The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support.

[JayJuanGee]

July 21 is a critical date for the future of bitcoin. That is when 86% of miners who have already signaled support for SegWit2x (by putting NYA in the coinbase) are supposed to switch their mining nodes to btc1 software. It will be easy enough to see if they do at bitnodes or Coindance.

Maybe we should have a poll or a bet that describes what percentage is doing what, while outlining various possibilities including some possibilities that are not anticipated?

Assuming the software is released before July 21.  Then whic days are relevant to measurement?

July 21?

July 22?

July 23?

It is not all relevant in terms of one specific date is it?  At some time around the end of July we would be able to verify whether segwit is locked in?  but we could be left in a state of uncertainty regarding who is signaling what and how the math plays out, and which BIPs are triggered?

The Chinese miners expect the NYA (New York Agreement) to be honored. All you have to do is read Bitmain's published articles to see the roadmap. Bitmain wants miners to switch from Bitcoin Core to the new btc1 client which will enforce SegWit2X. If 80% of miners switch over starting on July 21 as they have promised there will be no hard fork. The deadline for switch over is July 29. Bitmain has also promised if UASF gains any traction they have a hard fork planned to wipe out UASF.

Sounds a bit pie in the sky to me, so I guess the period of July 21 to 29 may be interesting to verify what the fuck is going on besides merely stating an intention... and do you not think that some kind of poll could be helpful to see what members think will happen?  I personally don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable to understand even how to frame such a poll.

[-ck]

Sounds a bit pie in the sky to me, so I guess the period of July 21 to 29 may be interesting to verify what the fuck is going on besides merely stating an intention... and do you not think that some kind of poll could be helpful to see what members think will happen?  I personally don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable to understand even how to frame such a poll.

A poll from all the clueless users here will achieve nothing anyway and most of the clued up people don't vote in nonsense like that.

[JayJuanGee]

Sounds a bit pie in the sky to me, so I guess the period of July 21 to 29 may be interesting to verify what the fuck is going on besides merely stating an intention... and do you not think that some kind of poll could be helpful to see what members think will happen?  I personally don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable to understand even how to frame such a poll.

A poll from all the clueless users here will achieve nothing anyway and most of the clued up people don't vote in nonsense like that.

You may be correct; however, I still believe that a poll can be helpful to attempt to educate folks about the parameter of issues and possible outcomes.  I spend a lot of time looking into these matters, and I still do not understand the possible ways this could play out.. .

So I would not be considering the matter in terms of accuracy of the results but instead as a means to brainstorm about possible outcomes and to consider and to reconsider the possible weight to give to various possible outcomes or even outcomes that might not have been previously considered to be within the range of reasonable.

[AK47-]

Sounds a bit pie in the sky to me, so I guess the period of July 21 to 29 may be interesting to verify what the fuck is going on besides merely stating an intention... and do you not think that some kind of poll could be helpful to see what members think will happen?  I personally don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable to understand even how to frame such a poll.

A poll from all the clueless users here will achieve nothing anyway and most of the clued up people don't vote in nonsense like that.

You may be correct; however, I still believe that a poll can be helpful to attempt to educate folks about the parameter of issues and possible outcomes.  I spend a lot of time looking into these matters, and I still do not understand the possible ways this could play out.. .

So I would not be considering the matter in terms of accuracy of the results but instead as a means to brainstorm about possible outcomes and to consider and to reconsider the possible weight to give to various possible outcomes or even outcomes that might not have been previously considered to be within the range of reasonable.

But I think that will make the situation more complex and it wouldn't yeild anything. Most of the users aren't very well aware with the situation and if they were said to vote, most of them either follow the majority or just vote without any consideration or wouldn't vote at all. I believe this is technical aspect, let the techies decide.

[Variogam]

July 21 is a critical date for the future of bitcoin. That is when 86% of miners who have already signaled support for SegWit2x (by putting NYA in the coinbase) are supposed to switch their mining nodes to btc1 software. It will be easy enough to see if they do at bitnodes or Coindance.

The Chinese miners expect the NYA (New York Agreement) to be honored. All you have to do is read Bitmain's published articles to see the roadmap. Bitmain wants miners to switch from Bitcoin Core to the new btc1 client which will enforce SegWit2X. If 80% of miners switch over starting on July 21 as they have promised there will be no hard fork. The deadline for switch over is July 29. Bitmain has also promised if UASF gains any traction they have a hard fork planned to wipe out UASF.

I thought all NYA participants should start running SegWit2x compatible software as soon as possible afer July 21. It would be unresponsible to activate SegWit2x when there are few SegWit2x compatible full nodes. Dont know how many nodes NYA participants and SegWit2x supporters control, but over 50% (around 3000) would be safe signal SegWit2x going to be success, so miners can start signalling in blocks as well.

[DooMAD]

and that this issue has been used as an attempt to change governance

*sigh*

How many times does it have to be said?

Developers.  Are.  Not.  Governors.  

Please get this batshit insane notion out of your head.  And I mean all of you.  Everyone on this forum who thinks any developers are somehow in charge or in control.  You are fundamentally and utterly wrong in how you perceive governance.  If someone was using the issue to claim that we need to change the way in which the consensus protocol works, that would be a change in governance.  Every time some UASF supporter talks about excluding the miners from the equation altogether and forcing a POW change, THAT is a change in governance.  

A hard fork resulting from a significant majority of those securing the network (that's a mix of both mining nodes and non-mining full nodes) freely choosing to run code enforcing new rules is exactly how Bitcoin was designed to work and is NOT a change in governance.  Stop talking shit.

If you want a coin where governance is dictated by developers, go away and use Ripple.  You simply don't belong here.

[hv_]

and that this issue has been used as an attempt to change governance

*sigh*

How many times does it have to be said?

Developers.  Are.  Not.  Governors.  

Please get this batshit insane notion out of your head.  And I mean all of you.  Everyone on this forum who thinks any developers are somehow in charge or in control.  You are fundamentally and utterly wrong in how you perceive governance.  If someone was using the issue to claim that we need to change the way in which the consensus protocol works, that would be a change in governance.  Every time some UASF supporter talks about excluding the miners from the equation altogether and forcing a POW change, THAT is a change in governance.  

A hard fork resulting from a significant majority of those securing the network (that's a mix of both mining nodes and non-mining full nodes) freely choosing to run code enforcing new rules is exactly how Bitcoin was designed to work and is NOT a change in governance.  Stop talking shit.

If you want a coin where governance is dictated by developers, go away and use Ripple.  You simply don't belong here.

++. Not that mad....

[ComputerGenie]

*sigh*

How many times does it have to be said?

Developers.  Are.  Not.  Governors.  

Please get this batshit insane notion out of your head.  And I mean all of you.  Everyone on this forum who thinks any developers are somehow in charge or in control.  You are fundamentally and utterly wrong in how you perceive governance.  If someone was using the issue to claim that we need to change the way in which the consensus protocol works, that would be a change in governance.  Every time some UASF supporter talks about excluding the miners from the equation altogether and forcing a POW change, THAT is a change in governance.  

A hard fork resulting from a significant majority of those securing the network (that's a mix of both mining nodes and non-mining full nodes) freely choosing to run code enforcing new rules is exactly how Bitcoin was designed to work and is NOT a change in governance...

A-feken-men! 

[The One]

and that this issue has been used as an attempt to change governance

*sigh*

How many times does it have to be said?

Developers.  Are.  Not.  Governors.  

Please get this batshit insane notion out of your head.  And I mean all of you.  Everyone on this forum who thinks any developers are somehow in charge or in control.  You are fundamentally and utterly wrong in how you perceive governance.  If someone was using the issue to claim that we need to change the way in which the consensus protocol works, that would be a change in governance.  Every time some UASF supporter talks about excluding the miners from the equation altogether and forcing a POW change, THAT is a change in governance.  

A hard fork resulting from a significant majority of those securing the network (that's a mix of both mining nodes and non-mining full nodes) freely choosing to run code enforcing new rules is exactly how Bitcoin was designed to work and is NOT a change in governance.  Stop talking shit.

If you want a coin where governance is dictated by developers, go away and use Ripple.  You simply don't belong here.

You can exclude me from the predeterminer "all"  

Otherwise keep up the good work.

[Netnox]

The Chinese miners expect the NYA (New York Agreement) to be honored. All you have to do is read Bitmain's published articles to see the roadmap. Bitmain wants miners to switch from Bitcoin Core to the new btc1 client which will enforce SegWit2X. If 80% of miners switch over starting on July 21 as they have promised there will be no hard fork. The deadline for switch over is July 29. Bitmain has also promised if UASF gains any traction they have a hard fork planned to wipe out UASF.

Bitmain's stand is very confusing. A few days back, I heard that they are planing to mine a new crypto-currency, if their suggestions are not accepted. So what is going to happen? Are they going to continue with BTC, or are they going to split off?

[CuriousInvestor]

The Chinese miners expect the NYA (New York Agreement) to be honored. All you have to do is read Bitmain's published articles to see the roadmap. Bitmain wants miners to switch from Bitcoin Core to the new btc1 client which will enforce SegWit2X. If 80% of miners switch over starting on July 21 as they have promised there will be no hard fork. The deadline for switch over is July 29. Bitmain has also promised if UASF gains any traction they have a hard fork planned to wipe out UASF.

Bitmain's stand is very confusing. A few days back, I heard that they are planing to mine a new crypto-currency, if their suggestions are not accepted. So what is going to happen? Are they going to continue with BTC, or are they going to split off?

It's subjective to say whether something is BTC or not during a split. Bitmain will begin to mine a different chain privately post August 1st (BIP148), if they sense the support is strong, they will HARDFORK to another BTC, if not, they will keep mining the original Bitoin chain.

[d5000]

Developers.  Are.  Not.  Governors.  
[...]
A hard fork resulting from a significant majority of those securing the network (that's a mix of both mining nodes and non-mining full nodes) freely choosing to run code enforcing new rules is exactly how Bitcoin was designed to work and is NOT a change in governance.

Allow me to _slightly_ disagree (although I support your conclusion - a hard fork supported by miners & economy is perfectly legit for me).

Developers have a kind of "informal" (de facto) power not granted by the protocol, but that was probably taken into account when Bitcoin was conceived. I would describe it as social leadership.

Miners and economic nodes - the two groups you're referring as the two main power holders - do not decide "out of thin air" what client/protocol version they run. They must choose from the available implementations. If they want to create an own implementation, there are a lot of costs for them because they would not only probably need to pay developers, but also they'd need a marketing fund to assure most Bitcoin users run compatible software.

That is only a descriptive analysis - I simply recognize that people perceive developers as "leaders", but that should not mean that I think they should dictate development. But they are an important power group. One of the reasons is probably that good developers are scarce, and so there is not much competition between development teams - so not every idea can get enough traction to be transformed into an implementation that works (and is essentially bug-free enough for a multi-billion dollar network like Bitcoin).

[hv_]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1290358.msg20028136#msg20028136


What do they have what I do not?

Buhuuuu

 .    

[Variogam]

What do they have what I do not?

Small community. One of biggest mistakes of Bitcoin was not focusing to fix the 1M problem properly while it was still small project. Even the SegWit2x is not final solution to the scalling problem, but there is no better working code with enought support to get implemented right now.

[ComputerGenie]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1290358.msg20028136#msg20028136


What do they have what I do not?

Buhuuuu

 .    

A couple dozen "GTX 1080 Ti"s, perhaps?

[classicsucks]

*sigh*

How many times does it have to be said?

Developers.  Are.  Not.  Governors.  

Please get this batshit insane notion out of your head.  And I mean all of you.  Everyone on this forum who thinks any developers are somehow in charge or in control.  You are fundamentally and utterly wrong in how you perceive governance.  If someone was using the issue to claim that we need to change the way in which the consensus protocol works, that would be a change in governance.  Every time some UASF supporter talks about excluding the miners from the equation altogether and forcing a POW change, THAT is a change in governance.  

A hard fork resulting from a significant majority of those securing the network (that's a mix of both mining nodes and non-mining full nodes) freely choosing to run code enforcing new rules is exactly how Bitcoin was designed to work and is NOT a change in governance.  Stop talking shit.

If you want a coin where governance is dictated by developers, go away and use Ripple.  You simply don't belong here.

Although I largely agree, it's unfortunate that you chose the term "governors", which can also mean a device that limits performance (for example, limiting rpms on an engine). In this case, "governors" does apply to the Core devs  , as they have chosen to limit the Bitcoin network's capacity, and no one has been able to convince people to overcome the limit.

Also, "Bitcoin governance" is somewhat of an ambiguous term, given that Bitcoin is essentially a computer virus that has "propagated" all over the world and runs practically without any intervention. It's unclear how this will turn out, because nothing like this has ever happened before!

[d5000]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1290358.msg20028136#msg20028136
What do they have what I do not?

That's just what we discussed in the German forum ... they have a more formal model for governance with stronger incentives to follow "the will of the majority" via PoS votes.

[JayJuanGee]

Sounds a bit pie in the sky to me, so I guess the period of July 21 to 29 may be interesting to verify what the fuck is going on besides merely stating an intention... and do you not think that some kind of poll could be helpful to see what members think will happen?  I personally don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable to understand even how to frame such a poll.

A poll from all the clueless users here will achieve nothing anyway and most of the clued up people don't vote in nonsense like that.

You may be correct; however, I still believe that a poll can be helpful to attempt to educate folks about the parameter of issues and possible outcomes.  I spend a lot of time looking into these matters, and I still do not understand the possible ways this could play out.. .

So I would not be considering the matter in terms of accuracy of the results but instead as a means to brainstorm about possible outcomes and to consider and to reconsider the possible weight to give to various possible outcomes or even outcomes that might not have been previously considered to be within the range of reasonable.

But I think that will make the situation more complex and it wouldn't yeild anything. Most of the users aren't very well aware with the situation and if they were said to vote, most of them either follow the majority or just vote without any consideration or wouldn't vote at all. I believe this is technical aspect, let the techies decide.

If we are posting in a thread like this or watching it, we have some desire to learn technical aspects of bitcoin and the current situation.  Furthermore there are various kinds knowledge that are at issue in our current situation, and those areas of knowledge are not purely tech, for sure. 

There is technical aspects in running a miner or a node, but the technical aspects become less complicated and central when there are discussions about changing consensus levels and changing the means in which various combinations of thresholds might add up and further various game theory that might be involved when some companies or individuals are asserting that they are going to engage in a certain behavior, but their actual actions seem to differ from their proclamations.

[ComputerGenie]

Not all who have the desire to learn have the capacity to learn....

[JayJuanGee]

and that this issue has been used as an attempt to change governance

*sigh*

How many times does it have to be said?

Developers.  Are.  Not.  Governors.  

Please get this batshit insane notion out of your head.  And I mean all of you.  Everyone on this forum who thinks any developers are somehow in charge or in control.  You are fundamentally and utterly wrong in how you perceive governance.  If someone was using the issue to claim that we need to change the way in which the consensus protocol works, that would be a change in governance.  Every time some UASF supporter talks about excluding the miners from the equation altogether and forcing a POW change, THAT is a change in governance.  

A hard fork resulting from a significant majority of those securing the network (that's a mix of both mining nodes and non-mining full nodes) freely choosing to run code enforcing new rules is exactly how Bitcoin was designed to work and is NOT a change in governance.  Stop talking shit.

If you want a coin where governance is dictated by developers, go away and use Ripple.  You simply don't belong here.

Thanks for your perspective, yet I am not going to concede that I am talking about this matter incorrectly...

Maybe we are getting caught up on semantics, yet the main framework of my contention should be obvious.

The fact of the matter has been that since XT, Classic and BU there have been various whiny attempts to complain that bitcoin is too stagnant and bitcoin needs to be able to change more easily and bitcoin was designed to be able to change easily... blah blah blah.. therefore hardfork and hardfork frequently in order that bitcoin can adjust to changing markets and become more competitive with modern payment systems blah blah blah.. bitcoin is broken the way it is and therefore it should be easier to change.

Those are attempts at changes in governance because they attempt to make bitcoin easier to change based on false premises and by assertions that there are technical problems and that bitcoin is broke and bitcoin should be x, y or z and it is not achieving.. blah blah blah.. Arguing that there is an emergency in order to deceive and trick into lowering consensus levels and consensus mechanisms.

So whether you disagree with my understanding or not or my use of the term 'governance", my point remains valid that there are ongoing complaints about the system that is in place (concededly evolving with the passage of time as you mentioned examples of possible ways to evolve) in order to attempt to lower various consensus thresholds and to make bitcoin more moldable, and even if some of those changes do occur over time, as you mentioned with your examples, it does not mean that there is not going to be resistance to various more extreme attempts, such as attempts to hardfork at lower consensus levels.