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

[jonald_fyookball]

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.

Of course.

The Core team will not accept any compromise, though, despite many attempts to negotiate with them.

As recently as a week ago, I asked sir Gregory about Segwit+2MB (as others have done many times), and was told it was "toxic and risky".

[1714167955]

1714167955

[1714167955]

1714167955

[1714167955]

1714167955

[1714167955]

1714167955

[1714167955]

1714167955

[franky1]

Yes, a tier network (second layer), as you call it, preserves the base network from
failure and centralization.

the tier network.. well lets just call it what it really is
the centre main base of the network ... the "core" layer (no coincidence of names has been a plan in the works for years)
gets to do as they like
the outter layer the skin may pretend to protect the core from rot. but the outer layer is just the layer where all the much, bruises and holes are seen.
DNS seeds at the CORE can easily shed away the skin (much like we dont see 0.7 nodes anymore)
the skin layer then just acts as storage protection. and not validating/orphaning blocks to keep pools following diverse nodes whom have consensus unity rules.

if CORE becomes the only team at the centre.. bitcoin is centralised because there is no peer network any more to vote/veto out certain funky tx's/blocks.

tier networks (the way CORE are creating it) by bypassing node consensus and bribing pools, are trying to get the tier network in their sole centralized control

Core only bypassed verifying nodes by using a SF because:
(1) it was possible with this type of proposal/hack,
(2) it is pretty impossible currently to get high consensus for hardforks,
(3) hardfork's byproduct is centralization and other issues.

2. no.. if core actually listened to the community and stuck to agreements there would be a healthy majority of diverse nodes that would happily upgrade to a PEER network of new consensus rules that add new functionality FOR ALL.
its only impossible to get high consensus if the dev team make code the community cannot agree on.. core should use their ears more than their mouth. and things would have moved forward more quicker and with more of a united community ALL on the same playing field of a peer network.

3. soft forks/ hardforks both have the same risks.. but what most dont realise is that soft can cause splits too, and soft actually by using backdoors and exploits to bypass consensus can cause more centralisation.
hard forks can occur without causing splits without centralisation.. but many people are only highlighting softs best case scenario and hards worse case scenario, without even wanting to talk about the possibility of the opposite (softs worse, hards best)

[Wind_FURY]

I suggest compromise or walk away.  Prolonged contention is unlikely the best course.

Agreed, compromise is always the best option for both sides. Competition always has consequences for both. However, in this case, I think competition is essential, I think bitcoin should be segwit.

And there's the rub; walking away means one "side" gets the legacy/brand and the other is an altcoin.

Ok but what kind of a compromise do you propose and why do you think it is a good idea? I used to think the same way as you but I realized that it is easy to say "do a compromise", but when asked what kind of compromise I cannot answer or I realize I do not know much to comment.

[Lauda]

A compromise would be a simple max block size increase.

1) You don't compromise with terrorists.
2) Increasing the block size limit without Segwit is both stupid and dangerous.

This would completely nullify any issue with BU code quality.

BU code is complete trash, and the developers are one of the worst that I've seen. Nothing can nullify that.

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.

It is a very bad idea.

Ok but what kind of a compromise do you propose and why do you think it is a good idea? I used to think the same way as you but I realized that it is easy to say "do a compromise", but when asked what kind of compromise I cannot answer or I realize I do not know much to comment.

Segwit is the compromise.

[kiklo]

A compromise would be a simple max block size increase.

1) You don't compromise with terrorists.
2) Increasing the block size limit without Segwit is both stupid and dangerous.

This would completely nullify any issue with BU code quality.

BU code is complete trash, and the developers are one of the worst that I've seen. Nothing can nullify that.

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.

It is a very bad idea.

Ok but what kind of a compromise do you propose and why do you think it is a good idea? I used to think the same way as you but I realized that it is easy to say "do a compromise", but when asked what kind of compromise I cannot answer or I realize I do not know much to comment.

Segwit is the compromise.

More red ink from Lauda.

When are you going to tell everyone that you are really theymos just being an asshole?

 

FYI:
Lauda is an idiot.

[David Rabahy]

I suggest compromise or walk away.  Prolonged contention is unlikely the best course.

Agreed, compromise is always the best option for both sides. Competition always has consequences for both. However, in this case, I think competition is essential, I think bitcoin should be segwit.

And there's the rub; walking away means one "side" gets the legacy/brand and the other is an altcoin.

Ok but what kind of a compromise do you propose and why do you think it is a good idea? I used to think the same way as you but I realized that it is easy to say "do a compromise", but when asked what kind of compromise I cannot answer or I realize I do not know much to comment.

Totally agree; saying compromise is indeed the easy part; creating it is the hard work.  In this particular case it will start with both sides agreeing to something important and then each side giving in enough to be meaningful.  For example, if both sides can agree to something like this;

"It is important to keep things decentralized."

If there is no agreement to something important then walk away.  If there is true agreement then proceed to the next step; each side gives up something meaningful, e.g.;

1) All will promote/encourage multiple independent development teams.  One dominate/central development team goes against our agreed to guiding principle.
2) All will agree to some small increment in the protocol at first and then measure/observe the impact and move towards results that work best toward decentralization.

This is just an example.  The actual negotiations would likely end up somewhere else.  When both sides feel heard and respected then there is the possibility of compromise.

Even in a walk away situation, it should be possible to negotiate inheritance of the legacy/brand; perhaps something along the lines of ETH/ETC.

[olliedickman]

I do think so. Chinese pools will never agree to activate it. We need to find another solution to solve the problem. If not, Bitcoin will be replaced by another crypto which is faster, cheaper and more convenient. Too many people join the bitcoin world but it seems that bitcoin does not want to grow up

[jonald_fyookball]

More red ink from Lauda.

When are you going to tell everyone that you are really theymos just being an asshole?

Lauda isn't Theymos.  Actually, Lauda was removed from staff .

[Wind_FURY]

I suggest compromise or walk away.  Prolonged contention is unlikely the best course.

Agreed, compromise is always the best option for both sides. Competition always has consequences for both. However, in this case, I think competition is essential, I think bitcoin should be segwit.

And there's the rub; walking away means one "side" gets the legacy/brand and the other is an altcoin.

Ok but what kind of a compromise do you propose and why do you think it is a good idea? I used to think the same way as you but I realized that it is easy to say "do a compromise", but when asked what kind of compromise I cannot answer or I realize I do not know much to comment.

Totally agree; saying compromise is indeed the easy part; creating it is the hard work.  In this particular case it will start with both sides agreeing to something important and then each side giving in enough to be meaningful.  For example, if both sides can agree to something like this;

"It is important to keep things decentralized."

If there is no agreement to something important then walk away.  If there is true agreement then proceed to the next step; each side gives up something meaningful, e.g.;

1) All will promote/encourage multiple independent development teams.  One dominate/central development team goes against our agreed to guiding principle.
2) All will agree to some small increment in the protocol at first and then measure/observe the impact and move towards results that work best toward decentralization.

This is just an example.  The actual negotiations would likely end up somewhere else.  When both sides feel heard and respected then there is the possibility of compromise.

Even in a walk away situation, it should be possible to negotiate inheritance of the legacy/brand; perhaps something along the lines of ETH/ETC.

I get your point and as I said I used to think the same way. A compromise would be nice but I realized that the scaling debate is really a war for control. Lauda has pointed out that Segwit is the compromise but the Chinese miners does not want it. They want everything and want the hard fork to BU. Where is the compromise there?

If there really was a compromise it would have happened in the Hong Kong meet up between Core and the miners.

[jonald_fyookball]

"Segwit is a compromise" is rhetoric.  Compromise between what?   sensible scaling and no scaling? 

Truth is:  segwit is something Core came up with own their own without consulting the users, that offers a tiny amount of scaling as a soft fork. 

[Paashaas]

"Segwit is a compromise" is rhetoric.  Compromise between what?   sensible scaling and no scaling?  

Truth is:  segwit is something Core came up with own their own without consulting the users, that offers a tiny amount of scaling as a soft fork.  

Do you like spreading FUD?

[jonald_fyookball]

"Segwit is a compromise" is rhetoric.  Compromise between what?   sensible scaling and no scaling?  

Truth is:  segwit is something Core came up with own their own without consulting the users, that offers a tiny amount of scaling as a soft fork.  

Do you like spreading FUD?

pls, enlighten.

[franky1]

"Segwit is a compromise" is rhetoric.  Compromise between what?   sensible scaling and no scaling?  

Truth is:  segwit is something Core came up with own their own without consulting the users, that offers a tiny amount of scaling as a soft fork.  

Do you like spreading FUD?

segwit was a secret project/altcoin as part of blockstream:elements, done separately from the bitcoin community from 2014-2015
consensus 2015 meeting was their first main roadmap that core decided to follow and have not listened/done the other things that the community asked of them.. its either the blockstream highway(roadmap) or no way..
no B roads, no diversion no secondary routes.. just follow blockstreams roadmap or get chucked off the network by the end of 2018

[cellard]

"Segwit is a compromise" is rhetoric.  Compromise between what?   sensible scaling and no scaling?  

Truth is:  segwit is something Core came up with own their own without consulting the users, that offers a tiny amount of scaling as a soft fork.  

Do you like spreading FUD?

segwit was a secret project/altcoin as part of blockstream:elements, done separately from the bitcoin community from 2014-2015
consensus 2015 meeting was their first main roadmap that core decided to follow and have not listened/done the other things that the community asked of them.. its either the blockstream highway(roadmap) or no way..
no B roads, no diversion no secondary routes.. just follow blockstreams roadmap or get chucked off the network by the end of 2018

The only altcoin here is bug unlimited. Segwit fixes numerous problems, makes lightning network possible to work at full effect, provides endless technologies that actually make bitcoin possible for mainstream adoption and so on.

We have segwit working nicely on litecoin and the end of the world predicted by segwit fudsters never happened.

[jonald_fyookball]

"Segwit is a compromise" is rhetoric.  Compromise between what?   sensible scaling and no scaling?  

Truth is:  segwit is something Core came up with own their own without consulting the users, that offers a tiny amount of scaling as a soft fork.  

Do you like spreading FUD?

segwit was a secret project/altcoin as part of blockstream:elements, done separately from the bitcoin community from 2014-2015
consensus 2015 meeting was their first main roadmap that core decided to follow and have not listened/done the other things that the community asked of them.. its either the blockstream highway(roadmap) or no way..
no B roads, no diversion no secondary routes.. just follow blockstreams roadmap or get chucked off the network by the end of 2018

The only altcoin here is bug unlimited. Segwit fixes numerous problems, makes lightning network possible to work at full effect, provides endless technologies that actually make bitcoin possible for mainstream adoption and so on.

We have segwit working nicely on litecoin and the end of the world predicted by segwit fudsters never happened.

I would back a compromise of Segwit HF + 2mb.

If you do not, then I think its fair to say you are among those blocking segwit.

[BillyBobZorton]

All Core vs except Luke JR I think which actually wants to make the blocksize smaller, want to eventually make the blocksize higher. Im sure we will sooner or later see a bigger blocksize, but for the time being we should enable segwit, let it run for a while, then eventually go 2MB, specially as more and more people start using LN since they will realize onchain transactions aren't worth it for small payments when you have LN unless you really need to because you are sending a decent amount.

[Lauda]

All Core vs except Luke JR I think which actually wants to make the blocksize smaller, want to eventually make the blocksize higher.

That is correct. However, BU & their fanatics are not concerned with whether their "teachings" are related to reality/the truth or not.

[adaseb]

Regarding the UASF

From what I last heard it was mostly small services that agreed to signal it. However the larger exchanges and services like Bitpay they didn't want to signal UASF due to the controversy it might generate and cause loss of clients.

[andyatcrux]

Interesting proposal dropped by Luke Jr a couple hours ago:

https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-cbv/bip-cbv.mediawiki


Block signaling with TX fees.

[Wind_FURY]

"Segwit is a compromise" is rhetoric.  Compromise between what?   sensible scaling and no scaling? 

Truth is:  segwit is something Core came up with own their own without consulting the users, that offers a tiny amount of scaling as a soft fork. 

But Segwit is also a fix to the malleability problem and improve the network to make it more robust right? It also opens Bitcoin to make it easier for other technologies like LN and Mimble Wimble to be built on the network.

What is so bad about that?