Do you think BU hardfork or use UASF now is good idea?

[ABCbits]

Since SegWit/BU drama still on going and looks like consensus won't happen any time soon, do you think forcing miner to do BU hardfork or use UASF now is good idea (even with risk block split and bitcoin price crashing)?
I think it's not bad idea since miners have choose different solution and current bitcoin condition get worse over time.

[Netnox]

I would go for Bitcoin Unlimited hardfork as a last resort. Forget about the Segregated Witness (SegWit). It will never be able to achieve the 95% confirmation needed for its implementation. But BU would give miners even more power, something which I really don't want.

[gentlemand]

Doing nothing is better than Unlimited. That's just too shit to ever be considered.

If Segwit doesn't catch on and Unlimited continues to fall apart, then someone somewhere will come up with something that is acceptable to enough people.

[jonald_fyookball]

UASF is really going full retard.

from Thomas Zander:

If the market really wants UASF, then why isn't any serious market player signalling for SegWit or UASF?

I see these plays purely as a delusional and last straw way to get the "people" to give BlockStream some sense of viability. And I'm sure that the investors have to be given some sort of story of them trying really hard and really it wasn't incompetence that they lost all that money and still have no product.

Anyway.

UASF is an idea where people running a wallet decide to stop following the miners chain if the miner doesn't vote for SegWit.

There are several important details here.

    Miners can last much much much longer without sending their coins to an exchange than an exchange can last without the miners chain.

    Miners would be embraced again by just voting for segwit. There is no way for miners to be forced to accept, mine or validate segwit transactions. There is not even a reason for miners to start running Core.

The only effect uasf could possibly have is for miners to vote segwit in, without validating it. Which means that if one miner includes segwit transactions he will quickly get himself hard forked off the net because other miners will happily include a transaction spending that segwit tx because it is an everyone-can-spend.

UASF is a stupid idea. There is no way that exchanges will cut their own veins open by using it.
If it were to actually work, it would actually kill SegWit.

[gentlemand]

That might happen, but it will take very long time and people might move to altcoin.

I think if its ascendance was genuinely and truly in question you can bet your arse people would stop posing and try and come together in no time at all. You can't sit on your laurels when they're on fire.

[25hashcoin]

Well this is a pointless poll. I support UASF, but not any kind of BU HF.

[franky1]

the solution is simple

not A:
cludgy
2 merkle(block1mb inside a block4mb) (1mb block but reality more due to bad math)
4k txsigops pretending to be 16ktxsigop math manipulation (causing block full attack only using 5tx of 4k txsigops to get to the 20k blocksigop pretending to be 80k blocksigop)
100kb txbytelimit  but reality is upto 400kb real data due to bad math
growth of 2x only if 46m outputs move to and use new keypairs

but B:
single merkle 4mb block single block consensus buffer (initial policy grows 1mb - 4mb.. just like the past consensus buffer: 1mb. policy: 0.25mb 0.5mb 0.75mb)
2k txsigops that are actually 2k sigops that do not change ever, (nor pretend to be anything else via bad math)
blocksigops that rises with the blocksize (nor pretend to be anything else via bad math)
all the different keypair types people want (native, segwit, schnorr, new opcode for new contracts) all together
new fee priority forumulae that punish people that move funds if frequently (more than once a day, making LN voluntarily viable option for frequent spenders) while not punishing EVERYONE (not punishing a hoarder with the same fee as a spammer)

that way everyone gets what they want and it actually decreases native tx attack vectors, issues

[Carlton Banks]

Where's the option for "both"?

Both are hard forks, in a way. Or you could maybe say that UASF is like a medium-fork


Both sides claim to have majority support, lets see who's right. Fork!

[d5000]

Neither of the two options - Segwit UASF without consensus of more than 51% and BU hardfork - are a good idea in the current situation.

First the more obvious case: If BU hardforks without getting more people of the economy on board, it will get probably a very small currency - "become an altcoin", as many call it. A BU hardfork, from the perspective of BU supporters, only makes sense if they have significantly more than half of the miner support. They haven't - they are stuck on 40-45%. (That I don't consider EC a good mechanism to determinate block size is another story).

Second: If there is a Segwit UASF now there is significant danger for a chain split. It is true that BIP 149 passes the obligation to fork to the non-Segwit-supporting fraction, but I'm pretty sure that they will fork away. I don't think that will be without consequences for Bitcoin's security, price and stability.

My favoured plan is to do first the "asicboost-blocking" UASF. If this one has passed then we will bury all the hopes from pools that could be incentived to vote against Segwit to use covert Asicboost, and so Segwit will have more chances to achieve a majority. The other plan I openly support is a compromise solution like this one, with Segwit and a very conservative (linear, not exponential!) block size increase.

[franky1]

My favoured plan is to do first the "asicboost-blocking" UASF. If this one has passed then we will bury all the hopes from pools that could be incentived to vote against Segwit to use covert Asicboost, and so Segwit will have more chances to achieve a majority. The other plan I openly support is a compromise solution like this one, with Segwit and a very conservative (linear, not exponential!) block size increase.

you do realise the asicboost drama is temporary.
lets say in 2019 core did remove the 2nd merkle to then be a proper network wide single block of 4mb which core say they promise will eventually happen.. then asicboost becomes viable again.

which means some private company can grab the genesis and privately start at block 1 and use asic boost and create their own chain and get to blockheight say 500,000 faster. and by the time the 2nd merkle gets removed. publish their chain and bam.. their chain becomes the new height everyone diverts/syncs to.. orphaning off the satoshi 10year chain
..
by letting us bitcoiners use whatever is most efficient, mitigates risks of outsiders trying to make their own longest chain, by us bitcoiners having the longest chain, by us bitcoiners using the most efficient mining methods there is

[jonald_fyookball]

Second: If there is a Segwit UASF now there is significant danger for a chain split. 

And people losing their Bitcoins.

[d5000]

you do realise the asicboost drama is temporary.
lets say in 2019 core did remove the 2nd merkle to then be a proper network wide single block of 4mb which core say they promise will eventually happen.. then asicboost becomes viable again.

Yes, but the Segwit blockade is also temporary. In 2019, we can debate about other changes that Core would propose then, and if they are dangerous like you say, I think many users and also miners would block them or use alternative implementations.

But I think Bitcoin needs a scaling solution in the coming months or its leadership in the cryptocurrency-sphere will be seriously harmed.

Second: If there is a Segwit UASF now there is significant danger for a chain split. 

And people losing their Bitcoins.

How would that be possible? (I'd be grateful for a link if this has been extensively debated.)

[jonald_fyookball]

you do realise the asicboost drama is temporary.
lets say in 2019 core did remove the 2nd merkle to then be a proper network wide single block of 4mb which core say they promise will eventually happen.. then asicboost becomes viable again.

Yes, but the Segwit blockade is also temporary. In 2019, we can debate about other changes that Core would propose then, and if they are dangerous like you say, I think many users and also miners would block them or use alternative implementations.

But I think Bitcoin needs a scaling solution in the coming months or its leadership in the cryptocurrency-sphere will be seriously harmed.

Second: If there is a Segwit UASF now there is significant danger for a chain split.  

And people losing their Bitcoins.

How would that be possible? (I'd be grateful for a link if this has been extensively debated.)

did you read what Thomas Zander wrote - I pasted it upthread.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6bx2js/is_uasf_an_astroturfing_effort_who_is_paying_for/

[25hashcoin]

Second: If there is a Segwit UASF now there is significant danger for a chain split. 

And people losing their Bitcoins.

Nonsense FUD

[jonald_fyookball]

which means some private company can grab the genesis and privately start at block 1 and use asic boost and create their own chain and get to blockheight say 500,000 faster. and by the time the 2nd merkle gets removed. publish their chain and bam.. their chain becomes the new height everyone diverts/syncs to.. orphaning off the satoshi 10year chain

Spoofing the blockchain like that isn't possible.  The chain with more proof of work is considered "longer" even if it has less blocks.

[franky1]

Spoofing the blockchain like that isn't possible.  The chain with more proof of work is considered "longer" even if it has less blocks.

imagine starting again but using 50,000 asics (top end of block creation today) but with asic boost aswell

what you dont realise is in 2009. in a year people made 52500 blocks using cpu.
imagine doing it using 50k asic+boost. that years 52500 could be made in hours

what you dont realise is in 2010. in a year people made 52500 blocks using cpu.
imagine doing it using 50k asic+boost. that years 52500 could be made in a few extra hours

what you dont realise is in 2011. in a year people made 52500 blocks using gpu.
imagine doing it using 50k asic+boost. that years 52500 could be made in a few days

what you dont realise is in 2012. in a year people made 52500 blocks using gpu.
imagine doing it using 50k asic+boost. that years 52500 could be made in a few extra days

what you dont realise is in 2013. in a year people made 52500 blocks using fpga.
imagine doing it using 50k asic+boost. that years 52500 could be made in a few weeks

what you dont realise is in 2014. in a year people made 52500 blocks using low rate ASIC.
imagine doing it using 50k asic+boost. that years 52500 could be made in months

what you dont realise is in 2015. in a year people made 52500 blocks using mid rate ASIC.
imagine doing it using 50k asic+boost. that years 52500 could be made in a few extra months

what you dont realise is in 2016. in a year people made 52500 blocks using high rate ASIC.
imagine doing it using 50k asic+boost. that years 52500 could be made in a 9ish months

by 2019 the private pool would be ahead of the bitcoin network. and due to asicboost would then remain ahead of the satoshi chain network

[jonald_fyookball]

no need to start at that genesis block.  If you have 51% of the hashpower, you can attack the chain from the tip.  What would be the point of redoing an entire chain?  Actually that would probably fail since a lot of nodes use checkpoints.

[franky1]

no need to start at that genesis block.  If you have 51% of the hashpower, you can attack the chain from the tip.  What would be the point of redoing an entire chain?  Actually that would probably fail since a lot of nodes use checkpoints.

the point 500,000 of block rewards (16m+ coin).
i wasnt being literal and yea checkpoints can stop it(again i was not being literal i was using a illustrative idea not an exact science attack). i was just showing its possible(time to achieve) to overtake even with 500,000 blocks

but with 25% boost compared to any top pool on the satoshi chain.. then yep a private chain can go back and take a few blocks out. and then build on.. and then get to then exceed the satoshi chain to get lots of rewards.

the point being
the satoshi chain (our bitcoin network chain) should welcome using the most advanced and efficient method in existance. not temporarily rule it out.
emphasis on temporarily

[jonald_fyookball]

Second: If there is a Segwit UASF now there is significant danger for a chain split.  

And people losing their Bitcoins.

Nonsense FUD

Even Luke Jr admits it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6bxpsj/bip148_and_the_risks_it_entails_for_you_whether/

Read carefully -

So long as nobody double-spends,

Kinda buried in there... But why wouldn't someone try to double spend those outputs that anyone can spend?

The segwit soft fork only works with majority hashpower.  Otherwise, people lose coins.    

Are you not familiar with how the anyone-can-spend outputs work?

[pooya87]

[bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF