Are any pools considering supporting the UASF on August 1st?

[tomywomy]

Lots of users talking about it, but without at least some hash power dedicated to the UASF it won't happen.

This is the first time in Bitcoin's history that miners, users and developers are not aligned on the way forward.  The developers wrote and tested SegWit, the users upgraded to it, but the miners have not signaled to active it.  So now there is a movement to get it activated without miner consensus.

However, some miner participation (the more the safer) is required.

So what say the pools here?  Are any in support or considering support?

[1715337876]

1715337876

[philipma1957]

Lots of users talking about it, but without at least some hash power dedicated to the UASF it won't happen.

This is the first time in Bitcoin's history that miners, users and developers are not aligned on the way forward.  The developers wrote and tested SegWit, the users upgraded to it, but the miners have not signaled to active it.  So now there is a movement to get it activated without miner consensus.

However, some miner participation (the more the safer) is required.

So what say the pools here?  Are any in support or considering support?

Segwit  is death for Bitcoin.


It is working fine right now.

The market simply has added altcoins to act as the small transaction movers.

Btc works fine as it is.  It acts as the infrastructure for altcoins.

I say death to segwit not btc.

I am fine with a few dozen alt coins doing smaller transactions.

Btw look at ltc eth zcash and stop trying to fix btc.

[icon73]

Lots of users talking about it, but without at least some hash power dedicated to the UASF it won't happen.

This is the first time in Bitcoin's history that miners, users and developers are not aligned on the way forward.  The developers wrote and tested SegWit, the users upgraded to it, but the miners have not signaled to active it.  So now there is a movement to get it activated without miner consensus.

However, some miner participation (the more the safer) is required.

So what say the pools here?  Are any in support or considering support?

Segwit  is death for Bitcoin.

I agree, Segwit will damage bitcoin significantly.  I believe we should opt for a solution that supports on chain scaling like BU.

[os2sam]

So now there is a movement to get it activated without miner consensus.

Miner consensus is a requirement in the Bitcoin design.  To circumvent that is just wrong.  Without miners there is no Bitcoin.

[o_solo_miner]

I believe that the most people did not understand the UASF voting system.

Everybody running a Full Node is able to vote for or against it by adding this to their bitcoin.conf
e.g. "uacomment=UASF-SegWit-BIP148" for signaling.

So it is not only a Pool Voting, even they had the most influence.

EDIT: typo

[kano]

I believe that the most people did not understand the UASF voting system.

Everybody running a Full Node is able to vote for or against it by adding this to their bitcoin.conf
i.e. "uacomment=UASF-SegWit-BIP148" for signaling.

So it is not only a Pool Voting, even they had the most influence.

What on earth has: telling everyone they must use SegWit on 1st of August, got to do with your comment about voting?!?

[o_solo_miner]

Oh no, "I.E = in example" should be written as e.g. (sorry for not beeing an native english speaker, my mistake)

You may choose what you want, it was NOT an advise!
It was just an How to.

Code:

is able to vote for or against it 

just to clear it up

[VentMine]

In regards to the OP's question, yes there is a pool in development now - uasfpool.com. I will be mining here.

I'm hoping Slushpool will offer their users the choice to mine BIP 148, Slush offered the choice to signal Segwit so they should do the same here. I'd prefer to stay with Slush.

Regarding Phils and others comments - Segwit is not the death of bitcoin guys, can anyone logically reason why? There will always be a need for on-chain transactions, without a doubt. Moving some transactions off chain will result in a price increase, without a doubt, due to increased bitcoin utility. Miner revenue will go up in the long run.

I'm for the UASF and will point my hash towards it. I don't feel the need to rush into Segwit however, which BIP 148 is sort of doing, but until there's a BIP being pursued to KILL COVERT ASICBOOST then I will support UASF.

Edit - uasfpool.com, not .co

[-ck]

I'm still very concerned about the safety of a UASF fork and about the level of support so I'm watching cautiously. If there is more evidence of overwhelming support then I will be converting my pools over. It's a trivial change to existing pools should they decide to do it.

[VentMine]

Nice to hear CK I'll be looking to hop on board when you do

There's one solo pool clone on the go right now - http://pa.xro.ca/ but doesn't have great uptime as far as I can tell (dead currently on my miners config page)

[-ck]

Nice to hear CK I'll be looking to hop on board when you do

There isn't enough support as of yet to consider it a realistic possibility but there're still 2 months before its activation date.

Ignore the anomalies of those high spikes, the actual support is sitting only ~12%, and less than half of these are UASF activating nodes; they're mostly just bitcoin node comment. This doesn't even remotely represent the amount of miners that will mine the blocks either so there's a lot more work to be garnered before this is a realistic way forward for bitcoin.

[VentMine]

Yeah, and I guess node count is subject to sybil attacks unfortunately.

All that will is needed is a shared payout pool to incentive miners (solo pools just won't cut it) and some exchanges to list BIP 148 coin. I have no doubt that the revenue/kw-h will be higher on the BIP 148 chain, assuming it gets past the first difficulty adjustment.

Seems like everyone is waiting for more adoption, adoptions needs people to stop waiting

[-ck]

Yeah, and I guess node count is subject to sybil attacks unfortunately.

Indeed, and not only UASF comment nodes but even signalling UASF nodes are more work but still straight forward to sybil. I doubt that's happening though at this stage. The number of core nodes has been surprisingly constant for a long time and a proportion of those have become the UASF nodes.

All that will is needed is a shared payout pool to incentive miners (solo pools just won't cut it) and some exchanges to list BIP 148 coin. I have no doubt that the revenue/kw-h will be higher on the BIP 148 chain, assuming it gets past the first difficulty adjustment.

ckpool.org is a shared pool but still very small. If you find me someone who's willing to dump PHs worth of hashrate just because I convert it to BIP148, I'm all ears, but I doubt you will

Seems like everyone is waiting for more adoption, adoptions needs people to stop waiting

I'm not so convinced as BIP148 is not a consensus change that has been put into core's git and tested and approved by all core devs. UASF seems to be gaining in popularity amongst the core devs but a number have already expressed concern with BIP148's approach.

If BIP148 gathers overwhelming support then I'll switch my pools over but I still think we need a mining based consensus forward. Everyone and their damn fork is putting shorter and shorter timelines on their activations and heading us into much more realistic chance of a fork happening as a result. I can't see how a fork is good for bitcoin in any way shape or form.

[VentMine]

I guess we'll know more as August 1 approaches and can act accordingly. It appears like the Legacy chain would have to Hard Fork to remove the re-org risk, at which point both chains could be listed safely on an exchange, at which point the market can decide which is more valuable. At that point the best $/kw-h revenue should incentive miners to mine on the most profitable chain, at least I know I would stick with the chain that paid the bills.

Assuming there isn't significant support before August 1 for you to convert pools to BIP 148, it is quite possible shortly afterwards the incentives will be in place to do so, or at least try it.

Also I'm with ya, I'd prefer if we keep the one chain and keep in consensus. It's crazy that large miners aren't signalling for segwit considering how much $$ is moving out of BTC and into ALTS because of the impasse.

[HannRa]

Used to support bigger blocks as well as SegWit not too long ago. Now I'm only for bigger blocks. The main developers behind SegWit are willing to pick the most radical activation mechanisms to push their agenda. Imposing re-org risk on a legacy chain without overwhelming consensus makes everyone involved a terrorist.

There's a NY agreement which already involves SegWit AND bigger blocks. Unlike UASF, the NY agreement is backed by overwhelming consensus from all major bitcoin businesses. Any UASF promotion should be stopped right away, yet the promotion is just heating up. If UASF fails, people behind this destructive implementation practice must permanently leave Bitcoin.

[VentMine]

The main developers behind SegWit are willing to pick the most radical activation mechanisms to push their agenda. Imposing re-org risk on a legacy chain without overwhelming consensus makes everyone involved a terrorist.

Not true. Some developers are pushing it yes, e.g. Luke-jr, but remember there are hundreds of core developers. The UA in UASF means user activated. It's the users running the BIP 148 nodes. I'm a user, I'm running a BIP 148 node. I'm also a miner, and I'll be mining on whatever pool allows me to mine BIP 148. Don't blame the dev's.

There's a NY agreement which already involves SegWit AND bigger blocks. Unlike UASF, the NY agreement is backed by overwhelming consensus from all major bitcoin businesses. Any UASF promotion should be stopped right away, yet the promotion is just heating up. If UASF fails, people behind this destructive implementation practice must permanently leave Bitcoin.

I would like to support this NY agreement, even though it is completely against the spirit of bitcoin (closed door secret meetings of the elite). But anyway, until this agreement clearly demonstrates that it will be disabling covert Asicboost attack, I will not support it (and I cannot understand how anyone who is not in the asicboost club would support it - I'll assume you are like me and don't have access to asicboost).

[btcwonder1]

I have been out of touch for a while and was lacking this information. This thread has provided me with plenty of it.

[LoneRangir]

I would like to support this NY agreement, even though it is completely against the spirit of bitcoin (closed door secret meetings of the elite). But anyway, until this agreement clearly demonstrates that it will be disabling covert Asicboost attack, I will not support it (and I cannot understand how anyone who is not in the asicboost club would support it - I'll assume you are like me and don't have access to asicboost).

Does SegWit2x either continue to allow or disallow AsicBoost?  I've been trying to figure this out.  Seems like an important piece to this political puzzle...

[-ck]

Does SegWit2x either continue to allow or disallow AsicBoost?  I've been trying to figure this out.  Seems like an important piece to this political puzzle...

Segwit2x will end up activating segwit via BIP141 (the original implementation) so it will disable asicboost functionality.

[kano]

...
Does SegWit2x either continue to allow or disallow AsicBoost?  I've been trying to figure this out.  Seems like an important piece to this political puzzle...

There is no design in segwit specifically to affect asicboost.
Any effect it has is purely a side effect, not an attempt to stop it.
Since there are 2 types of asicboost, you'd need to read up about them and determine if the segwit changes affect them.