SegWit dying off in spite of all your efforts

[cryptoanarchist]

I think it says a lot about the Bitcoin protocol when even after all the manipulations to get SegWit added, its STILL FAILING:


LAST 1000 BLOCKS  (past 7 days)

Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 441  ( 44.1% )             
Classic blocks: 10  ( 1% )             
SegWit blocks: 321  ( 32.1% )       
BIP100 blocks: 93  ( 9.3% )

LAST 24 Hours

Unlimited + Classic hashrate is ~2088 PH/s (51.4%)


Even with the sockpuppet brigades, the bought off miners and manipulations, the non-stop stream of BS articles in mainstream-controlled media like 'CoinTelegraph', the outright lies from Core devs, the censorship on this sub and reddit, and all the other facets of this attempted takeover - YOU STILL FAILED!!

You had a good head start, but slowly but surely people are figuring out what SegWit is and they're saying 'No'.

Hey, at least you guys got Litecoin, right?

[Holliday]

Bow down to your pool operator overlords!

[ImHash]

It all make sense now that you opened our eyes to the truth tomorrow at this time we shall revolt against BS, dethrone them and after that we'll just pray that our fees could get Wu's a hard on to include them in ASICboost blocks, like 2 recent blocks mined in 30 seconds. or get a 2.5BTC as fees in every block.

[hv_]

Lets have a look how SW performes on LTC first..

Stay tuned, we all want bitcoin to succeed.

[Paashaas]

I detect heavy (chinese) mining centalization which has to be removed asap.

[hv_]

I detect heavy (chinese) mining centalization which has to be removed asap.

Same holds for the 5 core devs. Too central.

[gentlemand]

A bunch of Chinese fellas who probably couldn't fill the top floor of a bus doesn't say much about what everyone else wants. Pitiful that so few have so much weight.

As far as I can tell most people who aren't in charge of warehouses full of blinking boxes want Segwit. That's probably down to it being the least shit option more than anything.

If Unlimited and its various options had been produced by people who are actually competent and it had the best ideas then the majority would get behind it and I'd be fine if that activated too. It's not. They haven't. So I would not be.

[classicsucks]

Even with the sockpuppet brigades, the bought off miners and manipulations, the non-stop stream of BS articles in mainstream-controlled media like 'CoinTelegraph', the outright lies from Core devs, the censorship on this sub and reddit, and all the other facets of this attempted takeover - YOU STILL FAILED!!

You had a good head start, but slowly but surely people are figuring out what SegWit is and they're saying 'No'.

Hey, at least you guys got Litecoin, right?

The silence from Core is deafening. Blockstream Chief Strategy Officer Samson Mow must be having lots of meetings to discuss "media outreach" and "reputation management". Isn't Samson a Chinese miner BTW?

The Litecoin pump may continue for a few weeks, but I think it will dump after the news cycle expires. It's already showing signs of weakness... I'm very glad LTC implemented Segwit however - it's a great place to find the real-world defects of Segwit. Also it's a consolation prize for Core devs' egos.

[XbladeX]

Then let BU do hardfork or SegWit use UASF now and let's see which one got more support from bitcoin community rather than see total BU/SegWit mined block which can't representative actual SegWit/BU support

Same was I thinking but time for that will come when price will start crashing.
Anyone now is believing that miners will activate Unlimited ?
Who would ever buy that coin after so many fails.

Miners will never go for unlimited they just show middle finger for segwit.
With segwit most alts would go for fast correction without it alts have space to grow and fill after BTC fail.
Only true support will be seen  after split into 2two coins .
But I would add POW change on top the split to FUCK HARD Jihan to make him impossible go back to mining BTC again : ) that will be real punishment.

Miners (JIhan ) want power he is probably with China goverment in team.
When whole mining will be in China hands they will force all changes they want more than 21m BTC...
KYC rules all you want , people will have no power to say no because they have no hash power.
 

[jbreher]

Bow down to your pool operator overlords!

We need to reevaluate who 'sold us a bill of goods'. You have abdicated your authority in the network. In reality, non-mining nodes are irrelevant. Indeed, in the original wallet, nodes mine - period.

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/main.h#L795
 
// Nodes collect new transactions into a block, hash them into a hash tree,
// and scan through nonce values to make the block's hash satisfy proof-of-work
// requirements.  When they solve the proof-of-work, they broadcast the block
// to everyone and the block is added to the block chain.  The first transaction
// in the block is a special one that creates a new coin owned by the creator
// of the block.
GitHub
trottier/original-bitcoin
original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

(emphasis added)

[Lauda]

No problem mate (not that this thread isn't complete bullshit). UASF or a POW change is coming, whether you like it or not. The miners do not, and have never been in, control of the network. You can create your BTU coin that is completely controlled by Jihan and China for all you like, but the ecosystem will not be a part of it.

In reality, non-mining nodes are irrelevant.

Absolute nonsense. This is sounding more like government agency talk. I thought you were a BU shill, what changed?

[jbreher]

In reality, non-mining nodes are irrelevant.

Absolute nonsense. This is sounding more like government agency talk. I thought you were a BU shill, what changed?

Hunh? I was never a BU shill, though I have been a consistent BU supporter. What is the relevance?

I have also consistently (for about a year) pointing out that non-mining entities (which I had formerly been mistakenly been calling 'non-mining nodes') have essentially zero power to influence the network, and provide essentially zero value to the network at large. I have, though, stated that such non-mining entities are what allow their owners/users to transact in a trustless manner. Benefit to the owner, no benefit to the network.

But what I have recently learned is that Satoshi's definition of 'node' is necessarily limited to entities that mine.

The miners do not, and have never been in, control of the network.

So you know better than Satoshi?

Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism....

Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism....

Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism....

Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism....

Hmmm... yeah.... I guess miners have always been in control of the network, after all.

[franky1]

I detect heavy (chinese) mining centalization which has to be removed asap.

Bow down to your pool operator overlords!

A bunch of Chinese fellas who probably couldn't fill the top floor of a bus doesn't say much about what everyone else wants. Pitiful that so few have so much weight.

ok guys put aside all the biased rhetoric and biased defense arguments.. and think real hard
who in late 2015 decided to make the vote pool only.
who bypassed the security of node consensus
who decided that bypassing nodes, which if not bypassed would have ensured a good full node count first to elevate pool orphan risk to then give pools more confidence to change the rules wouldn't hurt their change of winning blocks

pools didnt have the power of vote/veto until someone gave them that power.

this is why a node consensus first, then a pool consensus second would have worked better.

core shot themselves in the foot before they even started walking with segwit

[jonald_fyookball]

pools didnt have the power of vote/veto until someone gave them that power.
 

How so?  Don't pools decide what goes in the blockheaders and always have?

[franky1]

This is sounding more like government agency talk.

what is

UASF or a POW change is coming, whether you like it or not.

yep mandatory changes, nuking pools, dis-communicating with the natives, does very much sound like government agency talk.

[franky1]

pools didnt have the power of vote/veto until someone gave them that power.
 

How so?  Don't pools decide what goes in the blockheaders and always have?

pools can display a preference at any time. but unless they see that the orphan risk is low. they wont actually create a new block formation of new rules unless the risk of orphan is low.

EG a pool can happily write "i want 2mb" ... but they wont actually make a 2mb block unless they were assured a good node consensus would accept the blocks

pools can collate data in any fashion they like.. but if nodes see it doesnt follow node rules that block is likely not to get accepted by the network..
because just making a block that doesnt follow consensus rules means nodes reject itin seconds then wait a few seconds for another pools that has a solution that does fit the rules and accepts that one instead.

thats what the consensus/orphan security feature is all about.. thats what makes bitcoin better than just a mysql database..

pools who see that nodes are not at a consensus level to ensure the risks of orphans is only a few percent max. are not gonna change the rules so easily.

people can make as much social drama on forums as they like but unless there is good node consensus smart pools wont push forward. even if they are waving flags of adoration..

in short
NODES DO MATTER

[Meuh6879]

When they solve the proof-of-work, they broadcast the block
to everyone and the block is added to the block chain.

and the 92% of Bitcoin Core original client reject this block because his size is over 1Mb.
simple.

miners make profit IF they build block with the "rules" of the relaying machine (the nodes).

if not, it's 1 miner VS. ... the Bitcoin network (48 000 nodes).

[jonald_fyookball]

pools didnt have the power of vote/veto until someone gave them that power.
 

How so?  Don't pools decide what goes in the blockheaders and always have?

pools can collate data in any fashion they like.. but if nodes see it doesnt follow node rules that block is not accepted..
nodes then wait a few seconds for another pools that has a solution that does fit the rules and accepts that one instead.

thats what the consensus/orphan security feature is all about..

Right but if you're going to have signaling, then it has to be done at the pool level as long as there's pools.  So I don't
see how "core gave the vote to the pools".  What am I missing?

[Quantus]

Who wouldn't trust this face? Jihan Wu is now in control we don't need to run full nodes any more. He will personally validate all our transactions. He is trusting he is good he is descended from gods and he does not shit.
Our dear leader Jihan Wu will lead us to a better future. Why can't you people see that?

Now get down and kneel before your god.

[franky1]

pools didnt have the power of vote/veto until someone gave them that power.
 

How so?  Don't pools decide what goes in the blockheaders and always have?

pools can collate data in any fashion they like.. but if nodes see it doesnt follow node rules that block is not accepted..
nodes then wait a few seconds for another pools that has a solution that does fit the rules and accepts that one instead.

thats what the consensus/orphan security feature is all about..

Right but if you're going to have signaling, then it has to be done at the pool level as long as there's pools.  So I don't
see how "core gave the vote to the pools".  What am I missing?

at the moment
34% sgwit flag https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit
49% dynamics flag https://blockchain.info/charts/bitcoin-unlimited-share
=17% abstaining

lets say there was 100% dynamics flag for pools.. but at node level
only 10% nodes would accept a block over 1mb.. if a pool actually make a block any different than native rules. it would get rejected in 3 seconds

lets say there was 100% segwit flag for pools.. but at node level
only 66% nodes would accept a block in a segwit format. if a pool actually make a block any different than native rules. it would get rejected in 3 seconds by the nodes that dont have a segwit node to 'filter' 'bridge' them a stripped version.

the node network is slowly reconnecting and becoming a tier network, of the segwit nodes being directly connected to pools to allow the whole filter(gmax buzzword) bridging(luke jr buzzword) to help with the 'backward compatible' pretense.

its still not a perfect network setup and can still cause orphan drama.. so pools wouldnt try it if there was more then a few percent orphan risk.

this is why i said to gmax.. if segwit is so 'backward compatible' as promised. go get btcc to make a block thats segwit on mainnet and see how acceptable it is to give pools confidence to flag it..

gmax now knows that segwit is not as 'soft' / compatible as he/they promised in 2015 (before having production ready code..)

but in short
only counting pool flags is meaningless,