Big Block support at 50%

[cryptoanarchist]

https://coin.dance/blocks

Bitcoin Unlimited -  49.3%
SegWit  -                34.0%
8 MB Blocks  -         0.7%
BIP 100  -               1.4%


Bitcoin is going to the moon once we start mining bigger blocks!! The community has demanded it and here we are!

[-ck]

Great, 1% more and then they can fork off and see where the fork's support takes them...

[cryptoanarchist]

Great, 1% more and then they can fork off and see where the fork's support takes them...

I think miners are waiting for some more nodes to upgrade to new clients rather than forcing them/throwing them into confusion.

Point is, the battle is already won. Blockstream/SegWit miners can't survive on the minority chain. Not even for a day.

[-ck]

Great, 1% more and then they can fork off and see where the fork's support takes them...

I think miners are waiting for some more nodes to upgrade to new clients rather than forcing them/throwing them into confusion.

Point is, the battle is already won. Blockstream/SegWit miners can't survive on the minority chain. Not even for a day.

I don't know what you're talking about "cannot survive" - the chains will be completely separate and run in their own directions should it happen. Jihan said he wanted people to "attack" the minority chain (which is a fucking awful approach and speaks volumes) but that would mean he needs as much hashrate directed towards attacking it as he does mining BU blocks and no such hashrate is spare to do that. So unless BU support ends up being 90% leaving only a 10% core chain, then there won't be enough spare hashrate to throw at killing off the forked minority sized chain. There is no precedent saying which chain the economy will follow, but the majority have expressed that they will follow segwit...

[cryptoanarchist]

Great, 1% more and then they can fork off and see where the fork's support takes them...

I think miners are waiting for some more nodes to upgrade to new clients rather than forcing them/throwing them into confusion.

Point is, the battle is already won. Blockstream/SegWit miners can't survive on the minority chain. Not even for a day.

I don't know what you're talking about "cannot survive" - the chains will be completely separate and run in their own directions should it happen. Jihan said he wanted people to "attack" the minority chain (which is a fucking awful approach and speaks volumes) but that would mean he needs as much hashrate directed towards attacking it as he does mining BU blocks and no such hashrate is spare to do that. So unless BU support ends up being 90% leaving only a 10% core chain, then there won't be enough spare hashrate to throw at killing off the forked minority sized chain. There is no precedent saying which chain the economy will follow, but the majority have expressed that they will follow segwit...

Attack the minority chain? pfft, why bother?

How is the SegWit chain going to survive at significantly less than 50% hashpower when they can only mine 1MB blocks? Transactions will grind to a halt and miners will start leaving making it only worse.

[-ck]

How is the SegWit chain going to survive at significantly less than 50% hashpower when they can only mine 1MB blocks? Transactions will grind to a halt and miners will start leaving making it only worse.

That's your judgement, and that's fine. A segwit based main chain would make the blocks up to 4MB with segwit transactions so I don't see how that's the rate limiting thing for a "minority" chain, and even with 25% of the current hashrate, a minority chain would be about 400PH. Jihan threatened to fork at 51% anyway but we'll see... He could just do it now, since only 1 of 4 of his pools are advertising BU - switching all of them would put it significantly >51%

[1Referee]

Jihan threatened to fork at 51% anyway but we'll see...

Jihan is nothing more than a keyboard warrior. Everyone knows that allowing a fork to initiate at 51% comes with risks being far too high. I don't believe he will potentially jeopardise his operations just to gamble on a positive outcome. If he's (or they with RV added) ever going to initiate a fork, he (they) will likely wait till 65-70% is reached. At least, that would make a whole lot more sense.

[European Central Bank]

it's big blocks for today only. let's review it again if it stays up there for a solid week or two. i really don't understand why the 8mb blockers are still bothering.

[-ck]

Jihan threatened to fork at 51% anyway but we'll see...

Jihan is nothing more than a keyboard warrior. Everyone knows that allowing a fork to initiate at 51% comes with risks being far too high. I don't believe he will potentially jeopardise his operations just to gamble on a positive outcome. If he's (or they with RV added) ever going to initiate a fork, he (they) will likely wait till 65-70% is reached. At least, that would make a whole lot more sense.

I agree. His threat was just that, a threat. If he was serious he would have put all his hashrate on BU anyway, and as it stands all he's doing is signalling BU in his coinbase; he is not actually running BU nodes. I've always suspected his BU threat was just a bargaining point after UASF was mentioned but now he's mined himself into a corner and is persisting with something he probably never intended to do. We'll see what he really does should the hashrate climb further and see if he persists with forking into a BU world just out of stubbornness now.

it's big blocks for today only. let's review it again if it stays up there for a solid week or two. i really don't understand why the 8mb blockers are still bothering.

Agreed too, but let the bigblockers have their day for today. Let them fap to variance.

[felipehermanns]

This BUg thing is getting boring. This guys are a joke. R/BTC is just trash talk impossible to read...

Btw while their hashrate go up their nodes still going down. Nice work jihad wu and roger suckver

[digaran]

Last time I checked they only had 35% of total hashrate, now you are telling me they have 50% and with the numbers given by the OP it only counts 85.5% of the network, don't you think if they try to go with 51% hard fork what happens if those 15% undecided miners start fighting them?

Why can't they understand the simple fact? any hard fork without 95% support from miners will cause chain splits and that's bad for bitcoin and their own business.

This is what happens when one person gets powerful just like all other dictatorships, but we all know what happens to them at the end don't we?

[jonald_fyookball]

I think its morally justified if the majority attacks the minority chain in order to make sure there is only one Bitcoin,
 
These attacks would only need to be temporary.  If, after things settle down, the minority wants to do segwitCoin (and not call it Bitcoin), that's fine.

Some people might think its bad for me to say this, but I feel that stonewalling the blocksize
increase was something that NEVER should have happen and was a covert attack on Bitcoin.

[franky1]

How is the SegWit chain going to survive at significantly less than 50% hashpower when they can only mine 1MB blocks? Transactions will grind to a halt and miners will start leaving making it only worse.

That's your judgement, and that's fine. A segwit based main chain would make the blocks up to 4MB with segwit transactions

based on actual transaction data of real use cases expect at best 2.1mb..

that is if 100% of users use segwit keys to get 2.1mb of data for ~7tx/s only IF everyone does it.
yet since 2009 there has been the 'expectation' that bitcoin 1mb would have got 7tx/s yet in 8 years never achieved it.

so even after 8 years of averaging maybe 3.5tx/s all segwit is offering is a half gesture no guarantee best expectation of... 7tx/s

but spammers will still use native keys to spam so even if 99% convert to segwit. it only takes a couple people to spam the block with native keys to show no real visible difference.

dont you get it yet. after 8 years the expectation is still not even a guarantee of 7tx/s

[cryptoanarchist]

This BUg thing is getting boring. This guys are a joke. R/BTC is just trash talk impossible to read...

Btw while their hashrate go up their nodes still going down. Nice work jihad wu and roger suckver

Long term growth of big block nodes is steady upwards. You're looking at a downtrend from a recent spike, that was probably Blockstream doing it just so their trolls could make your argument.

BU and Classic have about 12% of all nodes as of now. Getting people to use alt clients is a lot harder than just having them upgrade. The fact that more than 1 out of 10 users has given up on core is very telling. At least it should be, but there is a massive troll campaign to try to fool people otherwise.

SegWit is a lost cause when this many people and this many miners are dead set against it. Face it bankers, you have failed again at stopping bitcoin.

[Sadlife]

Jihan said "he will activate BU if it reaches 51%"
Is he really so desperate to achieve his centralized blockchain but if he activates it that would be bad for bitcoin and maybe it will turn all against him. If some miners change their minds again and those that is undecided chose Segwit instead, this is just complete chaos.

[cryptoanarchist]

Jihan said "he will activate BU if it reaches 51%"
Is he really so desperate to achieve his centralized blockchain but if he activates it that would be bad for bitcoin and maybe it will turn all against him. If some miners change their minds again and those that is undecided chose Segwit instead, this is just complete chaos.

LOL..how does one "activate" BU??? They are already running the client if that's what you mean.

Bigger blocks can be mined at any moment, and big blockers could destroy the SegWit chain in hours, not days. So don't worry about a forked chain because BitFury isn't going to sit there trying to mine 1MB blocks at the same difficulty while over 50% of hashing power is carrying on as normal. Even if SegWitters end up with 40%, that means blocks would take over 20 mins on average. You'd have more than twice as many transactions for the same 1MB block. Unconfirmed TXs would spiral out of control and the price of "Core coins" would tank immediately. And that situation assumes that none of the majority miners don't attack the SegWit chain. You guys are in a lose-lose situation.

Understand that the ONLY reason big blocks aren't being mined yet is because they are giving users time to figure out what's going on and pick new clients to accept bigger blocks.

[pooya87]

can someone fill me in on how this "support" is at 50% while statistics are only showing thirty something as before.

and while we are on it when did BIP100 come out! it shows 2015! did they suddenly decide on signalling it after 2 years? and a TL;DR would be great.

[cryptoanarchist]

can someone fill me in on how this "support" is at 50% while statistics are only showing thirty something as before.

and while we are on it when did BIP100 come out! it shows 2015! did they suddenly decide on signalling it after 2 years? and a TL;DR would be great.

Last 1000 blocks has big blocks at 40.2%
Last 24 hours Big Blocks are at 50.7%

[pooya87]

can someone fill me in on how this "support" is at 50% while statistics are only showing thirty something as before.

and while we are on it when did BIP100 come out! it shows 2015! did they suddenly decide on signalling it after 2 years? and a TL;DR would be great.

Last 1000 blocks has big blocks at 40.2%
Last 24 hours Big Blocks are at 50.7%

ok so with that logic miners have stopped signalling for big blocks now!
Last 1000 blocks has big blocks at 40.2% -> 39.8%
Last 24 hours Big Blocks are at 50.7% -> 47.9%

[Hydrogen]

Has anyone figured out how much transaction speed could increase (theoretically) with bigger blocks.

I still think its a bad idea to support any block size without knowing potential gains in terms of transaction speed.

One simple fact is bitcoin will never compete with credit cards or execute thousands of transactions per second no matter how much block size is increased.

[-ck]

and while we are on it when did BIP100 come out! it shows 2015! did they suddenly decide on signalling it after 2 years? and a TL;DR would be great.

BIP 100 came and went two years ago from core as an idea. For a while there it had over 75% pool support, but no code was ever written for it. It simply allowed pools to vote on what the block size was and core decided it was a bad idea to give 100% of the power to the miners to choose... turns out that probably wasn't such a bad thing to not support it.

[cryptoanarchist]

can someone fill me in on how this "support" is at 50% while statistics are only showing thirty something as before.

and while we are on it when did BIP100 come out! it shows 2015! did they suddenly decide on signalling it after 2 years? and a TL;DR would be great.

Last 1000 blocks has big blocks at 40.2%
Last 24 hours Big Blocks are at 50.7%

ok so with that logic miners have stopped signalling for big blocks now!
Last 1000 blocks has big blocks at 40.2% -> 39.8%
Last 24 hours Big Blocks are at 50.7% -> 47.9%

You're only counting BU. XT and Classic are also for big blocks.

[pooya87]

can someone fill me in on how this "support" is at 50% while statistics are only showing thirty something as before.

and while we are on it when did BIP100 come out! it shows 2015! did they suddenly decide on signalling it after 2 years? and a TL;DR would be great.

Last 1000 blocks has big blocks at 40.2%
Last 24 hours Big Blocks are at 50.7%

ok so with that logic miners have stopped signalling for big blocks now!
Last 1000 blocks has big blocks at 40.2% -> 39.8%
Last 24 hours Big Blocks are at 50.7% -> 47.9%

You're only counting BU. XT and Classic are also for big blocks.

ok, help my memory a little.
Bitcoin XT was the first thing that came out and was somewhat big, it died.
then bitcoin classic came out and it was somewhat big, it died again when Gavin Andresen once again gave up on it back in early 2016.
i don't see anything on coin.dance even talking about these two.
i also don't see anything in any of the strings included in the coinbase transactions saying anything about any of these two!!

only this site: http://xtnodes.com/ has a little text saying Bitcoin Classic blocks: 5  ( 0.5% ) but it doesn't have any color code for this percentage so that i can verify which blocks it is talking about.

p.s. thanks -ck for explaining BIP100

[cryptoanarchist]

Has anyone figured out how much transaction speed could increase (theoretically) with bigger blocks.

I still think its a bad idea to support any block size without knowing potential gains in terms of transaction speed.

One simple fact is bitcoin will never compete with credit cards or execute thousands of transactions per second no matter how much block size is increased.

Well, my transactions won't sit in the pool for an hour while blocks are added without it. That's been my problem. All transactions should be added to the next block but that can't happen with the current limit. So the gain is from an hour or more back to 10 minutes like it used to be.

By the time Bitcoin scales up to Visa, most Americans will have 500TB drives in their computer and downloading 4GB blocks won't be a big thing.

[-ck]

Jihan said "he will activate BU if it reaches 51%"
Is he really so desperate to achieve his centralized blockchain but if he activates it that would be bad for bitcoin and maybe it will turn all against him. If some miners change their minds again and those that is undecided chose Segwit instead, this is just complete chaos.

LOL..how does one "activate" BU??? They are already running the client if that's what you mean.

Bigger blocks can be mined at any moment, and big blockers could destroy the SegWit chain in hours, not days. So don't worry about a forked chain because BitFury isn't going to sit there trying to mine 1MB blocks at the same difficulty while over 50% of hashing power is carrying on as normal. Even if SegWitters end up with 40%, that means blocks would take over 20 mins on average. You'd have more than twice as many transactions for the same 1MB block. Unconfirmed TXs would spiral out of control and the price of "Core coins" would tank immediately. And that situation assumes that none of the majority miners don't attack the SegWit chain. You guys are in a lose-lose situation.

Understand that the ONLY reason big blocks aren't being mined yet is because they are giving users time to figure out what's going on and pick new clients to accept bigger blocks.

By the way, they are NOT running the client as I already said. They added BU flags into their coinbase signature but all the antpool mining bitcoin nodes are showing up as bitcoin core clients. It turns out they don't actually trust the BU code, they are just using it as a leverage. Lucky for them since one pool already fucked up one block by trusting the BU code.

And as for "activate" BU in whatever form that takes, it would be nice to see because with 5000+ core nodes out there, the core node users would be completely unaware that a BU chain had started, only the slow blocks you speak of would be noticed. After one diff retargetting things would be back to normal. You're grossly exaggerating what would happen IF a BU based forked chain began. There will be no "destroy the chain" unless there is a concerted effort from them to waste all their hashpower and generate useless blocks on the core chain - such a move would cost them tens of millions of dollars of lost power and revenue in a short time. As if the bitcoin space doesn't hate them enough, such a bastard move is nigh on criminal on a massive scale and THAT would make the value tank for all forks of bitcoin.

Understand that you are in a minority thought pattern here, defending their actions. Once 4 vocal trolls are removed from bitcointalk, it fairly closely represents what's happening out in the node space with 5700 identifiable nodes running core and 630 running BU - and that number is falling. Yes miners have a lot of power, but they cannot direct things as easily as you think to destroy bitcoin core.

[cryptoanarchist]

Jihan said "he will activate BU if it reaches 51%"
Is he really so desperate to achieve his centralized blockchain but if he activates it that would be bad for bitcoin and maybe it will turn all against him. If some miners change their minds again and those that is undecided chose Segwit instead, this is just complete chaos.

LOL..how does one "activate" BU??? They are already running the client if that's what you mean.

Bigger blocks can be mined at any moment, and big blockers could destroy the SegWit chain in hours, not days. So don't worry about a forked chain because BitFury isn't going to sit there trying to mine 1MB blocks at the same difficulty while over 50% of hashing power is carrying on as normal. Even if SegWitters end up with 40%, that means blocks would take over 20 mins on average. You'd have more than twice as many transactions for the same 1MB block. Unconfirmed TXs would spiral out of control and the price of "Core coins" would tank immediately. And that situation assumes that none of the majority miners don't attack the SegWit chain. You guys are in a lose-lose situation.

Understand that the ONLY reason big blocks aren't being mined yet is because they are giving users time to figure out what's going on and pick new clients to accept bigger blocks.

By the way, they are NOT running the client as I already said. They added BU flags into their coinbase signature but all the antpool mining bitcoin nodes are showing up as bitcoin core clients. It turns out they don't actually trust the BU code, they are just using it as a leverage. Lucky for them since one pool already fucked up one block by trusting the BU code.

And as for "activate" BU in whatever form that takes, it would be nice to see because with 5000+ core nodes out there, the core node users would be completely unaware that a BU chain had started, only the slow blocks you speak of would be noticed. After one diff retargetting things would be back to normal. You're grossly exaggerating what would happen IF a BU based forked chain began. There will be no "destroy the chain" unless there is a concerted effort from them to waste all their hashpower and generate useless blocks on the core chain - such a move would cost them tens of millions of dollars of lost power and revenue in a short time. As if the bitcoin space doesn't hate them enough, such a bastard move is nigh on criminal on a massive scale and THAT would make the value tank for all forks of bitcoin.

Understand that you are in a minority thought pattern here, defending their actions. Once 4 vocal trolls are removed from bitcointalk, it fairly closely represents what's happening out in the node space with 5700 identifiable nodes running core and 630 running BU - and that number is falling. Yes miners have a lot of power, but they cannot direct things as easily as you think to destroy bitcoin core.

Oh really? How would the minority SegWit chain even get to retargeting without another hardfork? Difficulty is adjusted after a certain amount of blocks, not after a specified time period. And the minority chain would take months to get to that change in difficulty even if miners never dropped out, which they definitely would after losing so much money.

[-ck]

Oh really? How would the minority SegWit chain even get to retargeting without another hardfork? Difficulty is adjusted after a certain amount of blocks, not after a specified time period. And the minority chain would take months to get to that change in difficulty even if miners never dropped out, which they definitely would after losing so much money.

Retarget at 1/4 the hashrate would take 4x longer. So? You think relatively slow blocks for a month longer would make a 20 billion dollar industry jump ship to something they have no confidence in?

[cryptoanarchist]

Oh really? How would the minority SegWit chain even get to retargeting without another hardfork? Difficulty is adjusted after a certain amount of blocks, not after a specified time period. And the minority chain would take months to get to that change in difficulty even if miners never dropped out, which they definitely would after losing so much money.

Retarget at 1/4 the hashrate would take 4x longer. So? You think relatively slow blocks for a month longer would make a 20 billion dollar industry jump ship to something they have no confidence in?

I guess we'll find out, but I think that when one chain takes forever to get a tx through, that will pretty much kill it. Especially when they can just switch clients and get back to normal.

[-ck]

I guess we'll find out, but I think that when one chain takes forever to get a tx through, that will pretty much kill it. Especially when they can just switch clients and get back to normal.

See I don't think we will find out. Because with so much uncertainty regarding what amounts to a hostile takeover, the ones mining the takeover attempt are putting their investments at massive risk when sticking with core is a safe way to maintain a stable economy, with or without segwit. The problem lies in not knowing what Roger Ver's actual motives are and why he's spending so much money trying to create a hostile takeover - the industry and the community has voted and is mostly against it. He's even running a mining pool at a loss to try and get community miners to add hashrate to BU (pool.bitcoin.com). I can speculate there but I prefer not to because I don't wish to fall into the trap of believing yet another conspiracy theory. The number of conspiracy theories out there at the moment is quite absurd. As a coder I can argue the technical side and I try to look at things objectively but as I've decided what I think is best, someone will instantly call me a shill or troll so I tend not to argue very strongly, especially against the 4 vocal trolls. People like yourself on the other hand have been trying to hold a civil meaningful discussion. I don't have the intestinal fortitude to fight with trolls so I just put them on ignore. I'm quite sure I don't even need to tell you who I'm ignoring; think about it yourself and what names come to mind... and why?

EDIT: I just saw your bitcoin core 0.14 post and changed my mind about you being civil. It's a software announce thread, not a debate thread.

[jonald_fyookball]

See I don't think we will find out. Because with so much uncertainty regarding what amounts to a hostile takeover, the ones mining the takeover attempt are putting their investments at massive risk when sticking with core is a safe way to maintain a stable economy, with or without segwit.

It may be safe technically to stick with core, but not economically, since they have failed in their leadership to scale Bitcoin and even seem to be anti on-chain scaling. 

This is the reason that miners are starting to move away from them.  Those miners see the economic risk as an even greater threat.

[Nagadota]

See I don't think we will find out. Because with so much uncertainty regarding what amounts to a hostile takeover, the ones mining the takeover attempt are putting their investments at massive risk when sticking with core is a safe way to maintain a stable economy, with or without segwit.

It may be safe technically to stick with core, but not economically, since they have failed in their leadership to scale Bitcoin and even seem to be anti on-chain scaling. 

This is the reason that miners are starting to move away from them.  Those miners see the economic risk as an even greater threat.

Their leadership is only about whether or not they offer a good solution for people to follow.  If miners then decide that they don't want to join that solution, it's not Core's fault, nor is it a problem.

Economically, all that matters is whether the majority of the money in the Bitcoin network would feel confident when a certain solution went through.  These miners that you claim are moving to BU will barely be over 50% if/when BU is actually activated because it's only rising very slowly, and therefore a hard fork would be extremely messy and economically a bad thing.

[jonald_fyookball]

See I don't think we will find out. Because with so much uncertainty regarding what amounts to a hostile takeover, the ones mining the takeover attempt are putting their investments at massive risk when sticking with core is a safe way to maintain a stable economy, with or without segwit.

It may be safe technically to stick with core, but not economically, since they have failed in their leadership to scale Bitcoin and even seem to be anti on-chain scaling. 

This is the reason that miners are starting to move away from them.  Those miners see the economic risk as an even greater threat.

Their leadership is only about whether or not they offer a good solution for people to follow.  If miners then decide that they don't want to join that solution, it's not Core's fault, nor is it a problem.

I meant for their own cause, they failed... but you're right.

Economically, all that matters is whether the majority of the money in the Bitcoin network would feel confident when a certain solution went through.  These miners that you claim are moving to BU will barely be over 50% if/when BU is actually activated because it's only rising very slowly, and therefore a hard fork would be extremely messy and economically a bad thing.

I think they will wait for more than 51%.  Its not just "BU" but anything big block compatible, soon we will have a >1mb block and it will be a great day for Bitcoin.

[mindrust]

Great, 1% more and then they can fork off and see where the fork's support takes them...

I think miners are waiting for some more nodes to upgrade to new clients rather than forcing them/throwing them into confusion.

Point is, the battle is already won. Blockstream/SegWit miners can't survive on the minority chain. Not even for a day.

I think battle is already lost for BUer coin fanboys. BUer miners won't survive not even for a day without the community support. I mean, why mine if nobody's buying your product right?

I hope they have their fork right away and destroy themselves in a week. Farewell.

[jonald_fyookball]

Great, 1% more and then they can fork off and see where the fork's support takes them...

I think miners are waiting for some more nodes to upgrade to new clients rather than forcing them/throwing them into confusion.

Point is, the battle is already won. Blockstream/SegWit miners can't survive on the minority chain. Not even for a day.

I think battle is already lost for BUer coin fanboys. BUer miners won't survive not even for a day without the community support. I mean, why mine if nobody's buying your product right?

I hope they have your fork right away and destroy themselves in a week. Farewell.

Believe that if you want to.  But people have been calling for bigger blocks for years. 

[stompix]

Has anyone figured out how much transaction speed could increase (theoretically) with bigger blocks.

I still think its a bad idea to support any block size without knowing potential gains in terms of transaction speed.

One simple fact is bitcoin will never compete with credit cards or execute thousands of transactions per second no matter how much block size is increased.

Well, my transactions won't sit in the pool for an hour while blocks are added without it. That's been my problem. All transactions should be added to the next block but that can't happen with the current limit. So the gain is from an hour or more back to 10 minutes like it used to be.

By the time Bitcoin scales up to Visa, most Americans will have 500TB drives in their computer and downloading 4GB blocks won't be a big thing.

I tried recently to download the blockchain in a new client.

The download was no problem, the storage of course not (140 or so???)  but the stress on block checking on my hdd was enormous.
It kept my hdd at 100% for 3 days.

I doubt that in 2 or 3 years there would still be people who will have still have full blockchain client / node.

[Kprawn]

Jihan said "he will activate BU if it reaches 51%"
Is he really so desperate to achieve his centralized blockchain but if he activates it that would be bad for bitcoin and maybe it will turn all against him. If some miners change their minds again and those that is undecided chose Segwit instead, this is just complete chaos.

With what is he going to attack? The hash power he is using to throw his weight around in LiteCoin or the new ASIC's that are supposed to go to

his customers? This whole BU vs SegWit thing is getting absurd now and people are losing focus on what is most important for Bitcoin. We want

a decentralized and secure Blockchain and not a BugCoin with dodgy code and Bitcoin mining monopolies making ALL the decisions. What is

next... a attack on the Coin Cap?

[Jet Cash]

I think Unlimited will go to the Moon, and Bitcoin will stay as a down-to-earth stable system. Don't forget that the Moon needs the Earth to maintain its position in the Solar system.

[franky1]

With what is he going to attack? The hash power he is using to throw his weight around in LiteCoin or the new ASIC's that are supposed to go to

his customers? This whole BU vs SegWit thing is getting absurd now and people are losing focus on what is most important for Bitcoin. We want

a decentralized and secure Blockchain and not a BugCoin with dodgy code and Bitcoin mining monopolies making ALL the decisions. What is

next... a attack on the Coin Cap?

kprawn your using the reddit script buzzwords "bugcoin".
seems you cannot get passed the BU vs segwit debate.

now ask yourself
if every line of code was the same.. what if hearne invented segwit. would your emotions change

are u defending the code or the devs

secondly taking BU  for instance because you mentioned it.. you do realise the "bug" was a core 0.12 bug. and patched in core 0.13
BU patched it in their version. but people in core that knew the consequences of anyone using the core0.12 and so advertised that some people are still using the core 0.12 variant under the title BU. and actually listed how to attack it.

its worth doing research and less time with the reddit buzzwords.

there are many implementations that have different ways of allowing real onchain extra tx capacity.
with segwit. because its reliant on the baseblock and reliant on people using new keypairs, to allow partial data outside base block.  maths ans stats shows that only IF 100% of people use segwit keys the network would get ... guess what.. 7tx/s.. emphasis only with 100% certain key utility..  much like the 2009-2017 expectation that never becam a reality.. so even with segwit nothing is really changing capacity wise

yep a one time gesture tx capacity POSSIBILITY with many ifs and maybes. and no guarantee's.. where you cant re segwit a segwit and you are then reliant on waiting another couple years debate to try getting anything else.

the last year and a half have been a waste of time yet those in blockstream, including now recently recruited samson mow want to keep pushing half baked segwit right upto 2019.

core need a plan B
a single merkle proper network upgrade where the blocksize parameter/preference limit can be altered at runtime. so that users and pools are not waiting to be spoonfed by corporate devs.

[cryptoanarchist]

See I don't think we will find out. Because with so much uncertainty regarding what amounts to a hostile takeover, the ones mining the takeover attempt are putting their investments at massive risk when sticking with core is a safe way to maintain a stable economy, with or without segwit.

It may be safe technically to stick with core, but not economically, since they have failed in their leadership to scale Bitcoin and even seem to be anti on-chain scaling. 

This is the reason that miners are starting to move away from them.  Those miners see the economic risk as an even greater threat.

Their leadership is only about whether or not they offer a good solution for people to follow.  If miners then decide that they don't want to join that solution, it's not Core's fault, nor is it a problem.

Economically, all that matters is whether the majority of the money in the Bitcoin network would feel confident when a certain solution went through.  These miners that you claim are moving to BU will barely be over 50% if/when BU is actually activated because it's only rising very slowly, and therefore a hard fork would be extremely messy and economically a bad thing.

Maybe, for a little bit. I think that is why big block miners are waiting - because they are only getting more support and they are waiting to make it a smoother transition. The trend is in favor of big blocks and that isn't going to change.

However, if we wanted to be messy we could start mining big blocks now and destroy SegWit, and it would be a costly endeavor, but it would pay off in the end.

[minimalB]

Maybe, for a little bit. I think that is why big block miners are waiting - because they are only getting more support and they are waiting to make it a smoother transition. The trend is in favor of big blocks and that isn't going to change.

It's happening... and bitcoin will be stronger because of that longterm. Win-Win.

[Thatstinks]

Roger Ver‏Verified account @rogerkver

Bitcoin Unlimited is production ready. It's already producing 40% of all the blocks. More than any other version of Bitcoin.

7:41 AM - 22 Apr 2017 from Japan

Unlimited production ready, BTU coins to the moon, good bye BTC.

Apparently.

[Anno MMXVI]

Hopefully this did not lasted very long. Unlimited and its chilling team are back at 40%. I have the feeling that neither SegWit nor Unlimited will win this year.

[Holliday]

I think its morally justified if the majority attacks the minority chain in order to make sure there is only one Bitcoin,
 
These attacks would only need to be temporary.  If, after things settle down, the minority wants to do segwitCoin (and not call it Bitcoin), that's fine.

Some people might think its bad for me to say this, but I feel that stonewalling the blocksize
increase was something that NEVER should have happen and was a covert attack on Bitcoin.

Some of us joined Bitcoin with the 1 MB block size limit in place. In other words, this is what we signed up for.

Now it's an "attack" because we don't want to make changes to the protocol we've accepted for all these years?

You are only calling it a "covert attack" because you need an excuse to attempt to justify using hash power to aggressively attack those who want to remain with the existing chain.

Refusing to make an incompatible change to an already existing protocol and functioning network is not aggression towards those who want to implement that change, therefore it's not an attack. Those who don't want to change are not actively preventing those who do want change from actually doing it.

Actively employing hash power in order to prevent a previously functioning network from continuing it's chain is, however, aggression towards the users of that chain, and therefore an attack. Those who do want change are actively preventing those who do not from continuing in peace.

We currently have a functioning network with existing rules in place. If you decide to make an incompatible change to those rules and thus create a new, separate network, that's your prerogative and I fully support your ability to do that. But when you start talking about aggressively attacking those users and miners who decide they are not interested in adopting an incompatible change and simply want to stick with the already existing, functioning network, you've gone too far.

Imagine there was no block size debate. Imagine a group came along and started loudly clamoring for a block reward increase. Imagine they convinced a few pool operators (enough for a majority of the hash rate) that a block reward increase was a good idea. Imagine that they implemented the change, and forked away from the rest of network. Now imagine that after the fork, those pool operators decided to attack the original chain to prevent it from functioning. You would be screaming bloody murder from the rooftops. Yet, when the incompatible change is something that you want, all sense of decency and civility goes out the window and you turn into a bloodthirsty idiot.

Anyone rationalizing using hashing power to attack a functioning network and it's user base is toxic to the community and should be called out for suggesting such appalling behavior.

[Carlton Banks]

Anyone rationalizing using hashing power to attack a functioning network and it's user base is toxic to the community and should be called out for suggesting such appalling behavior.

Logical arguments against big blocks == trolling.

I wouldn't waste keyboard strokes, when it comes down to it, we know how to prepare for and to mitigate against the various aggressive threats made by the BU proponents, I'm happy with forking away and using a totally different name and brand.

If that happened, when that coin wins due to technical merit (yet again), these thinly disguised wreckers will be forced to follow the "Bitcoin Reborn" coin with their meddling (yet again). Rinse and repeat, I would imagine. As long as we're determined to support the most valuable tech, there's not much they can really do, except continue to be increasingly less disruptive.

[jonald_fyookball]

Some of us joined Bitcoin with the 1 MB block size limit in place. In other words, this is what we signed up for.

Now it's an "attack" because we don't want to make changes to the protocol we've accepted for all these years?
  

Who is "we"?  You speak for a very small group of hardline small blockers.

Most Bitcoiners always assumed the limit was going to be raised sooner or later.

The limit was originally added by Satoshi as a temporary spam measure, and Satoshi wrote about
not only how an increased limit could be phased in with a few lines of code, but also  his vision
for how the network would scale.  This was long before you arrived, I assume.

Anyway after a clean split and it clear that "Bitcoin" is the large block version, you are free
to keep using your digital assets on the 1mb chain.

[Holliday]

Some of us joined Bitcoin with the 1 MB block size limit in place. In other words, this is what we signed up for.

Now it's an "attack" because we don't want to make changes to the protocol we've accepted for all these years?
 

Who is "we"?  You speak for a very small group of hardline small blockers.

Most Bitcoiners always assumed was going to be raised sooner or later.

The limit was originally added by Satoshi as a temporary spam measure, and Satoshi wrote about
not only how an increased limit could be phased in with a few lines of code, as well as his vision
for how the network would scale.

You've ignored the meat and potatoes of my post to quibble about who and how many people support certain size blocks and the motivations of someone we haven't heard from in 6 years. Bravo.

"We" is anyone who adopted Bitcoin with the 1 MB limit in place. What, are you just going to hand wave away the fact that it requires a hard fork to remove? Geeze...

[Holliday]

Anyway after a clean split and it clear that "Bitcoin" is the large block version, you are free
to keep using your digital assets on the 1mb chain.

The onus is on whoever splits (implements incompatible changes) to insure their fork is "clean". Attacking the other prong of the fork is a fucking disgraceful method to achieve those ends.

[jonald_fyookball]

@Holliday:  Your post seemed to rely on the underlying assumption of 'what you signed up for'.     Sorry if I replied to the wrong part.  I get your points.  I wouldn't say youre wrong to take that view.  

[The One]

I think its morally justified if the majority attacks the minority chain in order to make sure there is only one Bitcoin,
 
These attacks would only need to be temporary.  If, after things settle down, the minority wants to do segwitCoin (and not call it Bitcoin), that's fine.

Some people might think its bad for me to say this, but I feel that stonewalling the blocksize
increase was something that NEVER should have happen and was a covert attack on Bitcoin.

Some of us joined Bitcoin with the 1 MB block size limit in place. In other words, this is what we signed up for.

Now it's an "attack" because we don't want to make changes to the protocol we've accepted for all these years?

You are only calling it a "covert attack" because you need an excuse to attempt to justify using hash power to aggressively attack those who want to remain with the existing chain.

Refusing to make an incompatible change to an already existing protocol and functioning network is not aggression towards those who want to implement that change, therefore it's not an attack. Those who don't want to change are not actively preventing those who do want change from actually doing it.

Actively employing hash power in order to prevent a previously functioning network from continuing it's chain is, however, aggression towards the users of that chain, and therefore an attack. Those who do want change are actively preventing those who do not from continuing in peace.

We currently have a functioning network with existing rules in place. If you decide to make an incompatible change to those rules and thus create a new, separate network, that's your prerogative and I fully support your ability to do that. But when you start talking about aggressively attacking those users and miners who decide they are not interested in adopting an incompatible change and simply want to stick with the already existing, functioning network, you've gone too far.

Imagine there was no block size debate. Imagine a group came along and started loudly clamoring for a block reward increase. Imagine they convinced a few pool operators (enough for a majority of the hash rate) that a block reward increase was a good idea. Imagine that they implemented the change, and forked away from the rest of network. Now imagine that after the fork, those pool operators decided to attack the original chain to prevent it from functioning. You would be screaming bloody murder from the rooftops. Yet, when the incompatible change is something that you want, all sense of decency and civility goes out the window and you turn into a bloodthirsty idiot.

Anyone rationalizing using hashing power to attack a functioning network and it's user base is toxic to the community and should be called out for suggesting such appalling behavior.

Sorry but the original was 32MB and 1MB was a temporary measure. The whitepaper, "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" is people signed up for. This is the most important document explaining Bitcoin's existence. Anyone signing/joining up without reading, and/or agreeing to "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" have no say and should join an altcoin or make up their own.

[Holliday]

Sorry but the original was 32MB and 1MB was a temporary measure. The whitepaper, "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" is people signed up for. This is the most important document explaining Bitcoin's existence. Anyone signing/joining up without reading, and/or agreeing to "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" have no say and should join an altcoin or make up their own.

So you decided to trade other objects of value for the ability to amend the block chain under the assumption that certain properties will "fixed" down the road via a hard fork?

A PDF document is more important than the code which implements the very protocol which every node on the network must abide by?

Those things makes perfect sense...

Oh... and another Bravo for ignoring the meat and potatoes of my post to quibble about block size.

[ImHash]

What everyone are missing-> consensus in a decentralized environment won't happen, what are you guys arguing about wasting your time? I guess not even Satoshi saw the possibility of a malicious party with enough incentive and power to veto the consensus.
2 years ago you could mine 1000 blocks with 30% of the current hash power and 2 years from now this hash rate will become 30% of total hash power then, but what gives the miners all these funds to insanely increase their hash rate? yes people's money, simple fact that if users/ people/ community stop paying miners what they're asking in price they will no longer be able to continue growing but yet all miners are doing is power play/ politics/ greed/ power hunger wanting to control, in case if you didn't know this is exactly what happened with the giant money organizations/ central banking/ private sectors/ rich families taking over the world economy system, and that is exactly what's happening only in total chaos/ decentralized one.
No rule/ no law no governor.

I think there is a very damn good reason why we need governments/ sheriffs/ police/ law enforcement, we're just too high on the weed we're smoking called "cash/BTC" so we can't see it yet.

[cryptoanarchist]

Some of us joined Bitcoin with the 1 MB block size limit in place. In other words, this is what we signed up for.

Now it's an "attack" because we don't want to make changes to the protocol we've accepted for all these years?
  

Who is "we"?  You speak for a very small group of hardline small blockers.

Most Bitcoiners always assumed was going to be raised sooner or later.

The limit was originally added by Satoshi as a temporary spam measure, and Satoshi wrote about
not only how an increased limit could be phased in with a few lines of code, as well as his vision
for how the network would scale.

You've ignored the meat and potatoes of my post to quibble about who and how many people support certain size blocks and the motivations of someone we haven't heard from in 6 years. Bravo.

"We" is anyone who adopted Bitcoin with the 1 MB limit in place. What, are you just going to hand wave away the fact that it requires a hard fork to remove? Geeze...

Holliday, no one believes that shit. 99% of the people who have bought since the limit was put in place don't know anything about any of the code. They didn't "buy into" a block limit at all. What they did buy into was practically free transactions, which they don't have now that the blocks are full.

[dadach]

ok, so what will happen to my btc that are in my phone wallet? will they split if it forks or what?

[Holliday]

Holliday, no one believes that shit. 99% of the people who have bought since the limit was put in place don't know anything about any of the code. They didn't "buy into" a block limit at all. What they did buy into was practically free transactions, which they don't have now that the blocks are full.

Well, then they got conned. Caveat emptor!

Also, I call bullshit. People want Bitcoin because of it's unique properties which are possible thanks to decentralization. Who gives a fuck about sending a few micro transactions for free when governments worldwide are preventing people from using (or even continuing to own) their own fucking money?

Why does everyone get their panties in a bunch over some comment about the fucking reality regarding the existing rules of the network which require a hard fork to change, and ignore the real point of my post which was to call out people who are actually supporting a 51% attack on one prong of a chain existing after a possible contentious hard fork?

[European Central Bank]

i for one do not regard 1mb as any type of desirable feature. it looks like it was considered a necessity at the time and that's fine and it did the job great. this is not that time any more.

if it can't move beyond it with sewgit, bu, classic, or whatever the majority decides on, well i wouldn't have signed up for something that can't evolve to meet the needs of today and beyond.

[Holliday]

it looks like it was considered a necessity at the time and that's fine and it did the job great. this is not that time any more.

Oh? That's great! Could you point out some of the features which have replaced the function of the 1 MB limit?

[AngryDwarf]

What everyone are missing-> consensus in a decentralized environment won't happen, what are you guys arguing about wasting your time? I guess not even Satoshi saw the possibility of a malicious party with enough incentive and power to veto the consensus.

Nobody can veto a consensus. By its very definition it means that there is no consensus.

There are some people that claim everyone wants segwit, and its only this evil mining entity which is against it. This is not true. I am not convinced with the segwit implementation in its current form, it radically changes the protocol by hiding behind a soft sofa. I'm not a big whale BTC holder, multi terra hash miner, or a paid shill. Just a small time BTC user with a technical background.

It's quite possible that the protocol can never achieve a consensual change. BTC will be of little utility and a p2p cash system for the rich. As long as the Ferrari dealerships and the space tourism industry etc.. accept bitcoin then I guess it could become quite valuable.

[AngryDwarf]

it looks like it was considered a necessity at the time and that's fine and it did the job great. this is not that time any more.

Oh? That's great! Could you point out some of the features which have replaced the function of the 1 MB limit?

SPV wallets for normal users.

[European Central Bank]

Oh? That's great! Could you point out some of the features which have replaced the function of the 1 MB limit?

it's still necessary. and now a higher one would add to bitcoin's appeal, functionality and future prospects.

[XbladeX]

***
SPV wallets for normal users.

3rd party to trust ?
What if 3rd party will be corrupted and want move with changes that you don't want - like leave 21m coin hard limit to endless reward ? When you lose ability to run onw node then BTC won't be p2p currency and won't have many resistance that it have now.
Running own node when you have a lot $$$ in BTC is very important.

[AngryDwarf]

***
SPV wallets for normal users.

3rd party to trust ?
What if 3rd party will be corrupted and want move with changes that you don't want - like leave 21m coin hard limit to endless reward ? When you lose ability to run onw node then BTC won't be p2p currency and won't have many resistance that it have now.
Running own node when you have a lot $$$ in BTC is very important.

If you have a lot of BTC, you can afford to run your own node.

[jonald_fyookball]

Also, I call bullshit. People want Bitcoin because of it's unique properties which are possible thanks to decentralization. Who gives a fuck about sending a few micro transactions for free when governments worldwide are preventing people from using (or even continuing to own) their own fucking money?
 

You, like all of the core supporters, keep conveniently ignoring decentralization threats related to forcing users off the main chain, and only focus on node cost.  I understand you hold the position of 'keep the coffee money off-chain and lets use the main chain for big stuff', but what good is having sound money if you can only use it for big stuff and not for every day things?   Why should I need anyone's permission to transact? There's also huge privacy concerns with allowing the government to see all of your small transactions, as well as the taint issues for your bigger purchases even if done on chain. 

I say there doesn't have to be this false dichotomy.  Bitcoin can handle everything on chain.  I would like to see your kitchen table math on why you think 'datacenters' are going to be needed any time soon, even for much larger blocks.

Most importantly,  in the long run I don't think the security model will work well with only large transactions being done on chain.  There won't be enough fee revenue, security will drop, and people will simply use other coins that offer both high security and low fees.


 

[pinkflower]

Holliday, no one believes that shit. 99% of the people who have bought since the limit was put in place don't know anything about any of the code. They didn't "buy into" a block limit at all. What they did buy into was practically free transactions, which they don't have now that the blocks are full.

Well, then they got conned. Caveat emptor!

Also, I call bullshit. People want Bitcoin because of it's unique properties which are possible thanks to decentralization. Who gives a fuck about sending a few micro transactions for free when governments worldwide are preventing people from using (or even continuing to own) their own fucking money?

I call bullshit too about the comment that people want BTC because of its unique properties because of decentralization. People want BTC because they think that it could make them very rich just like the early investors of 2010 - 2012. Sell them a scamcoin that could make them rich and they all line up and buy them.

[Carlton Banks]

Also, I call bullshit. People want Bitcoin because of it's unique properties which are possible thanks to decentralization. Who gives a fuck about sending a few micro transactions for free when governments worldwide are preventing people from using (or even continuing to own) their own fucking money?
 

You, like all of the core supporters, keep conveniently ignoring decentralization threats related to forcing users off the main chain, and only focus on node cost.  I understand you hold the position of 'keep the coffee money off-chain and lets use the main chain for big stuff', but what good is having sound money if you can only use it for big stuff and not for every day things?   Why should I need anyone's permission to transact? There's also huge privacy concerns with allowing the government to see all of your small transactions, as well as the taint issues for your bigger purchases even if done on chain.  

You're a disgraceful liar jonald

There is no aspect of the Lightning network (i.e. for quick everyday cups of coffee) that will be either permitted by nodes or overseen by any government, you must be out of your mind to make such false assertions.

The proof is very easy to find, check out this thread: WORKING Lightning Node Network (LNN) on TESTNET, feel free to join.

Notice how it says "feel free to join". That's because there is no permission, or oversight, it's actually more private than on-chain transactions, as only the channel participants know about the transactions. You know how this works, you were even discussing the technical details of Lightning a week or two ago, you cannot possibly pretend now that you don't understand what you knew perfectly well only a week ago, unless you're getting dementia. You're desperate, and it shows rather badly.

I say there doesn't have to be this false dichotomy.  Bitcoin can handle everything on chain.  I would like to see your kitchen table math on why you think 'datacenters' are going to be needed any time soon, even for much larger blocks.

Most importantly,  in the long run I don't think the security model will work well with only large transactions being done on chain.  There won't be enough fee revenue, security will drop, and people will simply use other coins that offer both high security and low fees.

Where is your kitchen table math for these unproven assertions? Considering you're just straight making things up in your previous diatribe about Lightning, I don't see why anyone should take your unbacked assertions about math or logic even faintly seriously

[CyberKuro]

https://coin.dance/blocks

Bitcoin Unlimited -  49.3%
SegWit  -                34.0%
8 MB Blocks  -         0.7%
BIP 100  -               1.4%


Bitcoin is going to the moon once we start mining bigger blocks!! The community has demanded it and here we are!

When I take a look, just now and it shows ;
Bitcoin Unlimited -  40.4%
SegWit            -        34.5%
8 MB Blocks  -         5.1%
BIP 100.         -         2.9%
Its constantly changing, and I doubt we even could get any conclusion, its endless consensus or endless debates with each other.
We will stick to current bitcoin nodes/codes with 1Mb blocksize and it seems won't change any time soon.

[AngryDwarf]

Considering BitClub BU's coinbase string contains 'love gregs' and 'loves core', and the fact that f2pool's owner wears flip flops, I wouldn't get to excited until there is a clear majority either way.

[Labumi]

Holliday, no one believes that shit. 99% of the people who have bought since the limit was put in place don't know anything about any of the code. They didn't "buy into" a block limit at all. What they did buy into was practically free transactions, which they don't have now that the blocks are full.

Well, then they got conned. Caveat emptor!

Also, I call bullshit. People want Bitcoin because of it's unique properties which are possible thanks to decentralization. Who gives a fuck about sending a few micro transactions for free when governments worldwide are preventing people from using (or even continuing to own) their own fucking money?

I call bullshit too about the comment that people want BTC because of its unique properties because of decentralization. People want BTC because they think that it could make them very rich just like the early investors of 2010 - 2012. Sell them a scamcoin that could make them rich and they all line up and buy them.

Hmm, excellence is indeed derived from profits bitcoin is given. How does a person interested in using bitcoin when looking at the price could soar without a clear schedule ..? / . In addition many people interested because it is a fun investment bitcoin, because with only buy when prices are low and save it then sell it when the high price of those with patience will get many advantages. In addition all transactions that exist therein are not getting a high enough fee compare to the bank fee is quite high and it also doesn't provide a load to the account owner (bitcoin) to pay
 

[pinkflower]

Whats the latest news on this? If the big blocks support are really at 50% and growing then everyone should be starting to get worried. But everyone is calm as if the hard fork will not happen. Should we supposed to be worried by this?

[megashira1]

Whats the latest news on this? If the big blocks support are really at 50% and growing then everyone should be starting to get worried. But everyone is calm as if the hard fork will not happen. Should we supposed to be worried by this?

It will take another 8 months before the community realizes big blocks are needed and a hard fork is necessary. However, at this time a hard fork wont be as contentious as BU is/was and the market will only dip slightly before skyrocketing once people realize it was a success.

[cryptoanarchist]

Whats the latest news on this? If the big blocks support are really at 50% and growing then everyone should be starting to get worried. But everyone is calm as if the hard fork will not happen. Should we supposed to be worried by this?

It will take another 8 months before the community realizes big blocks are needed and a hard fork is necessary. However, at this time a hard fork wont be as contentious as BU is/was and the market will only dip slightly before skyrocketing once people realize it was a success.

Why 8 months?

[megashira1]

Whats the latest news on this? If the big blocks support are really at 50% and growing then everyone should be starting to get worried. But everyone is calm as if the hard fork will not happen. Should we supposed to be worried by this?

It will take another 8 months before the community realizes big blocks are needed and a hard fork is necessary. However, at this time a hard fork wont be as contentious as BU is/was and the market will only dip slightly before skyrocketing once people realize it was a success.

Why 8 months?

It will require time and evidence of Bitcoin losing market share/sentiment for people to realize the importance of bigger blocks for the long term success of Bitcoin. Transactions will become even slower, fees even higher and Bitcoin will be sitting on the wayside while other projects seemingly gain more traction and support with regards to solving scaling. I foresee a certain project coming along in the crypto-landscape essentially solving this whole scaling debacle and causing a serious threat to Bitcoin. However, this threat will be the push Bitcoin needs for it to get out of its death-spin stalemate.

[7788bitcoin]

I think everyone is hoping for a larger capacity, and bigger block is one of the most direct ways of doing it.

Segwit activation will not lead to bigger blocks but more efficient blocks.

[pinkflower]

Whats the latest news on this? If the big blocks support are really at 50% and growing then everyone should be starting to get worried. But everyone is calm as if the hard fork will not happen. Should we supposed to be worried by this?

It will take another 8 months before the community realizes big blocks are needed and a hard fork is necessary. However, at this time a hard fork wont be as contentious as BU is/was and the market will only dip slightly before skyrocketing once people realize it was a success.

Why 8 months?

It will require time and evidence of Bitcoin losing market share/sentiment for people to realize the importance of bigger blocks for the long term success of Bitcoin. Transactions will become even slower, fees even higher and Bitcoin will be sitting on the wayside while other projects seemingly gain more traction and support with regards to solving scaling. I foresee a certain project coming along in the crypto-landscape essentially solving this whole scaling debacle and causing a serious threat to Bitcoin. However, this threat will be the push Bitcoin needs for it to get out of its death-spin stalemate.

What about Segwit and LN as a scaling solution? Can you explain why its considered an inferior solution to the problem by the supporters of BU?

For a Lisk and Xaurum supporter you know a lot and have concern on BTC. Dont those ponzis bother you?

[AngryDwarf]

Bigger block support and BU's mechanism to achieve this are not synonymous.

[Amph]

Whats the latest news on this? If the big blocks support are really at 50% and growing then everyone should be starting to get worried. But everyone is calm as if the hard fork will not happen. Should we supposed to be worried by this?

It will take another 8 months before the community realizes big blocks are needed and a hard fork is necessary. However, at this time a hard fork wont be as contentious as BU is/was and the market will only dip slightly before skyrocketing once people realize it was a success.

it's not up to the community to realized that, vote that are not from miners don't count anything, it's up to the miners, and what they are forced to choose form external entity that are relevant like exchange and big merchants

and why you think hard fork is necessary when we have segwit that does the job better without hard forking anything? mienrs are not against segwit, form what i have understood they ar emore against LN that would happen with segwit

[aTriz]

it's big blocks for today only. let's review it again if it stays up there for a solid week or two. i really don't understand why the 8mb blockers are still bothering.

That makes sense for me, I cannot see the point in supporting 8 MB blocks as a miner, if even less than 1% of total mining power is standing behind this solution.

The group of people that is doing that, could have been support one of the options that will most likely happen, from my perspective the better choice would be SegWit than the Bitcoin Unlimited.

In fact, I agree with that there is really no point in aggresive approach on the people who have chosen the other way, we should tolerate the rest of community and use persuading skills instead of building the roadblocks for the other miners.

[Xester]

https://coin.dance/blocks

Bitcoin Unlimited -  49.3%
SegWit  -                34.0%
8 MB Blocks  -         0.7%
BIP 100  -               1.4%


Bitcoin is going to the moon once we start mining bigger blocks!! The community has demanded it and here we are!

I guess even if Bitcoin will start to activate if it reaches 50% consensus the result will be the same since the exchanges have already declared that if in case of the split they will support the cor developers. The possibility of bitcoins value reaching to the moon is when BU and Core will not split but rather complement each other. The community is tired of bad news and we hope for a solution.

[housebtc]

The figure is just a small representative sample of the community, miners don't want SW and have the monopoly of hash power. I think it is better for them to fork the chain and move on. Since most exchanges have categorise it has an Altcoin. I

[cryptoanarchist]

https://coin.dance/blocks

Bitcoin Unlimited -  49.3%
SegWit  -                34.0%
8 MB Blocks  -         0.7%
BIP 100  -               1.4%


Bitcoin is going to the moon once we start mining bigger blocks!! The community has demanded it and here we are!

I guess even if Bitcoin will start to activate if it reaches 50% consensus the result will be the same since the exchanges have already declared that if in case of the split they will support the cor developers. The possibility of bitcoins value reaching to the moon is when BU and Core will not split but rather complement each other. The community is tired of bad news and we hope for a solution.

Once big blocks crosses 50%, you're going to see miners jumping the AXA/Blockstream ship. No fork, just Core fading into irrelevancy.

[pinkflower]

https://coin.dance/blocks

Bitcoin Unlimited -  49.3%
SegWit  -                34.0%
8 MB Blocks  -         0.7%
BIP 100  -               1.4%


Bitcoin is going to the moon once we start mining bigger blocks!! The community has demanded it and here we are!

I guess even if Bitcoin will start to activate if it reaches 50% consensus the result will be the same since the exchanges have already declared that if in case of the split they will support the cor developers. The possibility of bitcoins value reaching to the moon is when BU and Core will not split but rather complement each other. The community is tired of bad news and we hope for a solution.

Then this whole debacle will become one messy affair. If the exchanges list BU as the altcoin and the miners attack the BTC chain and kill it. What will happen now? Are we finally seeing the death of BTC, as we know it, coming?

[jonald_fyookball]

https://coin.dance/blocks

Bitcoin Unlimited -  49.3%
SegWit  -                34.0%
8 MB Blocks  -         0.7%
BIP 100  -               1.4%


Bitcoin is going to the moon once we start mining bigger blocks!! The community has demanded it and here we are!

I guess even if Bitcoin will start to activate if it reaches 50% consensus the result will be the same since the exchanges have already declared that if in case of the split they will support the cor developers. The possibility of bitcoins value reaching to the moon is when BU and Core will not split but rather complement each other. The community is tired of bad news and we hope for a solution.

Then this whole debacle will become one messy affair. If the exchanges list BU as the altcoin and the miners attack the BTC chain and kill it. What will happen now? Are we finally seeing the death of BTC, as we know it, coming?

Probably there will still be one bitcoin just with bigger blocks.

[pinkflower]

https://coin.dance/blocks

Bitcoin Unlimited -  49.3%
SegWit  -                34.0%
8 MB Blocks  -         0.7%
BIP 100  -               1.4%


Bitcoin is going to the moon once we start mining bigger blocks!! The community has demanded it and here we are!

I guess even if Bitcoin will start to activate if it reaches 50% consensus the result will be the same since the exchanges have already declared that if in case of the split they will support the cor developers. The possibility of bitcoins value reaching to the moon is when BU and Core will not split but rather complement each other. The community is tired of bad news and we hope for a solution.

Then this whole debacle will become one messy affair. If the exchanges list BU as the altcoin and the miners attack the BTC chain and kill it. What will happen now? Are we finally seeing the death of BTC, as we know it, coming?

Probably there will still be one bitcoin just with bigger blocks.

I sure do hope so on the part before you mentioned bigger blocks. It doesnt matter to me either way but a peaceful resolution is a better way than the potentially messy affair thats whats coming.

[sportis]

https://coin.dance/blocks

Bitcoin Unlimited -  49.3%
SegWit  -                34.0%
8 MB Blocks  -         0.7%
BIP 100  -               1.4%


Bitcoin is going to the moon once we start mining bigger blocks!! The community has demanded it and here we are!

People wait and don't be in a hurry. Using the same source as OP, today this is not the case. So what someone could say?

Bitcoin Unlimited -  41.1%
SegWit  -                34.7%
8 MB Blocks  -         4.7%
BIP 100  -              7.2%

[cryptoanarchist]

https://coin.dance/blocks

Bitcoin Unlimited -  49.3%
SegWit  -                34.0%
8 MB Blocks  -         0.7%
BIP 100  -               1.4%


Bitcoin is going to the moon once we start mining bigger blocks!! The community has demanded it and here we are!

People wait and don't be in a hurry. Using the same source as OP, today this is not the case. So what someone could say?

Bitcoin Unlimited -  41.1%
SegWit  -                34.7%
8 MB Blocks  -         4.7%
BIP 100  -              7.2%

The seven day average keeps inching up. Just a couple weeks ago is was at ~37%, not it is hanging around ~42%. You can't deny that the trend is going in favor of big blocks and this makes SegShit impossible.

[jonald_fyookball]

BTCC switched back to segwit... 

[cryptoanarchist]

BTCC switched back to segwit... 

When were they not for SegWit?

[IIOII]

Seems like SegWit support is growing since the exposure of the BitMain backdoor. Now at over 42% since the last 100 blocks.

I think that is very encouraging. Wu and Ver are trying to hold Bitcoin hostage out of pure self-interest. But their smear campaign is crumbling, because they are now increasingly exposed as what they are: Malevolent scammers.

Let's activate SegWit and move on. Bitcoin's future is bright.

[jonald_fyookball]

  because they are now increasingly exposed as what they are: Malevolent scammers.
 

Proof? Evidence? anything?

[IIOII]

^ No wonder the paid trolls are pouring in. ^

The situation is getting out of hands for the BU-Coin circle.

The ignore list is a highly useful tool when dealing with paid trolls like fyookball.

[-ck]

Seems like SegWit support is growing since the exposure of the BitMain backdoor. Now at over 42% since the last 100 blocks.

No, you're still making the same mistake others have been making. The same pools are mining segwit as previously, all you're looking at is day to day variance. Neither BU nor segwit have budged in overall (hashrate) support for weeks.

[pinkflower]

Seems like SegWit support is growing since the exposure of the BitMain backdoor. Now at over 42% since the last 100 blocks.

I think that is very encouraging. Wu and Ver are trying to hold Bitcoin hostage out of pure self-interest. But their smear campaign is crumbling, because they are now increasingly exposed as what they are: Malevolent scammers.

Let's activate SegWit and move on. Bitcoin's future is bright.

Im confident it will. BU is something like XT. Theyre both nothing but a nuisance and they use fear and making people think stuff will happen. Wheres Mike Hearn now? He predicted BTC will die this year right?

[cryptoanarchist]

Add in 8MB votes with Unlimited and we have a healthy 50% for bigger blocks, assuming at least 1% will be ok with bigger blocks and just aren't signaling.

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools


Is Core going to respond to the market with a block size increase? Or dig in their heels? I got my popcorn ready.

[jonald_fyookball]

Add in 8MB votes with Unlimited and we have a healthy 50% for bigger blocks, assuming at least 1% will be ok with bigger blocks and just aren't signaling.

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools


Is Core going to respond to the market with a block size increase? Or dig in their heels? I got my popcorn ready.

Tricky part is figuring out how much to diversify into alts.  Time is against bitcoin the longer it stagnates.

[lionheart78]

Add in 8MB votes with Unlimited and we have a healthy 50% for bigger blocks, assuming at least 1% will be ok with bigger blocks and just aren't signaling.

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools


Is Core going to respond to the market with a block size increase? Or dig in their heels? I got my popcorn ready.

Tricky part is figuring out how much to diversify into alts.  Time is against bitcoin the longer it stagnates.

I agree, people won't wait forever, but seems this scaling solution battle will last for eternity. I hope it won't be too late for Bitcoin before this political drama is over.   

Add in 8MB votes with Unlimited and we have a healthy 50% for bigger blocks, assuming at least 1% will be ok with bigger blocks and just aren't signaling.

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools


Is Core going to respond to the market with a block size increase? Or dig in their heels? I got my popcorn ready.

I am still wondering, aside from Segwit why does core does not want a block size increase, when they are capable of executing it better.

[-ck]

I am still wondering, aside from Segwit why does core does not want a block size increase, when they are capable of executing it better.

Because, as you'll read time and time again if you haven't been listening - segwit IS a block size increase of up to 4MB! Increasing the chain block size to 2MB  would make it an 8MB increase in size. Additionally, increasing the chain block size to 2MB in its current form opens up the network to a DDoS vector through a quadratic scaling issue in transactions which means an extra large transaction can be crafted that holds up even fast nodes for over a minute and a half, and uses massive amounts of ram during the process. This would render slower nodes unresponsive for many minutes and possibly run out of ram and crash. Also note that BU had an out-of-memory bug even WITHOUT bigger blocks, and one of BU's proposed solutions to DoS transaction blocks is parallel validation of blocks -> which means even MORE ram usage and virtually guaranteeing out of memory crashes.

[jonald_fyookball]

Add in 8MB votes with Unlimited and we have a healthy 50% for bigger blocks, assuming at least 1% will be ok with bigger blocks and just aren't signaling.

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools


Is Core going to respond to the market with a block size increase? Or dig in their heels? I got my popcorn ready.

Tricky part is figuring out how much to diversify into alts.  Time is against bitcoin the longer it stagnates.

I agree, people won't wait forever, but seems this scaling solution battle will last for eternity. I hope it won't be too late for Bitcoin before this political drama is over.   

Add in 8MB votes with Unlimited and we have a healthy 50% for bigger blocks, assuming at least 1% will be ok with bigger blocks and just aren't signaling.

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools


Is Core going to respond to the market with a block size increase? Or dig in their heels? I got my popcorn ready.

I am still wondering, aside from Segwit why does core does not want a block size increase, when they are capable of executing it better.

Simple.  They want as little as on chain scaling as possible.

[pinkflower]

Its like a game of chicken. Who will give in first? The miners who invested a lot of money to support and secure the protocol or the developers who could move somewhere else after theyre done with BTC? One of them knows that the other cant play this game for long.

[cryptoanarchist]

Its like a game of chicken. Who will give in first? The miners who invested a lot of money to support and secure the protocol or the developers who could move somewhere else after theyre done with BTC? One of them knows that the other cant play this game for long.

Maybe the miners have been paid more money than they spent on hardware to kill bitcoin. Banksters have unlimited printing press money to defend their monopoly, right?

[iluvpie60]

Great, 1% more and then they can fork off and see where the fork's support takes them...

I think miners are waiting for some more nodes to upgrade to new clients rather than forcing them/throwing them into confusion.

Point is, the battle is already won. Blockstream/SegWit miners can't survive on the minority chain. Not even for a day.

I don't know what you're talking about "cannot survive" - the chains will be completely separate and run in their own directions should it happen. Jihan said he wanted people to "attack" the minority chain (which is a fucking awful approach and speaks volumes) but that would mean he needs as much hashrate directed towards attacking it as he does mining BU blocks and no such hashrate is spare to do that. So unless BU support ends up being 90% leaving only a 10% core chain, then there won't be enough spare hashrate to throw at killing off the forked minority sized chain. There is no precedent saying which chain the economy will follow, but the majority have expressed that they will follow segwit...

Attack the minority chain? pfft, why bother?

How is the SegWit chain going to survive at significantly less than 50% hashpower when they can only mine 1MB blocks? Transactions will grind to a halt and miners will start leaving making it only worse.

If the hashrate went down by 50% wouldn't it only grind to a halt for a period of 7 to 10 days? Wouldn't the difficulty decrease to compensate the lower hash rate?

Maybe I am wrong in thinking about it that way, obviously hash rate just keeps increasing and difficulty increases, why can't it go down?

[jubalix]

Jihan threatened to fork at 51% anyway but we'll see...

Jihan is nothing more than a keyboard warrior. Everyone knows that allowing a fork to initiate at 51% comes with risks being far too high. I don't believe he will potentially jeopardise his operations just to gamble on a positive outcome. If he's (or they with RV added) ever going to initiate a fork, he (they) will likely wait till 65-70% is reached. At least, that would make a whole lot more sense.

depends how much eth Jihan holds....ever think that through?

[farharhadi]

We review what happened this year is very solid, even I do not understand why inhibit still disturbing when a case that has happened this time.

[squatz1]

This BUg thing is getting boring. This guys are a joke. R/BTC is just trash talk impossible to read...

Btw while their hashrate go up their nodes still going down. Nice work jihad wu and roger suckver

These guys are a joke but they really do have a ton of leverage when it comes to the miners that make the decision at the end of the day, they've really (Roger) has got to be making Wu and his cronies a ton of promises when it comes to when and if they do take over Bitcoin (prayers that they don't)


Though I don't know how they can trust something like this when they've had so many node crashes and such - like how much is Ver paying them to stay on his side in this debate? Is he REALLY that rich to be financing this entire thing?