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

[ComputerGenie]

You see that if the forked of coin will be worth something (if only a few $), coinbase users have no way of getting these coins and coinbase basically steals them from their users.

Hence the reason we all keep telling folks to put their coins where they (the users) have control of the private keys. 

[1713541690]

1713541690

[1713541690]

1713541690

[1713541690]

1713541690

[1713541690]

1713541690

[Xavofat]

As far i know, Coinbase is the first exchange that rejects any potential HF from Jihan.

https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/887703206435758080

I think I started to like coinbase  

Yeah!  I think we should all deposit our coins into Coinbase, so that they can steal our money in broad daylight.  I hope loads of other exchanges and online wallets begin stealing what people rightfully own. /s

Any rational person would realise that if you don't like Bitcoin Cash then you sell it, rather than letting someone else hold it and potentially not even sell it themselves.

[JayJuanGee]

Slight bump in the road. Looks like Bitfury, F2Pool and GBMiners are all signalling SW so they're likely on the sidelines waiting to hear about that bug ck described a few posts back.

From my quick glancing at the situation, between the three of them, they seem to have between about 13% to 16% of the current hashing power.

Bitfury - between about 2% to 3%

f2pool - between about 7% to 10%

Gbminer - between about 3% to 4%

Sometimes it can also be a bit unclear about whether some of these miners might engage (or plan to engage) in a practice to either ramp up or to ramp down their mining power in order to affect the results of this BIP91 locking in -  in one direction or another - especially if the situation is looking borderline - but at the same time, with so many miners and such a distribution of hashing power, any behavior of one miner (or even a group of miners) might play out as a kind of "wash" if other miners engage in an opposite behavior to attempt to compensate for the expected behavior(s) of other miners.

Of course, the bigger the miner, the more they may be able to attempt to strategically play their hashing power, no?

[allinvain]

BIP91 signaling went down to 77.7%. We're basically right at the end of locking in segwit on this current lock-in period and I have a feeling it won't succeed. Those 3 pools could make all the difference or the existing BIP91 signalers need to up their hashing power to compensate. We still have 152 blocks to go so there is time left.

[JayJuanGee]

As far i know, Coinbase is the first exchange that rejects any potential HF from Jihan.

https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/887703206435758080

I think I started to like coinbase  

Would I trust my precious coins to them? No, not yet. They have a long way to gain my trust but I may stop talking shit about them for a while.   I guess we are about to find out if userbase majority > hashrate majority or vice versa.

You see that if the forked of coin will be worth something (if only a few $), coinbase users have no way of getting these coins and coinbase basically steals them from their users.

Yes, and that is why coinbase said that if you don't like what the fuck they are planning to do, then get your fucking coins off of their exchange.

Of course they were a bit more diplomatic in their choice of words.   

[GreenBits]

As far i know, Coinbase is the first exchange that rejects any potential HF from Jihan.

https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/887703206435758080

I think I started to like coinbase  

Would I trust my precious coins to them? No, not yet. They have a long way to gain my trust but I may stop talking shit about them for a while.   I guess we are about to find out if userbase majority > hashrate majority or vice versa.

they jumped on the ETH bandwagon really fast back when I wasnt so keen on it, but, looking back, I guess they werent so wrong, LOL. they are insured, yet I cant bring myself to leave a balance of more than 5ish USD on CB, or anyones exchange for that matter. i have a poor feeling most of the time my coins arent under my control. shit happens too frequently in this space

DEX!

but im going to need coinbase to like, upgrade the servers or something, anytime there is high traffic the platform performance seriously degrades, like messing up your trading bad

[-ck]

Here's yet another interesting site to monitor progress as well as other interesting fork data.

https://www.btcforkmonitor.info/

[Paashaas]

After Coinbase now GDAX is rejecting any potential HF from Jihan 

https://blog.gdax.com/uahf-a703b6a13115.

[ComputerGenie]

After Coinbase now GDAX is rejecting any potential HF from Jihan 

Since GDAX is a CoinBase entity, that was a given. 

[-ck]

One of my pools was lucky enough to find a block in this heat and contribute to the activation signalling:
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/000000000000000001190eb117434d9d2cc40a0a01bcb6ec954f16b565dbfd4e

[JayJuanGee]

One of my pools was lucky enough to find a block in this heat and contribute to the activation signalling:
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/000000000000000001190eb117434d9d2cc40a0a01bcb6ec954f16b565dbfd4e

Congrats... Great to see that your pool got to be part of a possible pivotal moment in bitcoin history....   

[Vishnu.Reang]

After Coinbase now GDAX is rejecting any potential HF from Jihan 

https://blog.gdax.com/uahf-a703b6a13115.

So what do you think? It seems to me that Jihan Wu doesn't command enough support for a chain split. It will be better for him (and for everyone else) to stay in the original Bitcoin chain, rather than risking his money and reputation in building another one. Anyway... it is his call.

[allinvain]

After Coinbase now GDAX is rejecting any potential HF from Jihan  

https://blog.gdax.com/uahf-a703b6a13115.

So what do you think? It seems to me that Jihan Wu doesn't command enough support for a chain split. It will be better for him (and for everyone else) to stay in the original Bitcoin chain, rather than risking his money and reputation in building another one. Anyway... it is his call.

Well, don't forget that right now he is onboard with the segwit2x agenda, so he is voting to stay on the original blockchain. The chain split (Bitcoin ABC) is a contingency plan if BIP 148 activates. It's sort of like a knee-jerk reaction. If we soft fork he hard forks. We all get forked that way!  

[hv_]

After Coinbase now GDAX is rejecting any potential HF from Jihan  

https://blog.gdax.com/uahf-a703b6a13115.

I think it's a good sign to show what bitcoin and its idea really is. Finally anyone who want to be reasonable here should WORK (PoW) against any split of bitcoin AT FIRST PLACE.

[-ck]

One of my pools was lucky enough to find a block in this heat and contribute to the activation signalling:
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/000000000000000001190eb117434d9d2cc40a0a01bcb6ec954f16b565dbfd4e

Congrats... Great to see that your pool got to be part of a possible pivotal moment in bitcoin history....   

This activation period looks very close but I don't think it will succeed because f2pool is STILL holding out. No idea what he's thinking; he's done some bizarre flip flops in the past that have nothing to do with what he says, so I don't even know if he's holding out because of gmaxwell's issue on the btc1 git. There is still enough hashrate to activate it without him on one of the activation periods (they are 336 blocks long) but instead of it being a given it's going to be a close one based on random luck.

[hv_]

One of my pools was lucky enough to find a block in this heat and contribute to the activation signalling:
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/000000000000000001190eb117434d9d2cc40a0a01bcb6ec954f16b565dbfd4e

Congrats... Great to see that your pool got to be part of a possible pivotal moment in bitcoin history....   

This activation period looks very close but I don't think it will succeed because f2pool is STILL holding out. No idea what he's thinking; he's done some bizarre flip flops in the past that have nothing to do with what he says, so I don't even know if he's holding out because of gmaxwell's issue on the btc1 git. There is still enough hashrate to activate it without him on one of the activation periods (they are 336 blocks long) but instead of it being a given it's going to be a close one based on random luck.

Could you pls explain a little more here since I understand this issue is about to better sync the activation UASF / SW2x ?

Wouldn't it be better the SW2x lock-in is to be delayed to minimize the time difference between those two activations ?

That's what the miners try ?

[Searing]

After Coinbase now GDAX is rejecting any potential HF from Jihan 

https://blog.gdax.com/uahf-a703b6a13115.

So what do you think? It seems to me that Jihan Wu doesn't command enough support for a chain split. It will be better for him (and for everyone else) to stay in the original Bitcoin chain, rather than risking his money and reputation in building another one. Anyway... it is his call.

Imho if not enough w/o him for bit 91. He will do what he did with ltc. Try to hold hostage. He is an ass.

[JayJuanGee]

One of my pools was lucky enough to find a block in this heat and contribute to the activation signalling:
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/000000000000000001190eb117434d9d2cc40a0a01bcb6ec954f16b565dbfd4e

Congrats... Great to see that your pool got to be part of a possible pivotal moment in bitcoin history....    

This activation period looks very close but I don't think it will succeed because f2pool is STILL holding out. No idea what he's thinking; he's done some bizarre flip flops in the past that have nothing to do with what he says, so I don't even know if he's holding out because of gmaxwell's issue on the btc1 git. There is still enough hashrate to activate it without him on one of the activation periods (they are 336 blocks long) but instead of it being a given it's going to be a close one based on random luck.

Could you pls explain a little more here since I understand this issue is about to better sync the activation UASF / SW2x ?

Wouldn't it be better the SW2x lock-in is to be delayed to minimize the time difference between those two activations ?

That's what the miners try ?

I think that this is a repeated theme in this thread that BIP91 seems to cause dynamics to lock in segwit, but is does not necessarily cause sufficient dynamics to lock in segwit2x (meaning the 2x portion of that NYA).. and it is actually a way to prevent UASF from activating.  

Anyhow, probably have to verify the extent to which there could be signaling that establishes the 2x portion of the segwit2x - which I doubt would even be able to sustain any kind of 80% threshold, let alone the less controversial 95% threshold that segwit is going to likely achieve within short period of time after BIP91 gets locked in.

Of course, ck can respond more regarding the portions of your question that seems directed at him... which may be all of your question.. .. hahahaha

[hv_]

One of my pools was lucky enough to find a block in this heat and contribute to the activation signalling:
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/000000000000000001190eb117434d9d2cc40a0a01bcb6ec954f16b565dbfd4e

Congrats... Great to see that your pool got to be part of a possible pivotal moment in bitcoin history....    

This activation period looks very close but I don't think it will succeed because f2pool is STILL holding out. No idea what he's thinking; he's done some bizarre flip flops in the past that have nothing to do with what he says, so I don't even know if he's holding out because of gmaxwell's issue on the btc1 git. There is still enough hashrate to activate it without him on one of the activation periods (they are 336 blocks long) but instead of it being a given it's going to be a close one based on random luck.

Could you pls explain a little more here since I understand this issue is about to better sync the activation UASF / SW2x ?

Wouldn't it be better the SW2x lock-in is to be delayed to minimize the time difference between those two activations ?

That's what the miners try ?

I think that this is a repeated theme in this thread that BIP91 seems to cause dynamics to lock in segwit, but is does not necessarily cause sufficient dynamics to lock in segwit2x (meaning the 2x portion of that NYA).  Anyhow, probably have to verify the extent to which there could be signaling that establishes the 2x portion of the segwit2x - which I doubt would even be able to sustain any kind of 80% threshold, let alone the less controversial 95% threshold that segwit is going to likely achieve within short period of time after BIP91 gets locked in.

Of course, ck can respond more regarding the portions of your question that seems directed at him... which may be all of it.. .. hahahaha

Hm, speculation; Think about sth like 'group dynamics'.  Once the miner 'community' noticed - I and I'm sure all the needed 'meetings' last months lead exactly to this -  that only together / colluding they can GO ON and even against core (and stable the price!!!) .... maybe we will be surprised?

[-ck]

Could you pls explain a little more here since I understand this issue is about to better sync the activation UASF / SW2x ?

Wouldn't it be better the SW2x lock-in is to be delayed to minimize the time difference between those two activations ?

That's what the miners try ?

BIP91 has to lock in and start invalidating non-segwit blocks before BIP148's activation, otherwise BIP148 goes active while the miners continue to mine non-segwit signalled blocks. They aren't really compatible, even though they ultimately lead to segwit's activation. BIP91 being activated earlier is better than them conflicting come August 1. This is the main reason segwit2x rushed and chose to activate 2 weeks before BIP148.