Bitcoin Forum
October 31, 2024, 11:02:59 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: ViaBTC: Should we active Segwit?  (Read 2695 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
-ck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4284
Merit: 1645


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
May 07, 2017, 08:47:03 PM
 #41

Unfortunately they have not changed they mind after the poll, but at least they try to find out.

https://supload.com/SyfsSeTJ-

Let's give it a few weeks or months and then see what's what. The stars are very slowly aligning or colliding for something to be done. Segwit is the prime option for now.
Well they did say "for now" and backtracking on what they have said would involve some degree of embarrassment to admit they were wrong about their decision. The world is full of people ploughing on with a bad decision long after it is brutally obvious that they made a bad decision so it's normal for them to hold their position for now. It took f2pool a while to settle on what their final stance would be too, but they didn't make as bold statements as viabtc did against segwit so they had no need for a big backtrack. Naturally it will take viabtc longer but I suspect they will switch positions. The real key, then, is what will happen with Bitmain since they have the most hard line position against segwit and will lose the most face from changing their minds. Their leader is so stubborn he could just persist indefinitely flying in the face of all logic and reason that tells him he's headed the wrong way. Money and the reality he'll lose out by doing this is the only thing that might swing him back.

Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
ImHash
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 506


View Profile
May 07, 2017, 09:03:14 PM
 #42

In my arrogant opinion, Antpool is stalling SegWit on Bitcoin to see what happens with LTC and for a while they'll keep stalling to earn more profit on their bags of LTC mined for years.

I think this was their plan all along to sell their LTC with as much profit as possible and at the same time benefit from the fees in BTC.

ViaBTC or other pools signal for SW, it won't matter not until Antpool signals it as well or we really don't need them?
Rakete4
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 235
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 07, 2017, 09:04:37 PM
 #43

UASF. Or Nuclear Option. Just threatening it will make them activate Segwit before tomorrow.
Lauda (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
May 07, 2017, 09:08:07 PM
 #44

Unfortunately they have not changed they mind after the poll, but at least they try to find out.
-snip-
Let's give it a few weeks or months and then see what's what. The stars are very slowly aligning or colliding for something to be done. Segwit is the prime option for now.
They could have saved everyone some time and backtracked on their absurd BU or BIP100 support. I have added the result and their statement to the OP. Additionally, this just confirms that they go against any kind of consensus/voting (nodes, economy, twitter, whatever).

-snip-
The real key, then, is what will happen with Bitmain since they have the most hard line position against segwit and will lose the most face from changing their minds. Their leader is so stubborn he could just persist indefinitely flying in the face of all logic and reason that tells him he's headed the wrong way. Money and the reality he'll lose out by doing this is the only thing that might swing him back.
Jihad, also know as "Fuck your mother if you want fuck", has not been acting reasonably and the interest of the Bitcoin network for quite some time now. The latest statement from ViaBTC does not make sense at all. Hash power is not any kind of law. If it were, Bitcoin would not be a decentralized system but a miner-controlled-system.

UASF. Or Nuclear Option. Just threatening it will make them activate Segwit before tomorrow.
I agree. UASF will saves everyone a lot of time and resources.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
-ck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4284
Merit: 1645


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
May 07, 2017, 09:16:42 PM
 #45

The latest statement from ViaBTC does not make sense at all. Hash power is not any kind of law. If it were, Bitcoin would not be a decentralized system but a miner-controlled-system.
Well I think that's what he IS actually arguing and he's not the only one; that bitcoin is a miner controlled system.

Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
d5000
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4088
Merit: 7477


Decentralization Maximalist


View Profile
May 07, 2017, 09:45:54 PM
 #46

UASF. Or Nuclear Option. Just threatening it will make them activate Segwit before tomorrow.

I've already written somewhere that UASF is a bit dangerous if there is less than 50% support because it would very likely develop into a chain split if a large part of the opposing pools chose to stay stubborn. And probability for them to accept Segwit is probably negatively correlated with a further polarization of the debate.

It's better to get 50% on board first (the support is now at ~40%, so 50% is not far away. ViaBTC if it really reconsiders its position - the last tweet for me is pointing into that direction - could bring it very very close) and then, if only Bitmain is left opposing, move on with UASF.

For the long term I support the "nuclear option" or a even more radical change (alternative to PoW).

█▀▀▀











█▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
e
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
█████████████
████████████▄███
██▐███████▄█████▀
█████████▄████▀
███▐████▄███▀
████▐██████▀
█████▀█████
███████████▄
████████████▄
██▄█████▀█████▄
▄█████████▀█████▀
███████████▀██▀
████▀█████████
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
c.h.
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀▀▀█











▄▄▄█
▄██████▄▄▄
█████████████▄▄
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███░░█████████
███▌▐█████████
█████████████
███████████▀
██████████▀
████████▀
▀██▀▀
Lauda (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
May 07, 2017, 10:06:51 PM
 #47

Well I think that's what he IS actually arguing and he's not the only one; that bitcoin is a miner controlled system.
Which is what I've observed to be the belief of BU proponents. Do they not understand that as such, Bitcoin would be a pretty worthless system?

For the long term I support the "nuclear option" or a even more radical change (alternative to PoW).
The nuclear option is changing the PoW, which was what the user was referring to IMO. I like the idea of it, and it sets a nice precedent for miners not acting in the best interest of the Bitcoin network. The major downside to it is that it also punishes the honest/good miners/pools (e.g. Bitfury & BTCC).

We can do UASF with BIP149 (which supersedes BIP148) if need be: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0149.mediawiki

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
AgentofCoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001



View Profile
May 07, 2017, 11:04:08 PM
Last edit: May 07, 2017, 11:28:35 PM by AgentofCoin
 #48

Well I think that's what he IS actually arguing and he's not the only one; that bitcoin is a miner controlled system.
Which is what I've observed to be the belief of BU proponents. Do they not understand that as such, Bitcoin would be a pretty worthless system?

Their disconnect, IMO, is that they ignore the issues of "mining centralization"
and "ledger centralization" so that they can push for an ideal that failed in 2010.

Essentially, they are repeating the failures of history. They do not care about
the possible pitfalls, they only care about their own self interests. It is so
destructive, that it is more likely that all blocksize raising proponents are likely
funded or created by the miners themselves, and not a band of Satoshi idealists.

Only miners would be so egotistical to think that they can control the whole system.
Some still haven't learned that the economies do not follow them, but vice versa.
They do not understand that "block forming consensus" is not enough to balance
this type of system. There are still pieces missing for full automation.

The BU proponents do not understand this. They believe Satoshi created the
perfect system and that by allowing the miners to act in an unrestricted and
unilateral manner, that we will reach the Bitcoin utopia dreamed about in early
years. Those were children's fantasies then, totally unrealistic based on our
current technological limitations. When Satoshi added the 1MB Cap, it was an
acknowledgment that the technology was still lacking. He didn't propose a
flexable cap for very important reasons. He chose a concrete restriction fix.

I support a decentralized & unregulatable ledger first, with safe scaling over time.
Request a signed message if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
Lauda (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
May 07, 2017, 11:55:42 PM
 #49

Their disconnect, IMO, is that they ignore the issues of "mining centralization"  and "ledger centralization" so that they can push for an ideal that failed in 2010. Essentially, they are repeating the failures of history. They do not care about
the possible pitfalls, they only care about their own self interests. It is so
destructive, that it is more likely that all blocksize raising proponents are likely
funded or created by the miners themselves, and not a band of Satoshi idealists.
They often quote Satoshi out of context and spread the "original vision" bullshit. If we were on about "original visions", we'd never have 1 MB of RAM (if the "Gates quote" actually is true). A lot has been learned over the years, and a lot has changed (the original whitepaper is really outdated on the current status of Bitcoin). 1 CPU = 1 Vote doesn't work; I don't think Satoshi predicted/factored in ASICs.

The BU proponents do not understand this. They believe Satoshi created the
perfect system and that by allowing the miners to act in an unrestricted and
unilateral manner, that we will reach the Bitcoin utopia dreamed about in early
years. Those were children's fantasies then, totally unrealistic based on our
current technological limitations.
Pretty much everything that Satoshi has said about POW or miners has an assumption, i.e. miners being honest and acting in the best interest of the network due to certain incentives. After several years of experience, we've learned that this isn't exactly true. This is why miners need to be kept in check, which is also one of the reasons for which we have so many nodes and promote users running them. If you take a look at the centralized ETH, the ViaBTC statement couldn't possibly make sense. If it did make sense, ETH could never move into POS (which is a separate story).

When Satoshi added the 1MB Cap, it was an acknowledgment that the technology was still lacking. He didn't propose a flexable cap for very important reasons. He chose a concrete restriction fix.
Segwit is the first step towards some of the fixes required to make a higher block size safer.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
Paashaas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3566
Merit: 4704



View Profile
May 08, 2017, 01:43:54 AM
 #50

Yes please, we need Segwitt and side-chains asap!
bartolo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 501


View Profile
May 08, 2017, 09:32:29 AM
 #51

It´s incomprehensible the statement of Viabtc after the survey of yesterday. Why do a survey if you ignore the results afterwards? Or they don´t want to admit so fast they were wrong before? The centralization of Bitcoin that some miners are looking for lead us to the same old point, selfishness and avarice. However here the miners are ignoring the power of the community. What if one day bitcoin users would feel tired and disgusted and decide to move to another coin? What would happen if they decided to sell all their coins and say goodbye to Bitcoin? Would these miners feel happy about mining a worthless coin singing "Hashpower is the law"? In the end, the miners, although necessary, are replaceable, the community of users, not so much.
Lauda (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
May 09, 2017, 09:04:57 AM
 #52

Yes please, we need Segwitt and side-chains asap!
Segwit is the first step to great scaling without centralizing the main chain.

It´s incomprehensible the statement of Viabtc after the survey of yesterday. Why do a survey if you ignore the results afterwards?
For anyone who is sane and not delusional or ignorant, it was obvious that Segwit would be strongly favored in that result.

Or they don´t want to admit so fast they were wrong before?
ViaBTC is a small man, just like Jihan. It takes a great person to admit being wrong right away. Therefore, it will take some time before they realize that they are.

What if one day bitcoin users would feel tired and disgusted and decide to move to another coin?
No. This is our coin; no miner is going to hold it hostage. Either Segwit gets activated via UASF or we hard fork a PoW change.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!