"Miners can MASF, or users will UASF. either way, Segwit activated early August"

[andron8383]

****
So in any case this will be an adventure full of suspense, in which the users starting UASF don't matter much apart from the psychological effects.  It will be the miners that have to decide to fork off, and the market that will decide in a risky game.
***

I agree there are multiple scenarios and some are risky in worse case scenario UASF will fork away and if problems will rise higher it will change POW.
For safety transition we need 51%+ miners on board but even without it i am so tired of no solution that I would go for it.
That whole mining centralization is way to strong and can not deny development no more.

[Nagadota]

Even if UASF will create altcoin then be it.
.....
I will use BTC as store of value and UASF to play casinos, pay for stuff. Same time let original BTC be original BTC.

You don't have a clue. UASF won't split it's a softfork. Some stupid miners like jihad and BTU bovine can ragequit and create their altcoin BTU, but it will be just alt like LTC, no more

The main point of UASF is to begin SegWit before it gains a significant majority of miners.  If, when it occurs, SegWit has a minority of hashrate, there will be a split.

It could get very complicated if BU or neutral miners are particularly determined to stick with their chain.  Therefore, it's absolutely essential that a UASF has extremely strong community and business support, otherwise miners could stay on the majority chain.

[slaman29]

OK I am a very normal user of Bitcoin. How will this decision affect people like me? How will we know what to do or which decision to take (if we are allowed to make a choice)? Are we supposed to do anything?

[dinofelis]

Even if UASF will create altcoin then be it.
.....
I will use BTC as store of value and UASF to play casinos, pay for stuff. Same time let original BTC be original BTC.

You don't have a clue. UASF won't split it's a softfork. Some stupid miners like jihad and BTU bovine can ragequit and create their altcoin BTU, but it will be just alt like LTC, no more

The main point of UASF is to begin SegWit before it gains a significant majority of miners.  If, when it occurs, SegWit has a minority of hashrate, there will be a split.

In any case, there needs to be a minority of miners that decides to split off, and make a pure-segwit prong forking off.  If they don't, your UASF node will not find a "pure segwit" chain, and will just stop.  So, as a user, starting up a UASF node BEFORE a minority of miners decided to fork off on a pure segwit prong, leaving the main chain behind them, serves no purpose, because your node will simply *not find any valid chain out there*.

The error in thinking is maybe that such a node will only pick the segwit-signaling blocks on the main chain.  But that cannot be the case, because that would mean that that node does accept intermediate "invalid" blocks, as the segwit-signaling blocks are not consecutive.  As such, an UASF node that would accept, but not "interpret" non-segwit blocks would just forfeit all transactions in those non-segwit blocks.   If I pay you with a non-segwit transaction, you would never see my coins arrive.

As I said, this is going to be a very entertaining spectacle.
Probably the best thing to do is not to touch one's bitcoins during the whole time of settlement (if ever it settles) ; or simply to exchange them for exchange IOU on an exchange you trust, but not keep them on the funnily dancing block chain and certainly not on one prong or another.

[dinofelis]

****
So in any case this will be an adventure full of suspense, in which the users starting UASF don't matter much apart from the psychological effects.  It will be the miners that have to decide to fork off, and the market that will decide in a risky game.
***

I agree there are multiple scenarios and some are risky in worse case scenario UASF will fork away and if problems will rise higher it will change POW.
For safety transition we need 51%+ miners on board but even without it i am so tired of no solution that I would go for it.
That whole mining centralization is way to strong and can not deny development no more.

Well, I have a different opinion on that.  After all, miners are not imposing any change, and their "job" was to keep respect of the rules.  Anything that deviates from the rules is in principle "illegal" in bitcoin land, so in fact, miners are doing exactly what they were supposed to do.  The inconsistency in the bitcoin system was to want to build a decentralized system with central developer control: that is, there's supposed to be ONE bitcoin piece of software, edited by a very restraint  club of people (the Core devs in this case), who determine the rules, and modify the rules (called "development").  On the other hand, the consensus which is defined by proof of work was supposed to stick faithfully to "the rules" and anyone deviating from this in majority was called an "attacker".

Bitcoin's imaginary power model was hence totally inconsistent: the "honest consensus protocol" is to be defined by proof of work, and is supposed to remain "honest" (that is, never get a 51% majority that deviates from the rules).  But on the other hand, there was supposed to be a small group of developers who would write the unique bitcoin software, and that would modify the rules sometimes.
On one hand, it was claimed that the competition between proof of work providers would allow, provided never 51% of them "colluded", to keep immutability and "honesty" (that is, sticking to the existing rules) ; on the other hand, there was to be a small permissioned club that is the central authority on the rules. 

This is one of the several inconsistencies in the projected working of the system, and it is no wonder that we get a conflict between the "guardians of the protocol" on one hand, and the "modifiers of the protocol" on the other hand.  In the past, the modifiers of the protocol were the central authority in bitcoin, but now they lost that potentially, and bitcoin became decentralized.   But, by its very functioning, it should remain immutable in that case.

I think the inconsistency came from the fact that on one hand, bitcoin's value resided in its highly publicised "immutability of the rules by mathematics" (in fact, by lines of code) ; but this implied also that no "evolution" and no "development" could ever occur, which would pinpoint a general failure of the system, because no system that pretends to be a technological advancement can at the same time show that it cannot evolve.   So the fundamental conflict between "flexible technological evolution" which needs central authority on one hand, and the publicised "immutability, by mathematics" on the other hand, had to be denied/put away/ talked away.  The rhetorical concept that was used to cover up this fundamental conflict was the notion of "consensus", which has a normal meaning of people agreeing, but which had a special meaning in bitcoin: the mechanism that established immutability and honesty as long as no 51% collusion happened.

In a way, the conflict is the following:
A) in order to guarantee the good workings of the system, never ever, 51% of the consensus power (that is, mining power) should collude (agree on anything else but the "honest rules").
B) in order to have evolution, regularly, a very high majority of the consensus power (that is, mining power) should collude. over the change to be applied.

This can only happen if an *external* authority can define what are the "honest modifications of the honest rules", which is a select permissioned club.

[spartacusrex]

In a way, the conflict is the following:
A) in order to guarantee the good workings of the system, never ever, 51% of the consensus power (that is, mining power) should collude (agree on anything else but the "honest rules").
B) in order to have evolution, regularly, a very high majority of the consensus power (that is, mining power) should collude. over the change to be applied.

This can only happen if an *external* authority can define what are the "honest modifications of the honest rules", which is a select permissioned club.

I think that is not correct.

51% 'attack' - does not exist.

51% 'collusion' happens ALL THE TIME - and is what defines the current chain.

If that 51% should decide on something else.. they can. The protocol simply says to follow the majority, NOT that the majority can never request upgrades, and can never change anything.

The current situation, as you say, will be 'a very entertaining spectacle'.

Because we have come to a situation, for the FIRST time imho, where what the 'Users' and the 'Miners' want clearly diverge.

I'll quote gmaxwell - so please don't chew my ear off about this whole 'non-mining nodes have no power' thing - Dino.. 

Any rollout of segwit must include majority hash power

No, that is one sufficient condition, it can instead include basically all of the users (in particular, economically significant users). Either are sufficient alone.  The users define what are the miners and if the user define mining to include segwit, it does... from their perspective it is impossible to violate the rules, and any miner that tries just stops existing-- just as litecoin miners do not exist as far as Bitcoin users (and their nodes) are concerned today.

..

Realistically - we are currently nowhere near the actual amount of 'economic' nodes required for the UASF to work well.. but let's see what happens.. You can't stop them from trying. (I think that's kind of the point) 

ps. IF it does work ( and it's a BIG IF ) will you admit that maybe there is more at play here than what you describe Dino ?

[iamTom123]

https://i.imgur.com/21AiRKX.png

Luke-Jr: "Miners can do BIP148 MASF, or users will do BIP148 UASF. either way, Segwit will be activated beginning August at the latest, and we will have a scaling solution."

  Bullish to say the least.

Bitcoin is going up because people are taking action and finally we see some relevant devs supporting UASF.

Let's hope we all can be enjoying segwit this summer. If miners want to crash the price, they will continue opposing. If they are reasonable, we will see $5000 this year.

Hope they all wake up as not doing anything at all on this scaling problem can be liken to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Right now, miners are so happy with the turn of events...who would have thought that the same problem can bring them windfall of profits? It is on their favor if no solution can be done for now. But this situation is almost reaching a boiling point and miners should not wait for that to happen. They should wake up on their senses and unite with all stakeholders now to stop the mountain of clogs right now.

[slaman29]

Hope they all wake up as not doing anything at all on this scaling problem can be liken to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Right now, miners are so happy with the turn of events...who would have thought that the same problem can bring them windfall of profits? It is on their favor if no solution can be done for now. But this situation is almost reaching a boiling point and miners should not wait for that to happen. They should wake up on their senses and unite with all stakeholders now to stop the mountain of clogs right now.

Exactly... it's so strange to see that each problem Bitcoin has faced this year has resulted in the price only getting higher... or maybe it is just simply that nothing can seem to stop the rise. I have mixed feelings. Happy that my small amounts are worth more but not so that I cannot go out and get more. Let's hope August really sees SW.

[dinofelis]

In a way, the conflict is the following:
A) in order to guarantee the good workings of the system, never ever, 51% of the consensus power (that is, mining power) should collude (agree on anything else but the "honest rules").
B) in order to have evolution, regularly, a very high majority of the consensus power (that is, mining power) should collude. over the change to be applied.

This can only happen if an *external* authority can define what are the "honest modifications of the honest rules", which is a select permissioned club.

I think that is not correct.

51% 'attack' - does not exist.

51% 'collusion' happens ALL THE TIME - and is what defines the current chain.

Of course.  The idea is that we talk about 51% collusion if it is any deviation from the existing rules.

If that 51% should decide on something else.. they can. The protocol simply says to follow the majority, NOT that the majority can never request upgrades, and can never change anything.

The point is the following.  If you see a decentralized system as many individual entities that do not collude (that is, do not make specific agreements on anything, to do together at a specific moment in time in a specific way) but are just running according to a given rule set (protocol), then just any small entity can join, on the condition that that entity complies with the existing rules.  So that new entity can start participating at any moment, doesn't need to "make any colluding agreement with any other entity", but can just start running using the existing rule set.  As such, many, many small entities can join, and they all joined using the SAME original rule set (protocol).

Of course, you can say, but "in the beginning, there was someone with >51% power, that determined this rule set !".  Yes.  Any such system starts out in a centralized way.  Satoshi was the central authority that set up the initial rules, and of course, when he was alone, he was 100% colluding with himself.  The system was entirely centralized on him.  For quite a while, his self-appointed/sole/natural heirs, Core, enjoyed that continuous central power, at least "morally".  Everybody used their software, so whatever they put in there, was the new rule set.

The only way new entities could join, was to accept HIS/THEIR rule set.  But ideally, after a while, we have so many new entities, that the original central authority is swamped. At that point, ideally, the only thing that new entities joining could do, was to play according to the rule set that all other entities were also obliged to use when they joined.

But once IN the system, if individual entities are small, and never collude (that is, sit together, and decide upon specific collective action at a specific moment), the only thing they can KEEP doing, is to KEEP playing according to the rules that everybody in the system had to use when joining.

That's how immutability arises from decentralisation (= the inability to decide upon specific collective action at a specific moment with majority of decision power): the impossibility to "make a collective plan of deviation" (decentralization) of the existing rule set.

[dinofelis]

ps. IF it does work ( and it's a BIG IF ) will you admit that maybe there is more at play here than what you describe Dino ?

Of course.  But if it works, it means that decentralisation is gone, *because* a majority could collude over a change in rule set, and hence HAD TO AGREE upon a specific collective action at a specific moment (and implicitly, had hence to have a leader that proposed that and could have a majority agree which is, in my book, what collusion is about).

If you ask me if bitcoin is decentralized, my answer is: "can they change the protocol ?  If yes, it is centralized, if not, even if many would like to, then it is decentralized".

[European Central Bank]

If you ask me if bitcoin is decentralized, my answer is: "can they change the protocol ?  If yes, it is centralized, if not, even if many would like to, then it is decentralized".

so it's literally cast in stone for eternity? that doesn't sound very practical. and whoever set the rules that cast it in stone in the first place could be thought of as a centralised decision too.

[dinofelis]

Exactly... it's so strange to see that each problem Bitcoin has faced this year has resulted in the price only getting higher... or maybe it is just simply that nothing can seem to stop the rise.

My idea is that, with the highly speculative emission curve, giving huge seigniorage to first adopters, and making the stuff rare when it gets traction, we get the perfect constitution of a speculative asset decoupled from economic reality.  Bitcoin's value is not the value of the token on the bitcoin chain, but is the value of the abstract IOU on exchanges "backed" by tokens on a block chain somewhere (at least that's what one believes).  Bitcoin's price has nothing to do with bitcoin's practical usage, in the same way that most other crypto currencies' value has nothing to do with their block chain's usage.   Hell, there are even tokens on exchanges that get value when the block chain is dead and not running any more !

My theory is that the speculative emission curve of bitcoin, imitated by most other crypto, and has made "big fortunes from zilch in no time", has turned crypto as a whole in one of the better speculative gambling casinos seen out there.  Bitcoin's problems have most probably interested people in other crypto currencies too, who discovered that there's not just ONE token out there (on exchanges), but hundreds of them !  This is a speculator's heaven.  Bitcoin's problems have taken away the fundamental distinction between "real crypto" (bitcoin) and "crap crypto" (alt coins) ; bitcoin already being mainly a speculative vehicle, the discovery of hundreds of them as "viable alternatives" has opened pandora's speculators' box.  This induced a huge speculative wave on many crypto, one dragging the other (including bitcoin) along in a speculative bidding like no other.

So price setting is entirely the price setting of speculative IOU on exchanges, and has essentially nothing to do any more with "real economic usage", which is the defining property of a speculative asset.  Crypto (including bitcoin) is probably evolving towards a kind of universal speculation market on exchanges, which can go VERY high.

It might even be so that whenever the problems on bitcoin are solved in a way, that "common sense" returns to the market, and makes it implode entirely.  That would be funny, that finally the scaling problem finds a solution, and the whole of crypto crashes to ground, because it acted as the wake-up call to "economic reality".

[dinofelis]

If you ask me if bitcoin is decentralized, my answer is: "can they change the protocol ?  If yes, it is centralized, if not, even if many would like to, then it is decentralized".

so it's literally cast in stone for eternity? that doesn't sound very practical. and whoever set the rules that cast it in stone in the first place could be thought of as a centralised decision too.

That's what I said: a decentralized system always starts out as a centralized one.  Bitcoin was initially centralized with all power to Satoshi.  He set the rules.  And Core could live still a bit on that central authority, making the sole software.

[Meuh6879]

If you want signaling (and use the official Bitcoin Core 0.14.1), use the UAcomment

http://www.uasf.co/



1) if you understand the bitcoin.conf file, so add this line :

Code:

uacomment=UASF-SegWit-BIP148

2) if you don't understand the bitcoin.conf file, change only the shortcut of bitcoin core like this :




You keep the bitcoin core officiel version downloaded here : http://bitcoin.org/bin

[The One]

For this to happen:
1) exchanges need to list the two bitcoins
2) users in the market need to prefer the segwit bitcoin over the original bitcoin and vote with their money, selling their original bitcoins, and buying segwit bitcoins in majority

Miners will follow with their hash rate.

Whenever the segwit chain overtakes the original chain, the original fork becomes orphaned (can be a month later) and all the transactions on it disappear in a puff.

Who will be brave enough to sell the original bitcoins?

Due to current high price of BTC miners do not have to sell all of their BTC to cover their operating cost. They will have a surplus and can dump their Bitcoins or Bitcoins seggy. Dump bitcoins then buy again low to create a majority again and hold even more BTCs. Dump BTC - seggy to make sure it stay a minority. I expect market manipulations to be the order of the day. The rest with few BTCs will be either panicking or closing their eyes and praying for the best. Thus hashrate may yo yo between Bitcoin and Bitcoin - seggy.

UASF could turn out brilliantly or equally disastrously.

[The One]

****
So in any case this will be an adventure full of suspense, in which the users starting UASF don't matter much apart from the psychological effects.  It will be the miners that have to decide to fork off, and the market that will decide in a risky game.
***

I agree there are multiple scenarios and some are risky in worse case scenario UASF will fork away and if problems will rise higher it will change POW.
For safety transition we need 51%+ miners on board but even without it i am so tired of no solution that I would go for it.
That whole mining centralization is way to strong and can not deny development no more.

Being tired of no solution doesn't mean you have to give up and go for a bad solution. That's how politicians gets away with theft.

So its ok to have core dev centralisation via Blockstream centralisation of LN network.

[Nathan047]

Okay, well I’m very glad to hear that. We really need for these scaling wars to end, so the potential for SegWit to be activated is really nice. Perhaps soon we can say goodbye to 2$ 5 hour transaction fees

[Kprawn]

Okay, well I’m very glad to hear that. We really need for these scaling wars to end, so the potential for SegWit to be activated is really nice. Perhaps soon we can say goodbye to 2$ 5 hour transaction fees

I think this is why bigger companies like Xapo are supporting this. They want to move forward, but the scaling issues are holding them back. It

is too early in the game to say if this is good or bad, but I think any type of scaling will be better than none at all. I will listen to arguments from

both sides and make up my mind based logic reasoning. I am also happy this scaling thing is going forward... we have stalled too long... 2MB is

coming, if we want it or not. 

[Iranus]

Okay, well I’m very glad to hear that. We really need for these scaling wars to end, so the potential for SegWit to be activated is really nice. Perhaps soon we can say goodbye to 2$ 5 hour transaction fees

I think this is why bigger companies like Xapo are supporting this. They want to move forward, but the scaling issues are holding them back. It

is too early in the game to say if this is good or bad, but I think any type of scaling will be better than none at all. I will listen to arguments from

both sides and make up my mind based logic reasoning. I am also happy this scaling thing is going forward... we have stalled too long... 2MB is

coming, if we want it or not. 

Some of these companies will just be appeasing the group of miners who support BU.

I would argue that BitPay still supports SegWit to some degree.  Perhaps their dramatic turn in opinion was actually because they expected that a shady compromise like this one would actually push a legitimate solution further?

[Nathan047]

Okay, well I’m very glad to hear that. We really need for these scaling wars to end, so the potential for SegWit to be activated is really nice. Perhaps soon we can say goodbye to 2$ 5 hour transaction fees

I think this is why bigger companies like Xapo are supporting this. They want to move forward, but the scaling issues are holding them back. It
is too early in the game to say if this is good or bad, but I think any type of scaling will be better than none at all. I will listen to arguments from
both sides and make up my mind based logic reasoning. I am also happy this scaling thing is going forward... we have stalled too long... 2MB is
coming, if we want it or not. 

Well, it would defiantly make sense that companies like that would support SegWit. Any company that deals with a lot of Bitcoin transactions must really be getting hit hard (or hitting their customers hard, hurting their business).