Bitcoin Forum
December 18, 2017, 03:23:06 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: can we admit segwit SF is never going to get 95% approval?  (Read 4181 times)
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
May 09, 2017, 10:25:49 PM
 #1

Last 144 blocks (24 hours) , its only 20.1%.

I mean, come on guys...

Current proposal from core is not gonna happen.   If you really want Segwit, you need to back segwit HF.

1513610586
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513610586

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513610586
Reply with quote  #2

1513610586
Report to moderator
1513610586
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513610586

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513610586
Reply with quote  #2

1513610586
Report to moderator
1513610586
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513610586

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513610586
Reply with quote  #2

1513610586
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513610586
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513610586

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513610586
Reply with quote  #2

1513610586
Report to moderator
1513610586
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513610586

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513610586
Reply with quote  #2

1513610586
Report to moderator
AgentofCoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile
May 09, 2017, 10:33:31 PM
 #2

Last 144 blocks (24 hours) , its only 20.1%.

I mean, come on guys...

Current proposal from core is not gonna happen.   If you really want Segwit, you need to back segwit HF.

No one reasonably wants to hardfork.
That is never going to happen anytime soon without a controversial hardfork.

If SegWit SF never gets accepted then other softforks will be proposed.
Hardforks, majority of the time, will only be implemented after an emergency.

Hardforks are an attack vector that is asking for trouble. If we can programmatically
avoid it and still get a gain, why risk it? We only risk it when all other options have
been exhausted. IMO, we haven't gotten there yet.

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.
XbladeX
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


Smart Contract Marketplace


View Profile
May 09, 2017, 10:37:07 PM
 #3

Last 144 blocks (24 hours) , its only 20.1%.

I mean, come on guys...

Current proposal from core is not gonna happen.   If you really want Segwit, you need to back segwit HF.

Wait when BTC and ETH will have same market cap that will mean ETH miners are getting 3x more $ fiat than BTC miners. There is space where they will move to tested working  solution.
Segwit will be tested by then on multiple altcoins VTC LTC DGB...
Today they have low motivation for changes but those will come with stagnation if not BTC then some alt will take over 1st place. ETH now gets all-most same $ fiat from mining as BTC.
It will be good when ETH miners will get more if ETH will have LN(Raiden) + some upgrades.

Increasing block-size alone is like increasing debt ceiling each year by US government because this time will be better and they will pay debt Cheesy...

         ▄▄▀▀▄▄
     ▄▄▀▀  ▄▄  ▀▀▄▄
 ▄▄▀▀  ▄▄▀▀  ▀▀▄▄  ▀▀▄▄
█  ▄▄▀▀          ▀▀▄▄  █
█ █   ██▄▄     ▄██   █ █
█ █   ▄ ▀▀█▄▄ ▀▀██   █ █
█ █   ███▄ ▀▀██ ██   █ █
█ █   ██      ▀ ██   █ █
█ █   ██        ██   █ █
█  ▀▀▄▄          ▄▄▀▀  █
 ▀▀▄▄  ▀▀▄▄  ▄▄▀▀  ▄▄▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄  ▀▀  ▄▄▀▀
         ▀▀▄▄▀▀
Modex              
SMART CONTRACT MARKETPLACE
██▄▄
████  ██▄▄
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████

████  ████

████  ████

████  ████

▀▀██  ████

      ▀▀██
TWITTER          LINKEDIN          SLACK
▬▬▬▬▬    FACEBOOK          TELEGRAM    ▬▬▬▬▬
..DEVELOP  ●  DISTRIBUTE  ●  DEPLOY..
██▄▄
████  ██▄▄
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████

████  ████

████  ████

████  ████

▀▀██  ████

      ▀▀██
██▄▄
████  ██▄▄
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████

████  ████

████  ████

████  ████

▀▀██  ████

      ▀▀██
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
May 09, 2017, 10:38:04 PM
 #4

Last 144 blocks (24 hours) , its only 20.1%.

I mean, come on guys...

Current proposal from core is not gonna happen.   If you really want Segwit, you need to back segwit HF.

No one reasonably wants to hardfork.
That is never going to happen anytime soon without a controversial hardfork.

If SegWit SF never gets accepted then other softforks will be proposed.
Hardforks, majority of the time, will only be implemented after an emergency.


I disagree but thanks for commenting.

franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile
May 09, 2017, 10:50:24 PM
 #5

No one reasonably wants to hardfork. bilateral split
That is never going to happen, so either:
anytime soon a controversial hardfork of lots of orphan drama.
or
more reasonable time of better community uniting consensus IF blockstream give in and rewrite a proper 1 merkle blocksize of upto 4mb to match other peers desires AND they still get their segwit keypairs.

If SegWit SF never gets accepted then other softforks will be proposed. as will a hard consensus
Hardforks, majority of the time, will only be implemented after an emergency.

Hardforks are not an attack vector, but a bilateral split is, and thats just asking for trouble.
If we can programmatically avoid a bilateral split and still get a gain of hardfork consensus, we wont have to risk a bilateral fork. We only risk the latter when ALL other options have been exhausted. IMO, we haven't gotten there yet.

FTFY..

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
Yakamoto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
May 09, 2017, 10:56:51 PM
 #6

Last 144 blocks (24 hours) , its only 20.1%.

I mean, come on guys...

Current proposal from core is not gonna happen.   If you really want Segwit, you need to back segwit HF.
I'm not going to say that it will never hit 95%, but realistically there has never been any expectation (from me anyways) for it to hit 95% since the community is so divided about everything. Segwit is probably the ideal at this point since it is not going to require a hard fork and it doesn't start to centralize power more, but I have never thought for a moment it will ever be backed like that. Some people just like to disagree for the sake of disagreeing too.














 

 

█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
BitBlender 

 













 















 












 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
gentlemand
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484


Hello You


View Profile
May 09, 2017, 10:57:42 PM
 #7

95% is pure pie in the sky. There are probably enough miners who died while wiring something up but left the machines running to prevent it from happening. Then there are these people still signalling for 8mb blocks when I can barely remember anything about it.

Other approaches will be needed and at some point everyone's going to be incentivised to find some common ground. I've no idea what it'll look like though.

Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


GUNBOT Licenses -20% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
May 09, 2017, 11:02:05 PM
 #8

1) Variance.
2) Massive mining centralization due to Jihad prioritizing deployment of devices for himself rather than diversifying the network.
3) Segwit is happening.

What you do not understand is the following:
1) Supermajority of developers want Segwit over BU.
2) Supermajority of users want Segwit over BU.
3) Supermajority of the economy wants Segwit over BU.

Therefore, Segwit is happening either with:
1) MASF.
2) UASF BIP 148.
3) UASF BIP 149.


          ▄▄█████▌▐█████▄▄
       ▄█████████▌    ▀▀▀███▄
     ▄███████████▌  ▄▄▄▄   ▀██▄
   ▄█████████████▌  ▀▄▄▀     ▀██▄
  ▐██████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄       ▀█▌
 ▐███████████████▌             ▀█▌
 ████████████████▌  ▀▀▀█         ██
▐████████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄         ██▌
▐████████████████▌  ▀  ▀         ██▌
 ████████████████▌  █▀▀█         ██
 ▐███████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀        ▄█▌
  ▐██████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀       ▄█▌
   ▀█████████████▌  ▀▀█▀     ▄██▀
     ▀███████████▌  ▀▀▀▀   ▄██▀
       ▀█████████▌    ▄▄▄███▀
          ▀▀█████▌▐█████▀▀
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
      ▄▄▄
 ▄▄█████████▄▄
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
 ▄███████████▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile
May 09, 2017, 11:09:14 PM
 #9

1) Variance.
2) Massive mining centralization due to Jihad prioritizing deployment of devices for himself rather than diversifying the network.
3) Segwit is happening.

What you do not understand is the following:
1) Supermajority of developers want Segwit over BU.
2) Supermajority of users want Segwit over BU.
3) Supermajority of the economy wants Segwit over BU.

Therefore, Segwit is happening either with:
1) MASF.
2) UASF BIP 148.
3) UASF BIP 149.

oh lauda. when you get some spare time.. look passed the butcheek of blockstream. and actually think about the bitcoin community.

65% of nodes is not super majority - https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/
35% of pools is not super majority - http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png

stop only getting fake results from your echo chamber of censored groupies..(luke JR and his fake 100,000 nodes lol)
what you are not understanding is that you are like a music bang groupy who thinks the band you adore is the best because all the other groupies you talk to love and adore it..

you are not realising that you are only talking to people on the music bands tour bus. so you cannot see anything beyond the tour buses headlights. you even want the tourbus radio to be tuned into a music station that only plays the blockstream tune

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


GUNBOT Licenses -20% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
May 09, 2017, 11:14:44 PM
 #10

oh lauda. when you get some spare time.. look passed the butcheek of blockstream. and actually think about the bitcoin community.
This has nothing to do with Blockstream. You are clearly obsessed with them and need to visit a nearby psychiatrist.

65% of nodes is not super majority
Core nodes represent over 90% of the network. 65% is a super majority.

35% of pools is not super majority
I haven't mentioned pools. Are you really this stupid?

stop only getting fake results from your echo chamber of censored groupies..
I am not.


          ▄▄█████▌▐█████▄▄
       ▄█████████▌    ▀▀▀███▄
     ▄███████████▌  ▄▄▄▄   ▀██▄
   ▄█████████████▌  ▀▄▄▀     ▀██▄
  ▐██████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄       ▀█▌
 ▐███████████████▌             ▀█▌
 ████████████████▌  ▀▀▀█         ██
▐████████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄         ██▌
▐████████████████▌  ▀  ▀         ██▌
 ████████████████▌  █▀▀█         ██
 ▐███████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀        ▄█▌
  ▐██████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀       ▄█▌
   ▀█████████████▌  ▀▀█▀     ▄██▀
     ▀███████████▌  ▀▀▀▀   ▄██▀
       ▀█████████▌    ▄▄▄███▀
          ▀▀█████▌▐█████▀▀
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
      ▄▄▄
 ▄▄█████████▄▄
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
 ▄███████████▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile
May 09, 2017, 11:25:12 PM
 #11

This has nothing to do with Blockstream.

segwit has nothing to do with blockstream??

care to check elements:segwit.. segwit is a blockstream invention.. not a 'independent core' concept
care to check P.wuilles employment who coded the main cludge of it..

it become a roadmap when gmax wrote the road map.

as for WHO decided segwit's activation
care to check gmaxwell and Luke Jr's going soft POOL ONLY vote

and where that POOL ONLY.. only has 35% vote which is no where near super majority.

as for things like UASF, care to check samson mows employment and what his current role is

seriously.. open your eyes

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
shillfudder
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168



View Profile
May 09, 2017, 11:25:59 PM
 #12

We can only hope.
AgentofCoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile
May 10, 2017, 12:00:42 AM
 #13

No one reasonably wants to hardfork. bilateral split
That is never going to happen, so either:
anytime soon a controversial hardfork of lots of orphan drama.
or
more reasonable time of better community uniting consensus IF blockstream give in and rewrite a proper 1 merkle blocksize of upto 4mb to match other peers desires


If SegWit SF never gets accepted then other softforks will be proposed. as will a hard consensus
Hardforks, majority of the time, will only be implemented after an emergency.

Hardforks are not an attack vector, but a bilateral split is, and thats just asking for trouble.
If we can programmatically avoid a bilateral split and still get a gain of hardfork consensus, we wont have to risk a bilateral fork. We only risk the latter when ALL other options have been exhausted. IMO, we haven't gotten there yet.

FTFY..

I agree, no one wants to bilateral split, but I also think no one wants to perform
a hardfork (even within 95% consensus, hypothetically) only for the "scaling issue"
now because people are afraid of the unintended consequences, as well as the
anticipated one. The scaling debate really comes down to decentralization. If a
hardfork affects that, then the majority will not support it (majority of everyone
other than miners). A hardfork is almost always a "leap of faith" due to it's centralizing
side effects, IMO.

If hardforkers really demand hardforks as the main protocol changing mechanism,
they should not be creating EC type clients and other clients to change the protocol,
but create new supporting structures for verifying nodes and decentralization under the
current protocol. For example, when block propagation became an issue between miners,
as the blocksize grew from low levels to 1MB, Core Developer Corallo developed and
released the FIBRE network to help support the mining network. Instead of allowing
failures, that mining relay system was created, to mitigate the impact that scaling to
1MB created. That is the next step for scaling, not EC or other consensus changing
systems, but backbone systems.

If new support structures can be created that preserves the decentralized and
independently verifying node network, then majority (but not all obviously) of hardfork
complaints and fears would vanish. Until those systems are created and accepted by the
community as being sufficient, the scaling hardfork proposal will never be reasonably
entertained, IMO. Any movement toward EC without those structures will always be
regarded as an attack instead of a solution, IMO.

If scaling proponents are genuine, they should be building foundations first, then
push for scaling second. Not the other way around like currently.

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.
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
May 10, 2017, 12:13:29 AM
 #14

If new support structures can be created that preserves the decentralized and
independently verifying node network, then majority (but not all obviously) of hardfork
complaints and fears would vanish.


What about the recent SPV fraud proof improvements from Bitcrust?

franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile
May 10, 2017, 12:36:08 AM
 #15



blockstreams tier network

vs

node consensus per network using consensus to grow without blockstream spoonfed limits...

you think the tier network is less centralised??

here is a lesson
1. unless nodes (important) are there and united and same level playing field to save off large orphan risks... pools wont do anything.

this means nodes have to unite around a consensus first. then pools will follow.
that is where blockstream went wrong.. trying to bypass nodes by going soft.
smart pools wont do anything unless nodes are there..

pools have said many times they wont do anything if theres more then a few % risk of orphans as that will hurt their income.
they can wave a flag or a hat to say they support something but they wont actually create it at any activation date if ther is orphan risk.

so its nodes that matter most.

solution.. ASK THE COMMUNITY FOR A SHOPING LIST OF FEATURES EVERYONE WANTS. and all unite in building a version of the protocol in all the different brands/langages that fulful that list.

call it planB
EG core v0.15B
EG BU vX.xB
EG classic vx.xB
and so on.

yep that means stop using these several roundtable meeting to be used as bribes and ass-kiss events.. but to actually use their EARS to listen and actually settle on features that will actually unite the community and solve the issues

things like
limiting tx sigops to 4k or below IN CONSENSUS.H
allowing a hardish rule for blocksize of 8mb (long term debate ender (even core devs and others know 8mb is network safe))
and allow NODES to set a secondary preferential limit amount below that, starting at say 2mb. that is dynamic. (yep EC)

thus keeping POOLS inline with majority below preference and way below consensus.
(imagine it like nodes having a lil more sway over when/if pools should have moved beyond 0.5mb in 2013, even while the 1mb consensus existed)

thus letting nodes have a little more say in when pools increment up without actually causing real orphan stress/drama
other features like xthin and compact blocks finding a united way to communicate across the network between the different brands and get the data they need.
where by the core devs WORK WITH other implementations (OMG did i just say core devs should try being independent and help the network.. yes i did)

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
AgentofCoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile
May 10, 2017, 01:39:24 AM
 #16

If new support structures can be created that preserves the decentralized and
independently verifying node network, then majority (but not all obviously) of hardfork
complaints and fears would vanish.


What about the recent SPV fraud proof improvements from Bitcrust?

I haven't read much about it, but from a simple look over just now, it
seems to rely on the miners flagging a block that has an invalid tx for
the Bitcrust nodes to understand its invalid, compared to your node
verifying the invalid tx itself and telling the miners.

My understanding of the Satoshi Fraud Proof idea was that it would
be a trustless way to verify for SPV. From my simple layman reading
just now, it doesn't seem to be doing that with Bitcrust. Though I do
need to read about it more since I have not heard of it till now.

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.
zigoter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
May 10, 2017, 02:04:57 AM
 #17

Segwit as a hard fork is nearly the same as segwit as a soft fork. As a hard fork, it means that the witness commitment would be part of the block header. However, this is not desireable because the same data can be put into the coinbase transaction with no additional overhead and would make it a soft fork.
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574


★Jetwin.com★


View Profile
May 10, 2017, 02:11:54 AM
 #18

Last 144 blocks (24 hours) , its only 20.1%.

I mean, come on guys...

Current proposal from core is not gonna happen.   If you really want Segwit, you need to back segwit HF.

Yes it does not look like it will be activated. But the time to wait for it is until mid November right? Just wait for it until that time and if nothing happens then we should accept it. There is nothing wrong with waiting.


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄▄███▀▀▀ ▄  ▄ ▀▀▀███▄▄
▄██▀▀ ▄▄████  ████▄▄ ▀▀██▄
▄██▀ ▄███████    ███████▄ ▀██▄
██▀ ▄████████▀    ▀████████▄ ▀██
██▀ ██████████      ██████████ ▀██
██▀ ██████████        ██████████ ▀██
▄██                                ██▄
██ ▄                              ▄ ██
██ ███▄                        ▄███ ██
██ ██████▄                  ▄██████ ██
██ ▀████████              ████████▀ ██
▀██ ███████                ███████ ██▀
██▄ █████▀                ▀█████ ▄██
██▄ ████        ▄▄        ████ ▄██
██▄ ▀█      ▄▄████▄▄      █▀ ▄██
██▄    ▄▄██████████▄▄    ▄██▀
▀██▄▄ ▀▀██████████▀▀ ▄▄██▀
▀▀███▄▄▄ ▀▀▀▀ ▄▄▄███▀▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
 

    [    ]
The One
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile
May 10, 2017, 02:14:49 AM
 #19

Last 144 blocks (24 hours) , its only 20.1%.

I mean, come on guys...

Current proposal from core is not gonna happen.   If you really want Segwit, you need to back segwit HF.

Of course it isn't going to happen.

The only thing that can succeed is a simple increase in blocksize.

..C..
.....................
........What is C?.........
..............
...........ICO            Dec 1st – Dec 30th............
       ............Open            Dec 1st- Dec 30th............
...................ANN thread      Bounty....................

Viscount
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 246


View Profile
May 10, 2017, 02:23:26 AM
 #20

Don't worry we shall activate SegWit on Bitcoin. It's already activated on LTC and we see how it's going, then get it on Bitcoin.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!