BitCoin Core vs unlimited - what if

[NoviceCrypto]

I have some questions in my mind
1.) What if SegWit proposal not able to get to 95% vote before the date?
2.) What if Unlimited dont get 75% support ( 51% hashing power scenario is left aside for a while in this topic )

What happens to bitcoin if SegWit not get 95% support, as getting 95% is only possible if Unlimited Forks.
But no fork means no 95% got segwit and hence no SF, will they rollback ?

No 2.) is Obvious that BU will hardfork.

But I am confused about the no 1.

Can any one help me to clear my doubts ?

[1713920338]

1713920338

[1713920338]

1713920338

[1713920338]

1713920338

[1713920338]

1713920338

[1713920338]

1713920338

[Quickseller]

If neither proposal gets sufficient support, then neither will get implemented.

At this point, I don't think there is anything remotely resembling consensus for either proposal, and neither are likely to get implemented. 

[bitkilo]

If neither proposal gets sufficient support, then neither will get implemented.

At this point, I don't think there is anything remotely resembling consensus for either proposal, and neither are likely to get implemented. 

What is your opinion on the new or revived proposal of extended blocks, that seems to be generating quite a bit of interest lately.
MimbleWimble is something that has interested me lately, I'm not technically sound enough to understand it completely but I like what I have seen, extended blocks apparently will allow for this when ready.

Ps,  cool new avatar

[onemanatatime]

OP in this scenario, correct me if I'm wrong I think just nothing changes, and we continue to mine 1mb blocks as we already are today.

[mindrust]

I also don't understand why don't the devs just add SEGWIT instead of waiting for the impossible. %95 consensus is never going be achieved. Can't they see that? Why chase the impossible and create SEGWIT at all if it is not going to be used at all?

If you are able to change the blocksize without asking anybody, then just activate segwit and end this shit ffs.

[achow101]

I also don't understand why don't the devs just add SEGWIT instead of waiting for the impossible. %95 consensus is never going be achieved. Can't they see that? Why chase the impossible and create SEGWIT at all if it is not going to be used at all?

If you are able to change the blocksize without asking anybody, then just activate segwit and end this shit ffs.

The devs have no power over what gets deployed. They are not a central authority that controls the consensus rules of Bitcoin. They have implemented segwit and released it. It is up to the miners to activate segwit.

[mindrust]

I also don't understand why don't the devs just add SEGWIT instead of waiting for the impossible. %95 consensus is never going be achieved. Can't they see that? Why chase the impossible and create SEGWIT at all if it is not going to be used at all?

If you are able to change the blocksize without asking anybody, then just activate segwit and end this shit ffs.

The devs have no power over what gets deployed. They are not a central authority that controls the consensus rules of Bitcoin. They have implemented segwit and released it. It is up to the miners to activate segwit.

So, if the biggest miner employer there is decides to be malicious to the system; we are fucked for all eternity?

There is a big problem with this. I don't even know if there is another ASIC miner producer other than bitmain. (there was KNC, but it is ded)

Bitmain releases products which don't even work with SEGWIT and he can do that legally without going to jail. How's that going to work?

[achow101]

So, if the biggest miner employer there is decides to be malicious to the system; we are fucked for all eternity?

No. A malicious miner cannot force a consensus rule change or violate any of the consensus rules.

There is a big problem with this. I don't even know if there is another ASIC miner producer other than bitmain. (there was KNC, but it is ded)

Bitfury does.

Bitmain releases products which don't even work with SEGWIT and he can do that legally without going to jail. How's that going to work?

Bitmain miners do work with segwit. Making hardware that wouldn't is not illegal by any laws. There are no laws governing the policies and protocols in Bitcoin.

[mindrust]

http://bitfury.com/products#our-products I fail to see where their miners are. I found this: http://bitfury.com/products#16nm-asic

Am i to DIY my miner at home? Good ol' PCB printing days.

You and everybody knows, bitmain is a monopoly in this mining business. Every mining farm out there is filled with Antminers.

If Wutang decides to make S11's without the segwit support, it will be all over. What then, back to GPU mining?

[achow101]

http://bitfury.com/products#our-products I fail to see where their miners are. I found this: http://bitfury.com/products#16nm-asic

I think they only do things on request, not mass producing miners like Bitmain does.

Am i to DIY my miner at home? Good ol' PCB printing days.

You and everybody knows, bitmain is a monopoly in this mining business. Every mining farm out there is filled with Antminers.

If Wutang decides to make S11's without the segwit support, it will be all over. What then, back to GPU mining?

The mining hardware cannot be made to not support segwit. Segwit is a software thing, not hardware. The hardware does not care about the consensus rules and segwit does not change anything about the mining algorithm. Bitmain cannot just "make a miner without segwit support".

I suppose you are talking about asicboost, but you clearly don't understand how it works or what it does. Asicboost works even with segwit activated. The hardware aspect of asicboost does not care about segwit nor does it care about the overt or covert methods. The hardware circuitry is the same. What matters is the software, and software can be easily changed.

[alani123]

Thing is, adopting any change among the bitcoin network could damage miners not making the right choice on the long run. No miner would move to a risky fork or different chain if there wasn't absolute need to and consensus.

[cryptoanarchist]

Thing is, adopting any change among the bitcoin network could damage miners not making the right choice on the long run. No miner would move to a risky fork or different chain if there wasn't absolute need to and consensus.

Exactly, unfortunately they have to wait for a decentralization of clients. More people need to use not just BU, but XT, Classic and more so that no one dev team has so much say.