ViaBTC Twitter Polls

[AngryDwarf]

ViaBTC have produced two twitter polls:

Should we increase Blocksize:

https://twitter.com/ViaBTC/status/860933065022898176

Should we activate Segwit:

https://twitter.com/ViaBTC/status/860933165002522625

Obviously these two polls are not mutually exclusive. People can vote for both if that is what they believe.

I have started this new thread as the thread ViaBTC: Should we activate Segwit? is self moderated, and it attempts to manipulate the voting behaviour for a political point. It appears to me to be an example of censorship and propaganda techniques that would make the author of Mein Kampf proud.

[AngryDwarf]

The below are my thoughts. People are free to develop their own.

In my view, we probably need both on and off chain solutions as this would widen BTC usability cases. I fail to see how off-chain solutions would work on top of an unreliable and restricted main chain. Even the lightning network white paper raises the need for on-chain growth.

So I personally would vote 'yes' to a blocksize increase as this is the simplest solution. Other people may consider solutions such as extension blocks to be a better way forward.

As for segwit, I need to be convinced that segregated witness blocks are the simplest solution. I suspect it's benefits could be achieved simply by new transaction format types, (similar to flextrans). So at the moment I am inclined to vote 'no', but I am open to be convinced with greater technical arguments. (And implementing a hard fork as a soft fork with software engineering hacks due to Fear Of Hark Fork is not something that would sway me.)

[aso118]

Do Twitter polls really serve any purpose?
We have seen that even discussions on Bitcointalk / reddit can get derailed on the controversial topic of blocksize. The number of blocks signaling support is a far better way of gauging support.

[olushakes]

Same way the earlier poser has rightly said. Do these polls even matter? Because I have seen in the past weeks where several discussions were held on the same subject matter but a concensus was not reached. My thinking was that the matter has been laid to rest before seeing this all over again. The simple truth is we cannot agree on a course of action because both parties will always believe their position is the right way to go. For me, I have no allegiance to any of the positions just the best for bitcoin.

[Lauda]

I have started this new thread as the thread ViaBTC: Should we activate Segwit? is self moderated, and it attempts to manipulate the voting behaviour for a political point.

This statement is completely false. Due to a huge increase of various shills and trolls in addition to signature spammers, I have to keep all my threads self-moderated.

It appears to me to be an example of censorship and propaganda techniques that would make the author of Mein Kampf proud.

Moderation != censorship. You don't need to be an adult to understand the difference.

So I personally would vote 'yes' to a blocksize increase as this is the simplest solution.

It is not as it requires a hard fork. The quickest and best way to a capacity increase is Segwit.

As for segwit, I need to be convinced that segregated witness blocks are the simplest solution. I suspect it's benefits could be achieved simply by new transaction format types, (similar to flextrans). So at the moment I am inclined to vote 'no', but I am open to be convinced with greater technical arguments.

Flextrans is a HF. The code  was riddled with bugs and likely still is. (see bluematt's comments for example). It is not as nearly as tested and reviewed as Segwit is. If you're recommending Flextrans then it is due to you not being able to be objective.

But I guess this one isn't self moderated...

It is not possible to have a healthy discussion in a normal thread due to the lack of forum moderation. He can attempt to smear SW in favor of a classic block size, but it won't work as the supermajority supports SW.

[AngryDwarf]

Questioning whether a technical solution has been implemented in the best manner is not the same as attempting to smear it.

[Lauda]

Questioning whether a technical solution has been implemented in the best manner is not the same as attempting to smear it.

I have not claimed that you have attempted to smear it. I said that you could do it if you wanted to. Moving on, based on what are you questioning this? The super majority of developers and experts stating that Segwit is very good? Maybe lay off the r/btc & BU "scientists" kool-aid.[1]
[1] - This is not meant to be offensive, but rather friendly advice for the health of your brain.

[franky1]

i wrote this in lauda's moderated topic.

without threat without insult without bias i say this

segwit is not:
"Segwit is essentially equal to bigger blocks"
due to the requirement of people needing to move funds to segwit keypairs long AFTER activation, just to even get some where above the norm but below the expectation.

my statement is based on the reality of user requirement of segwit keypairs.

it contains no trolling, no insult, no threats.. just a reality that needs to be emphasised.

lets see if it gets censored

[-ck]

It is not possible to have a healthy discussion in a normal thread due to the lack of forum moderation. He can attempt to smear SW in favor of a classic block size, but it won't work as the supermajority supports SW.

The results of the poll, and then hopefully VIA's response, will speak for themselves... though of course they'll claim they were rigged blah blah blah etc etc etc... Never seen those arguments before 

[Qartada]

It appears to me to be an example of censorship and propaganda techniques that would make the author of Mein Kampf proud.

I don't agree that people should use self-moderated topics where controversial opinions are being voiced, but that's a stupid way of looking at it. It's someone's private topic on a private forum.  Get over yourself.

[franky1]

here we go again, round circle aruments

1. blockstreamists GIVE power to pools to vote or veto without user node consent.
2. meaningless sybil vote attack using twitter thinking that twitter means more then user node consent
(facepalm to points 1 and 2))
3. make their fake cries that pools and twitter are deciding things rather than nodes.
(facepalm at their victim card and crocodile tears)
4. propose to nuke pools/nodes/users because its not high majority accepted that the community want it

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

cant they just accept that segwit does NOT have high majority acceptance and instead of nuking parts of the network that say no to a trojan, they instead should recode something properly that actually UNITES the community and do it as a proper symbiotic NODE AND POOL consensus.

[jonald_fyookball]

read their most recent tweets and you'll have you're answer if they support segwit.