now pushing the same for litecoin.

and let us not forget the unpaid spell check interns hoping to kiss ass by being blockstream loyal, for the dream of getting a blockstream job.. funny part is they think its a $70m pocket of money ready to hand out. reality is blockstream are in DEBT to a tune of $70m if they cant get control

and lastly.
if you think that novembr 2017 would be a give up and try somhing different and accept no mean no if not activated by then. pfft.
blockstream will just ignore the pool/user abstaining and just cause another year of delays and doing nothing more then re-pushing segwit as it all the way upto the end of 2018
so dont expect the drama to end this year
http://www.uasf.co/

Can BIP148 be cancelled?

Yes. In the event that the economic majority does not support BIP148, users should remove software that enforces BIP148. A flag day activation for SegWit would be the next logical steps and require coordination of the community, most likely towards the end of 2018.

please note all links and quotes are pulled from the sources of blockstream/DCG. they are not random opinions from unknown reddit script writers or just propaganda wrote by random people

[anonymoustroll420]

UASF is just any random node throwing a comment into the useragent but still waiting for weeks after 'activation' to actually get an implementation that does anything more than the tier network.

Thats exactly what BU is doing too. There is no activation code or threshold for BU. There is a suggested threshold of 75%, but that is not final and the current implementation has no activation code, so everyone will need to upgrade when that code is released. BU miners signalling is pretty much the same as the current uasf uacomment crap.