can we admit segwit SF is never going to get 95% approval?

[David Rabahy]

Segwit is the compromise. How can you not understand this?

Saying a thing doesn't make it so.  We can pretty much tell if it is a compromise when both sides agree to it.

[franky1]

segwit is the compromise..

in terms of making it easier to trojan horse in new features softly by compromising the security and decentralisation of the network

compromise= weak/break security
not
compromise= agreement to end debate

lets just wait for another brand to use the 'soft exploits' to add features.. but this time something not blockstream endorsed.. and then see lauda rage that going soft is bad..

then he will be a hypocrit for his going soft is good stance.. when it hits him in the face

[Lauda]

Saying a thing doesn't make it so. 

You saying this doesn't make your statement true. Segwit will deliver a great capacity increase considering the amount of people waiting to switch over. Segwit is the compromise and you don't negotiate with terrorists.

We can pretty much tell if it is a compromise when both sides agree to it.

Absolute nonsense. BU is cancer and no compromise can be made with their destructive technology.

[BillyBobZorton]

 It's still A TIE! What's so hard to understand?
 

which means it wont get 95%.

There are three ways of activating Segwit:
1) MASF.
2) UASF with BIP 148.
3) UASF with BIP 149.

One of them is going to happen.

Does this mean that segwit will definitely happen? I am looking forward to its results. However, with the options you give, I hope you can give your opinion on its effectiveness. Which method would be better for bitcoin? Besides these advantages, is there any disadvantage?

In Lauda's self-created reality, yes, it will definitely happen.

Yes, it won't most likely ever get 95% (anything possible tho, even if unlikely) but this does not mean Buggy Unlimited will happen, so at least accept Buggy Unlimited is dead.

Maybe Bitcoin will stay as it is. Unless there is an huge agreement to UASF by all parties except Jihad Wu etc to corner him, we are not going to see segwit. So we need massive UASF support or else it's not happening.

All other scaling proposals thus far are crap.

[franky1]

you don't negotiate with terrorists.

who's the ones with the PoW nukes?
who's the ones with the absurd banscores?
who's the ones with the manditor dictatorship deadlines?

meaning non-blockstream endorsed nodes make no threats and just plod along offering a free choice. no threats, no deadlines, no asic killer agenda

can someone please pass lauda the reality stick, i feel he needs to hit himself with it

[cryptoanarchist]

Segwit is the compromise. How can you not understand this?

Saying a thing doesn't make it so.  We can pretty much tell if it is a compromise when both sides agree to it.

Hey, don't you know? Doublespeak is kinda their thing. Like calling themselves and their Blockstream buddies 'the community'.

[classicsucks]

 It's still A TIE! What's so hard to understand?
 

which means it wont get 95%.

There are three ways of activating Segwit:
1) MASF.
2) UASF with BIP 148.
3) UASF with BIP 149.

One of them is going to happen.

In Lauda's self-created reality, yes, it will definitely happen.

The Core fanbois are sounding progressively crazier. I've always felt that tech people are prone to extreme points of view and zealotry, this whole thought experiment is confirming that view. The UASF/MASF proposals are so fringe, I don't think they'll even reach past 25% approval (other than in "polls" on this forum). Carlton Banks an Lauda might get all hyphy about the proposals, but I suspect the other fanbois will be too busy screeching about how "trolls killed Segwit on Litecoin" when the LTC price crashes...

[jonald_fyookball]

the switch to Bitcoin Unlimited is good for the long term health of the network, since it brings finality and eliminates any future need to use either soft or hard forks to alter the block size.

- ViaBTC

[gentlemand]

it brings finality

- ViaBTC

It certainly would for me at least. I'd be moving on to a coin that still had a chance of not becoming Paypal.

[jonald_fyookball]

it brings finality

- ViaBTC

It certainly would for me at least. I'd be moving on to a coin that still had a chance of not becoming Paypal.

you're against bigger blocks? or just EC?

[cellard]

you don't negotiate with terrorists.

who's the ones with the PoW nukes?
who's the ones with the absurd banscores?
who's the ones with the manditor dictatorship deadlines?

meaning non-blockstream endorsed nodes make no threats and just plod along offering a free choice. no threats, no deadlines, no asic killer agenda

can someone please pass lauda the reality stick, i feel he needs to hit himself with it

The only people here threatening with nukes are Jihan Wu and the other miners that wanted to 51%+ attack the network, so how do you expect Core devs to react if it's not with a PoW change? are they supposed to watch and see their hard work attacked by a bunch state sponsored chinese hashrate?

[gentlemand]

you're against bigger blocks? or just EC?

I'm not against bigger blocks. I just want the people who introduce them to be competent and not introduce the risk of even more centralisation than there is now. Nothing from the Unlimited crew has looked good enough so far.

Everyone apart from a few weirdos wants more scaling. If something is good enough then it'll be embraced. Going by what's come out so far from them it's not good enough. Of course there could be some Core poison in there, but that means they have to come up with something that's just undeniably better.

[AgentofCoin]

...
SFs are better since any impact is passive in that the "features" are not dominate.
They are voluntary use.  
...

That's not really true, as I see things.  If most miners start including segwit transactions in blocks, then this definitely will dominate the network. What usefulness would there be for nodes that don't upgrade, since they can't validate the blockchain?  

At any time, miners may choose to include or not include SegWit txs into their blocks.
Since they have that choice, it is voluntary. If they wish to purposefully exude segwit
tx in their blocks because they disagree with them or any unintended side effects
develop later, miners will just never pick them up ever again (The code will remain
within, but will not be enforced for future use).

That is why they can not "dominate" the network. The only way they will "dominate" is
if they are a mandated change that all users must follow and all miners must accept for
block inclusion. If all other tx script types were SF banned except for SegWit txs, then
your statement would be true, but that is not the case.  

You are semi incorrect about non-upgraded nodes. The issue is not that the non-upgraded
nodes will not verify, the issue is that their verification falls into a hierarchy structure that
is created by the SF mechanism itself (where as the HF just brakes them). In order to
preserve the current security as well as create new abilities, this hierarchy is formed. IMO,
the new node hierarchy would be like the following:

      (1) SegWit Upgraded Mining Nodes (Node Level 1):
          (a) can verify all SegWit and non-SegWit txs (Proposed system).
          (b) they choose what txs to include in blocks (voluntary).
          (c) they can verify or not verify their tx inclusions (Full or SPV mining).

      (2) Non-Upgraded Verifying Nodes (Node Level 2):
          (a) can verify all non-SegWit txs (Current system) (Check Miner's work).
          (b) must defer to Miner's block inclusion only for SegWit txs (Anyonecanspend).

      (3) SegWit Upgraded Verifying Nodes (Node Level 3):
          (a) can verify all Miner's work and approve work or invalidate (Check Miner's work).
          (b) if Miner creates bad SegWit block, Level 3's rejection of it falls down
               through Level 2 and to Level 1, causing an orphaning of the current block for
               all nodes, whether SegWit enabled or not.
               (Node Level 2 actually defers to Node Level 3 to check SegWit txs, not Level 1).

The above is my understanding and explains why non-upgraded nodes not performing any
function is a semi-incorrect statement. They are still enforcing the current protocol, but must
defer to new nodes (Level 3) for the new parts (Level 3 parts). In contrast, with a HF, only
new nodes (Level 3) will enforce the "new" protocol and all these old nodes (Level 2) are
destroyed and lost, creating a semi quantifiable security loss.

For HFs, assuming these nodes (Level 2) will just upgrade and rejoin is not something security
should be based upon. In theory, as the blocksize increases, more and more nodes will not be
able to keep up with such load and will ultimately be lost in more and more diverse world
locations. These losses increase the centralization and decreases the security of the network
over time. So, a HF (especially for blocksize increases) almost always has the side effect of
"burning security". In order for the network to gain something new (like increased scale), it
must destroy security as equivalent exchange, since that is the law of this universe.

The SF Node hierarchy system is an interesting way to prevent the "burning of security",
while still getting a new gain for the network. The HF mechanism demands sacrifice upon
it's alter. Are you willing to spill the blood of security for more worldly pleasures? Not me.

[South Park]

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.

Easier said than done if it was that easy then we would be a lot closer to activation but we are so far away that it does not seems it is going to happen at all, don’t take me wrong I will like to get segwit activated as soon as possible but unless something drastic happens it is very doubtful it is going to happen.

[jonald_fyookball]

@AgentofCoin

Your description of the mechanism seems correct, but I still see zero value to the network for non-mining nodes that don't upgrade.

You could say that a non-upgraded miner creating blocks of non-sw tx adds to the network hashrate, but on the other hand its still SPV mining, which is something that should probably be discouraged. 

For validation, the idea of 'well, its sort of compatible, sometimes, on certain transactions' makes "backwards compatibility" a misnomer. 

[XbladeX]

*** but unless something drastic happens it is very doubtful it is going to happen.

IF BTC price will crash and alts will keep rissing soon mining alts will get more $$ fiat than BTC then miners will make changes if not they will swap place with alt miners.
Since BTC asics can be used only in BTC then they are on lose side.
Alts will progress I don't have ETH but i cheer it to kick BTC out of road for while for mining centralization and lack of progress.

BTC miners need cold shower : D

[Lauda]

-snip-

BU == terrorists. Period.

So we need massive UASF support or else it's not happening.

There is already widespread support for UASF. The main question is just how exactly should we do it. BIP149 seems to be better than BIP148 but it would also take more time to deploy.

the switch to Bitcoin Unlimited is good for the long term health of the network, since it brings finality and eliminates any future need to use either soft or hard forks to alter the block size.

- ViaBTC

Someone who hasn't existed in the Bitcoin ecosystem until recently claims that they're the law and know what's best for Bitcoin. Seems plausible. You might as well let them add a master key into Bitcoin.

It certainly would for me at least. I'd be moving on to a coin that still had a chance of not becoming Paypal.

EC is a complete disaster. Bigger blocks have issues worth mentioning on their own. Either movement goes towards, as you've said it, Paypal 2.0 which is what Ver says he wants anyways.

[Ucy]

Am so impressed with the quality of minds here. Getting all this for free is mind blowing. Internet is a wonderful things.

[AgentofCoin]

@AgentofCoin

Your description of the mechanism seems correct, but I still see zero value to the network for non-mining nodes that don't upgrade.

You could say that a non-upgraded miner creating blocks of non-sw tx adds to the network hashrate, but on the other hand its still SPV mining, which is something that should probably be discouraged.  

For validation, the idea of 'well, its sort of compatible, sometimes, on certain transactions' makes "backwards compatibility" a misnomer.  

IMO, the non-upgraded nodes (Level 2) still retain their security value for the network,
even though they are oblivious to the SegWit txs individually. They are still verifying
everything other than SegWit data. The SegWit proposal is only backwards compatible
as to that it does not break Level 2 nodes verifying nonsegwit txs, not that Level 2 nodes
can also verify SegWit, since that would be impossible.

One purpose of a SF is to preserve the old nodes, and in that sense the "new features"
are "backwards compatible" with Level 2, as that they do not violate Level 2 rules. That
is it basically.

To be really simple, SegWit nodes (Level 3) could be compared to a secondary layer
on top of the preexisting layer (Level 2)**. Over time, as more and more verifying node
versions enter and leave the network, Level 2 nodes will naturally phase out as Level 3
nodes (and possibly higher levels) increase. The purpose of this SF method is the slow
natural transition of security from one Level to the next Level. Eventually at some point
in the future, our current Level 2 nodes will become fully extinct and then Level 3 Nodes
will become the new Level 2 nodes. So security is retained and features are added without
any loss (in theory). This is intentional, playing the long game, and the opposite of a HF,
which breaks and rejects all Level 2 immediately and mandates Level 3 full compliance
(which automatically becomes the new Level 2, since old Level 2 is banned).

The issue that Level 2 nodes not being fully validating as equally as Level 3 nodes is
semi correct, but is not the actual intention of this type of design. It is basically, "some
network validation for now (Level 2), as we transition into full validation of the new script
format later (Level 3)". This design mechanism allows for slow upgrade change transitions
without sacrificing the node network's "overall" security. As I stated above, eventually
Level 2 nodes will fade away just as the Satoshi clients and Bitcoin QT clients have
faded away over time as new things developed.

Hopefully this isn't confusing. This is my understanding.


**[ As a side note: Level 1 are the miner's themselves and prior to the centralization
of mining by ASIC and etc, Level 1 nodes were intended to be the only Level. Since
mining became exploitable in many different ways (SPV and etc) and that the cost of
competition for average people became too high too soon, the verification system naturally
split between mining nodes and non-mining (verifying) nodes. These non-mining nodes only
exist for the sake of double checking the miner's work and holding them in protocol
compliance. In the event of massive miner collusion or etc, the only remedy users have
are non-mining nodes alerting them to such. This is why Level 2 Nodes must remain
individual, decentralized and unregulatable, since without them, mining becomes truly
illusionary since they become trusted within a system intended to be based on trustlessness.
This is the contradiction. Due to this natural occurrence that Satoshi did not fully anticipate,
Level 2 Nodes manifested as a byproduct of this unfortunate failure. (Interestingly, it may
be that non-mining (verifying) nodes who are purely altruistic, properly balance out the
nature of the pure greed aspect of mining. The greed nodes vs the altruistic nodes may
have created a more balanced system than Satoshi original envisioned (pure greed)).

So, in theory the original Satoshi experiment (and Nakamoto Consensus) failed within
short time due to exploits, but a new answer immediately arose to plug the error and that
safety plug are Level 2 Nodes. This is one of the reasons for the current scaling debate.
Scaling, if done improperly, will prevent Level 2 Nodes from operating as this safety
plug, and may irrevocably remove them forever. In that future scenario, miners become
trusted parties and have free will to do anything they wish. Bitcoin then falls back into the
failure that Level 2 Nodes naturally arose to fix in 2010-2011. The Protocols will become
as illusionary as like the Financial World's Credit System, making Bitcoin a shadow
of its former self, absolutely worthless in monetary value, and IMO an insult to what
Satoshi was attempting to solve originally. ]

[jbreher]

We can pretty much tell if it is a compromise when both sides agree to it.

Absolute nonsense. BU is cancer and no compromise can be made with their destructive technology.

A compromise would be a simple max block size increase. This would completely nullify any issue with BU code quality. It is only due to the fact that core iteratively whittled away this idea down to nothing, that gave big blockers an incentive to create BU to begin with.