Looks like Bitcoin will remain as it is for life

[manselr]

We can never have enough consensus for segwit, 95% is too much.

UASF can cause some disturbances in the mining world, even miners that are signaling for segwit could suffer from network split resulting in PoW change (rendering their mining operation useless.. millions in loses?

BUcoin, BClassic etc, are developed by incompetent morons, no one will ever trust their money on those.

Looks like Bitcoin will remain as it is for life. What do we do now?

[stdset]

Staying as it is means getting obsolete, loosing competition. It's better to fork to 2 different coins and see which one outcompetes the other. But before that it would be better to try to forget mutual insults, become less arrogant, more respectful to our opponents and find common ground after all.
I guess the problem could be that most communication in our cryptoworld is going online. For some reason, online communication is almost always much less civilized than offline. I think VIPs should arrange real world meetings much more often.

[CARrency]

Staying as it is means getting obsolete, loosing competition. It's better to fork to 2 different coins and see which one outcompetes the other. But before that it would be better to try to forget mutual insults, become less arrogant, more respectful to our opponents and find common ground after all.
I guess the problem could be that most communication in our cryptoworld is going online. For some reason, online communication is almost always much less civilized than offline. I think VIPs should arrange real world meetings much more often.

As far as I know, there are a lot of these "real world meetings" but mostly they call it debate. There are a lot of debate happening about these solutions and I think noone will ever understand eah other because of their pride.

[meliodas]

I really hope that you're right about it,
I wish that the price would stay at the $1,100+ or get even higher.

[manselr]

I'm sure some people will say that SegWit/BU must be activated hard way even with risks chain split, community split, price crash or other else.
I also think that we might have to think that option, especially if tx fee become very high, there's altcoin which have at least 50% of bitcoin market cap or when the community tired with drama.

But what will happen when PoW change happens? PoW change is needed to protect from the hashrate of the other chain (they admited they will attack, in case of a split)

This means segwit-core chain starts from scratch.

Will exchanges, services etc support a chain with small hashrate?

[cryptoanarchist]

LAST 1000 BLOCKS :

Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 373  ( 37.3% )             
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 2  ( 0.2% )             
SegWit blocks: 275  ( 27.5% )

Conclusion: The majority of miners support bigger blocks

https://vote.bitcoin.com/arguments/block-size-limit-should-be-increased-to-8-mb-as-soon-as-possible

Conclusion: The majority of bitcoin holders supports bigger blocks

Core needs to either increase the block size, or miners (acting in their own economic interest) will start using an alternative client, and they'll become irrelevant. Its really that simple

[achow101]

Core needs to either increase the block size

Segwit is a block size increase. The size of the "block" p2p message can be larger than 1 MB after segwit activates.

, or miners (acting in their own economic interest) will start using an alternative client, and they'll become irrelevant. Its really that simple

No it isn't. The miners can't just activate any arbitrary consensus rule unless all users follow them and use that alternative client. Given that right now most full nodes are running some version of Bitcoin Core, if miners start using an alternative client supports a block size increase through a hard fork, they will be mining on a chain that few people use.

[cryptoanarchist]

Segwit is a block size increase. The size of the "block" p2p message can be larger than 1 MB after segwit activates.

No, this is a block size increase:

-static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;

Note the "-" at the beginning. That for removing that line of code. That's really all that needs to be done. The rest of the code is just for phasing that in.

[onemanatatime]

We can never have enough consensus for segwit, 95% is too much.

UASF can cause some disturbances in the mining world, even miners that are signaling for segwit could suffer from network split resulting in PoW change (rendering their mining operation useless.. millions in loses?

BUcoin, BClassic etc, are developed by incompetent morons, no one will ever trust their money on those.

Looks like Bitcoin will remain as it is for life. What do we do now?

I think its a little extreme to say we'll remain at this deadlock for forever..

It may not look like we can ever come to consensus right now, but I strongly believe we'll have UASF & SEGWIT implemented before the end of next year.

[Decoded]

We will need to come to a conclusion some time. I have a feeling we will be stuck in a deadlock for a couple of years more until some devs come to their senses and create a compromise. Im trying to stay neutral in this situation, because neither forks are ideal.

[BurtW]

As long as the value remains, the price continues to increase, people continue to use it as a store of value, no fatal flaws are found, I see no reason to change it.  Just leave it as is.

Other coins can become the everyday "currency" coins you use to buy coffee. 

Bitcoin works just fine as it is for storing and transferring relatively large sums of money/value.

[jonald_fyookball]

As long as the value remains, the price continues to increase, people continue to use it as a store of value, no fatal flaws are found, I see no reason to change it.  Just leave it as is.

Other coins can become the everyday "currency" coins you use to buy coffee. 

Bitcoin works just fine as it is for storing and transferring relatively large sums of money/value.

High security is only possible because of high revenue to miners, which in turn is caused by demand.  If you remove the component of the demand that is caused by people wanting to transact on a smaller scale, the demand decreases, the revenue decreases, and the security decreases, which can lead to even less demand and a downward spiral. 

 

[BurtW]

As long as the value remains, the price continues to increase, people continue to use it as a store of value, no fatal flaws are found, I see no reason to change it.  Just leave it as is.

Other coins can become the everyday "currency" coins you use to buy coffee. 

Bitcoin works just fine as it is for storing and transferring relatively large sums of money/value.

High security is only possible because of high revenue to miners, which in turn is caused by demand.  If you remove the component of the demand that is caused by people wanting to transact on a smaller scale, the demand decreases, the revenue decreases, and the security decreases, which can lead to even less demand and a downward spiral. 

 

We shall see.  But I have started to become convinced that a 3 TPS system could possibly work.  The fees will have to be high and it would not be used for anything but higher value transactions.  I can envision a system where, due to the high fees, people put their savings in and only take out what they need when they need it - maybe a few transactions per year.

3 TPS does give us 3 x 31,622,400 = 94,867,200 transaction per year.

I do understand your argument.  I do understand the demand side issues.  I do not know of a way to prove it will be sustainable at 3 TPS so I guess we will just have to see how this great experiment turns out.

One thing we can both agree on:  at 3 TPS Bitcoin will never be the everyday currency of large portion of the population.

[praxeology]

The solution is to fork when two different special interest groups with different use cases diverge on policy preference.

Unfortunately there is an unfounded stigma in the public's eye that forks are a bad thing.

If a money supply forks and two money supplies develop, it is better for everyone.  There is a net gain increase in money market cap, entrepreneurs who invest in both profit.  Money users in both enjoy lower transaction fees than otherwise possible.

If one branch immediately dies, its just an insignificant short term problem for the entrepreneurs mistakenly invested in it. 

The only thing I request is better replay attack prevention.  I'd propose each branch use the transaction version bits for a sort term solution.  Long term if there are lots of forks, then use a "Pre-TX branch ID" that is not part of the TX ID, but is signed on by the witness data, and part of a SegWit style merkle tree commitment.

If Unlimited doesn't want to adopt such a merkle tree commitment in the coinbase due to asicboost, but we still want two separate merkle tree commitments for with and without Witness/branch data, then a hard fork that has these two merkle roots under the merkle root commited in the block header could be used.  Such could be used to develop additional extensions like SegWit that Gregory Maxwell was concerned asicboost usage would prevent.

Cheers,
Praxeology Guy

[jonald_fyookball]

As long as the value remains, the price continues to increase, people continue to use it as a store of value, no fatal flaws are found, I see no reason to change it.  Just leave it as is.

Other coins can become the everyday "currency" coins you use to buy coffee. 

Bitcoin works just fine as it is for storing and transferring relatively large sums of money/value.

High security is only possible because of high revenue to miners, which in turn is caused by demand.  If you remove the component of the demand that is caused by people wanting to transact on a smaller scale, the demand decreases, the revenue decreases, and the security decreases, which can lead to even less demand and a downward spiral. 

 

We shall see.  But I have started to become convinced that a 3 TPS system could possibly work.  The fees will have to be high and it would not be used for anything but higher value transactions.  I can envision a system where, due to the high fees, people put their savings in and only take out what they need when they need it - maybe a few transactions per year.

3 TPS does give us 3 x 31,622,400 = 94,867,200 transaction per year.

I do understand your argument.  I do understand the demand side issues.  I do not know of a way to prove it will be sustainable at 3 TPS so I guess we will just have to see how this great experiment turns out.

One thing we can both agree on:  at 3 TPS Bitcoin will never be the everyday currency of large portion of the population.

As time goes on , the fees will have to be higher and higher.  Its ironically the same argument made by the small blockers (that block subsidies keep halving, so then what)... except the solution cannot be to simply keep raising fees because there is too much competition from other coins and traditional options.  The solution has to be to get a wider user base.  I cannot prove my position either.  Intuitively, I highly suspect I am correct. 

Hope you're doing well Burt.  God Bless you.

[zedicus]

I really hope that you're right about it,
I wish that the price would stay at the $1,100+ or get even higher.

The price depends on the users itself. But the thing is that, the Whales are the ones who controls the flow of its price in the market. If they make some dump or pump in the market. Chain reaction occur and its price will then either pump or dump. Also, the news affect its price and if the fork happens, the price may decline and may even fall three digits.

[The One]

As long as the value remains, the price continues to increase, people continue to use it as a store of value, no fatal flaws are found, I see no reason to change it.  Just leave it as is.

Other coins can become the everyday "currency" coins you use to buy coffee. 

Bitcoin works just fine as it is for storing and transferring relatively large sums of money/value.

High security is only possible because of high revenue to miners, which in turn is caused by demand.  If you remove the component of the demand that is caused by people wanting to transact on a smaller scale, the demand decreases, the revenue decreases, and the security decreases, which can lead to even less demand and a downward spiral. 

 

We shall see.  But I have started to become convinced that a 3 TPS system could possibly work.  The fees will have to be high and it would not be used for anything but higher value transactions.  I can envision a system where, due to the high fees, people put their savings in and only take out what they need when they need it - maybe a few transactions per year.

3 TPS does give us 3 x 31,622,400 = 94,867,200 transaction per year.

I do understand your argument.  I do understand the demand side issues.  I do not know of a way to prove it will be sustainable at 3 TPS so I guess we will just have to see how this great experiment turns out.

One thing we can both agree on:  at 3 TPS Bitcoin will never be the everyday currency of large portion of the population.

As time goes on , the fees will have to be higher and higher.  Its ironically the same argument made by the small blockers (that block subsidies keep halving, so then what)... except the solution cannot be to simply keep raising fees because there is too much competition from other coins and traditional options.  The solution has to be to get a wider user base.  I cannot prove my position either.  Intuitively, I highly suspect I am correct. 

Hope you're doing well Burt.  God Bless you.

The total fees per POW will only be higher when there are more transactions. It is the accumulation of thousands of small fees that adds to 1 big fee per POW. That can only happen when fee are low, so that demand can rise. That can only happen when capacity is higher - 2mb block for this year and scaling is higher - not LN.

[jonald_fyookball]

The total fees per POW will only be higher when there are more transactions. It is the accumulation of thousands of small fees that adds to 1 big fee per POW. That can only happen when fee are low, so that demand can rise. That can only happen when capacity is higher - 2mb block for this year and scaling is higher - not LN.

Agree completely.

[EthSports]

In 3 years when the next halving occurs we will see a burst in the price.

[X7]

We can never have enough consensus for segwit, 95% is too much.

UASF can cause some disturbances in the mining world, even miners that are signaling for segwit could suffer from network split resulting in PoW change (rendering their mining operation useless.. millions in loses?

BUcoin, BClassic etc, are developed by incompetent morons, no one will ever trust their money on those.

Looks like Bitcoin will remain as it is for life. What do we do now?

Life is a long time, solutions will present themselves without compromising the core principles of Bitcoin.