Segregated Witness vs Bitcoin Unlimited vs Do Nothing

[CoinLearn]

[1714031800]

1714031800

[1714031800]

1714031800

[1714031800]

1714031800

[1714031800]

1714031800

[Lauda]

It should probably be noted that Jihan controls Antpool, ViaBTC and BTC.TOP. This is quite obvious, yet some want to keep living in denial. It's interesting that ViaBTC has lost a fair deal of hashrate % over this time (it was >6% and frequently hit >10% due to variance). The increase in hashrate at BTC.TOP is also highly suspicious. I wonder why HaoBTC and 1Hash haven't made up their minds yet.
BU needing 51% to active it probably very misleading. BU has no activation threshold, and 51% hashrate symbolizes a classic hashrate attack on the network. If BU wanted to split bilaterally, they could do it right now at any hashrate. The issue with that is that nobody actually wants BU. The economy, users and development community are all in favor of SegWit and Core (besides the obvious minority consisting of Ver, Jihan, charlatans like Peter R, et. al., and their companies).

[Xester]

It should probably be noted that Jihan controls Antpool, ViaBTC and BTC.TOP. This is quite obvious, yet some want to keep living in denial. It's interesting that ViaBTC has lost a fair deal of hashrate % over this time (it was >6% and frequently hit >10% due to variance). The increase in hashrate at BTC.TOP is also highly suspicious. I wonder why HaoBTC and 1Hash haven't made up their minds yet.
BU needing 51% to active it probably very misleading. BU has no activation threshold, and 51% hashrate symbolizes a classic hashrate attack on the network. If BU wanted to split bilaterally, they could do it right now at any hashrate. The issue with that is that nobody actually wants BU. The economy, users and development community are all in favor of SegWit and Core (besides the obvious minority consisting of Ver, Jihan, charlatans like Peter R, et. al., and their companies).

Looking at the chart there are 38% out of the total population of miners have chosen to side with Bitcoin Unlimited + classic. But this does not mean that BU has the lead and will overcome the votation since there are 26% who have not decided. Thus this still mean that BU and segwit are in tie. There will be only a decision I guess if the 26% will vote and we can finally see what is the decision of the majority.

[Lauda]

Looking at the chart there are 38% out of the total population of miners have chosen to side with Bitcoin Unlimited + classic.

This is about pool hashrate not number of miners. You can't know for example whether Antpool is using all their own devices at their own pool, or there are other miners mining on it. Note: Obviously the latter is more likely, but hopefully you get the point.

There will be only a decision I guess if the 26% will vote and we can finally see what is the decision of the majority.

As BU is a hard fork, pool majority vote is useless. The miners do not decide what Bitcoin is or isn't. At best, they will create the BTU altcoin.

[gentlemand]

Now if Bitcoin Unlimited were feeling extremely psyops ish they could sneak release a new version of their code named Do Nothing. There might be enough stupid miners to run it.

[Lauda]

Now if Bitcoin Unlimited were feeling extremely psyops ish they could sneak release a new version of their code named Do Nothing. There might be enough stupid miners to run it.

There is a certain way of knowing whether 'Do Nothing' is actually the BU client in disguise (in your scenario). If it crashes the whole network of nodes, then it is BU certificated technology.

[ImHash]

As it happened I have mixed the 75% of last 1000 blocks mined with 75% hash power needed to activate SW, either way if BU only needs 51% or even less then what are they waiting for? are they really waiting for 95% consensus? but that will never happen and they know it.

[NeuroticFish]

From what I see SegWit is gaining more and more %. Just look at the numbers for the last 24h:

And imho the numbers are not even 100% "correct" because there are pools (like Slush) which are signaling sometimes SegWit, sometimes BU, so while now they "split" their hashrate (I am not sure how are they calculated), they will just join the winning side at the end.

[franky1]

As it happened I have mixed the 75% of last 1000 blocks mined with 75% hash power needed to activate SW, either way if BU only needs 51% or even less then what are they waiting for? are they really waiting for 95% consensus? but that will never happen and they know it.

classic, xt, bcoin, bitcoinec, bu and other diverse nodes do not want to "take over" (only blockstream(core) want a take over)
blockstream have offered and demanded a few times for anything not core to split away, but that was not taken up because the community does not want a civil war but a real consensus choice of something the whole community can unite around.

hence no deadline, hence to threats, hence no hardware bombs.

blockstream are the ones that bypassed node consensus.
blockstream are the ones that gave only pools the vote.

but blockstream are not getting the pool vote they were hoping for. so now blockstream are looking for blaming everyone. rather than listening to everyone and programming something that the community want..

all of you blockstreamists are forgetting one small thing.

blockstream can code things differently to a way the whole community would be happy.
but no.. its a blockstream short cut or kill every opposer in the community and blame the opposers

[Darkbot]

classic, xt, bcoin, bitcoinec, bu and other diverse nodes do not want to "take over" (only blockstream(core) want a take over)
blockstream have offered and demanded a few times for anything not core to split away, but that was not taken up because the community does not want a civil war but a real consensus choice of something the whole community can unite around.

hence no deadline, hence to threats, hence no hardware bombs.

blockstream are the ones that bypassed node consensus.
blockstream are the ones that gave only pools the vote.

but blockstream are not getting the pool vote they were hoping for. so now blockstream are looking for blaming everyone. rather than listening to everyone and programming something that the community want..

all of you blockstreamists are forgetting one small thing.

blockstream can code things differently to a way the whole community would be happy.
but no.. its a blockstream short cut or kill every opposer in the community and blame the opposers

Here we go again from troll, noob and paid shill Franky1. As usual bla bla bla bla bla bla bla BULLSHIT!

[NeuroticFish]

rather than listening to everyone and programming something that the community want..

Although I don't agree with you on BU matter (I think that we need something better than just increase the block size), you are right on this. Somehow they should be more receptive to what the community wants.
And if what the community wants is stupid (since most don't know nor care of the internals) they should invest more time explaining and debating.
And time is something they actually have now, since we are far from the % needed for any of the sides.

...unless...
..Unless they are baking something else. I don't know. Maybe they are testing other approaches too and don't tell. Maybe they will come up with something much better than the actual SegWit and the actual BU ideas. But that's wishful thinking, I know.

Back on track: now it should be the time to discuss more; to explain for everybody want to read (again and again, I know, but maybe packed different) all the small details that makes SegWit the approach they went for.



iamnotback came with an interesting idea (although it was on a LTC related discussion). Maybe all this "war" is just a "divide et impera" game to keep the coin prices from exploding, before the right guys buy in and accumulated the amounts they planned for.

[cryptoanarchist]

SegWit can never succeed because there will always be miners who are against it, and SegWit will never survive a BTC fork.

It's a waste of time to debate. The only question is how long until we start mining bigger blocks.

Bitcoin, since I learned about it 6 years ago, has shown just how incompetent the powers of the world have become - dependent on their monopoly on money creation. I spend way too much time enjoying the nonstop-worthless-shilling on behalf of AXA/Bilderberg funded Blockstream that displays how mindless their followers have become and how desperate and ignorant 'our rulers' have become in their ivory castles.

In a nutshell, its so fun watching you people lose  

P.S.: Hey Henri de Castries, how about spending another $75 million? Definitely helps my portfolio. Ha Ha, Greg failed you.

[gentlemand]

rather than listening to everyone and programming something that the community want..

Although I don't agree with you on BU matter (I think that we need something better than just increase the block size), you are right on this. Somehow they should be more receptive to what the community wants.

What they should've done is stuck to that mythical 2mb + Segwit agreement that wasn't an agreement or whatever it was. Things would be rosier than a rosy thing by now.

[cryptoanarchist]

rather than listening to everyone and programming something that the community want..

Although I don't agree with you on BU matter (I think that we need something better than just increase the block size), you are right on this. Somehow they should be more receptive to what the community wants.

What they should've done is stuck to that mythical 2mb + Segwit agreement that wasn't an agreement or whatever it was. Things would be rosier than a rosy thing by now.

Why would they? Their hubris was counted on to doom them from the beginning. If they had just raised the blocksize a little they may have gotten SegWit, but now that opportunity is gone forever. Ha Ha!

[NeuroticFish]

What they should've done is stuck to that mythical 2mb + Segwit agreement that wasn't an agreement or whatever it was. Things would be rosier than a rosy thing by now.

That may have been an option, but for a reason I don't know they labelled this approach "unsafe", from what I know (afaik they labelled all >1MB approaches unsafe).

Why would they? Their hubris was counted on to doom them from the beginning. If they had just raised the blocksize a little they may have gotten SegWit, but now that opportunity is gone forever. Ha Ha!

I don't understand why you are so happy. BU is losing percents every day that passes. Of course, not enough to ever help SegWit, but this means BU is (also) doomed...
Did you diversify into alts?

[Sundark]

I always wondered why we still have (beside SegWit, bitcoin unlimited  and undecided miners) another option signaled: 8 MB blocks.
What BW Pool is thinking? This option is totally, not going to work, it is condemned to fail. They know it, we know it. Then Why?

[cryptoanarchist]

What they should've done is stuck to that mythical 2mb + Segwit agreement that wasn't an agreement or whatever it was. Things would be rosier than a rosy thing by now.

That may have been an option, but for a reason I don't know they labelled this approach "unsafe", from what I know (afaik they labelled all >1MB approaches unsafe).

Why would they? Their hubris was counted on to doom them from the beginning. If they had just raised the blocksize a little they may have gotten SegWit, but now that opportunity is gone forever. Ha Ha!

I don't understand why you are so happy. BU is losing percents every day that passes. Of course, not enough to ever help SegWit, but this means BU is (also) doomed...
Did you diversify into alts?

BU isn't losing anything. They've been sitting around 38% and haven't gone down. None of this was unexpected. When I first read about bitcoin in 2011, I figured the day would come when the banking elite would start buying up bitcoin infrastructure (mining) in order to control it, thus skyrocketing the price. AXA/Bilderberg funded Blockstream and their affiliates are largely responsible for the popularity and market cap of bitcoin and many alts. Thank them for making us all money.

What they failed to realize is that even if they had succeeded with taking over Bitcoin, they would just have to do the same thing over again with the next coin, making us all more money. They're fighting a losing battle, all because they know they are worthless without control over the money supply and they are scared to death of losing that control.

[cryptoanarchist]

I always wondered why we still have (beside SegWit, bitcoin unlimited  and undecided miners) another option signaled: 8 MB blocks.
What BW Pool is thinking? This option is totally, not going to work, it is condemned to fail. They know it, we know it. Then Why?

I accept 16MB blocks, so why wouldn't it work? If they generated an 8MB block, my home PC would validate it in seconds, in the background while I'm gaming.

[LoyceV]

Why can't we have both larger blocks as well as SegWit? Is it not possible for miners to signal both?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't really care how, I just know something has to happen to allow scaling. Bitcoin can't grow without more users, and it can't have more users if it can't handle more transactions.
Blocks are full for at least 6 months now. "They" are trying to have a power-battle now, instead of doing a scaling-discussion in the background while at the same time increasing blocks to 2 MB to take the pressure off.

[cryptoanarchist]

Why can't we have both larger blocks as well as SegWit? Is it not possible for miners to signal both?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't really care how, I just know something has to happen to allow scaling. Bitcoin can't grow without more users, and it can't have more users if it can't handle more transactions.

Because SegWit is unnecessary and frankly, shitty software.