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

[Troll Buster]

There is nothing stopping all the miners from simply dropping the btc1 fork code and just using core after segwit is activated, and not all pools actually signed the agreement.

Pools were not the only ones signing the NYA agreement. Hard to believe every NYA signer going to toss his reputation by not honouring the agreement. And we are talking about the most important Bitcoin companies here...
https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77

Most bigger pools/companies use custom software, so the core vs btc1 code is not relevant here, what only matter is being compatible with Bitcoin, like accept up to 2M base blocks in about three months.

You make no sense...

No one is going to agree to be a lemming and to walk over a cliff just because all the lemmings in front of them are going over the cliff, right?

If the agreement is not clear and does not provide a clear and unambiguous mechanism, then how the fuck they going to be on the same page regarding what it is that they are agreeing to do, exactly?

There's no code to follow or review, so there are way too many ambiguities in the supposed agreement.  And it is not even bad faith to have a different way of interpreting what it requires.

Another shill regurgitating the Core script without even reading the actual agreement.

The same bullshit ck- is pushing here.

I don't have time for you idiots today so I'll just quote from reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6ohyyk/979_of_the_blocks_mined_today_supports_segwit2x/dki5f6m/

[–]JustSomeBadAdvice 3 points 7 hours ago

> Are you sure? All I see is voting for BIP91 and BIP91 doesn't say anything about a 2 MB HF.

BIP91 is segwit2x. Core is trying to pretend that they are different, but the email that proposed BIP91 puts a lie to that claim in the very first line of it. BIP91 was a compatibility kluge, nothing else.

The btc1 client forks to bigger blocks 3 months after segwit locks in, regardless of anything else. Meaning those who are running that software at that time will be forking. The fork can't be rolled back unless it is completely abandoned, as it requires a >1mb block at fork time.

Now that BIP91 has locked in, segwit signaling will be forced in the next few days and segwit will activate shortly after that. 3 months from that moment, BTC1 and the big blockers will fork; Core's only challenge is whether or not their legacy chain will be viable or completely stuck due to lack of miners.

We're free of core now.

> And why do we need to rush Segwit? If we have three months to wait for 2 MB we would have had three months to wait for Segwit. There is no sane reason to do Segwit before the hardfork.

Segwit would have timed out before the hardfork upgrade could be safely rolled out to the users that needed the upgrade. That was the reason. BIP148 added more urgency, but it wasn't necessary. If anything the speed at which segwit2x just activated, before the final release client had even dropped, should be an indication of how badly miners want Bitcoin to Actually Scale instead of be Bitcoin Jr.

> So, to summarize, the NYA did, what the "Dragon's den" wanted.

It did not. Read the emails, comments, posts, and github comments they've been posting nonstop trying to make the project look bad. The project's charter explicitly called out that signatories must be willing to provide resources including developer support and testing/logistics support. They knew full well that they were going to have to do this without any assistance from Core whatsoever.

We're free man.

The bottom line is Core may be DCG/AXA's dog, but if the dog got rabies and started biting everyone, including the boss's friends, the owner have to put it down.

DCG have more than one dog. Core is replaceable.

[Troll Buster]

LOL so I got this msg about ck- deleting two of my posts two weeks ago.

I know ck- being a mod here has to suck up to Core somewhat, so I played along and was respectful to him. Only to have him selectively deleted my defence but kept the obvious lying bullshit troll garbage directed at me instead:

No, I censored you all on my ownsome. They had trolled you quite satisfactorily and proved you wrong many times over.

This was my reply, with a link to reddit. Which Greg wouldn't want anyone to see because he exposed himself as an amateur on reddit in front of actual experts.

Quote from: Troll Buster on July 07, 2017, 08:54:52 PM

Just because you say so doesn't make it true.
It's obvious to professionals that gmaxwell doesn't know what he's doing.

Let's see some honest feedback from non fan boys:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6ls7av/gmaxwell_and_core_fanbois_got_ripped_a_new_one

[–] karljt 19 points 10 hours ago

Wow! That was a bitch-slap of epic proportions.

[–] chernobyl169 32 points 9 hours ago

The dispute about ++i v i++ was very illuminating. Troll buster is right on this point: ++i saves an instruction. He's also right about loop caching which is even more important; it underlines that bitcoin-core has terrible memory management that is extraordinarily time-wasteful, especially in the most-used libraries. The strongest point he brought of all was using uncompressed LevelDB - there's literally no good reason to bloat the node's storage like that. These are serious concerns that have been floating around for years and strongly contributed to the fragmentation of the development teams.

[–] NilacTheGrim 50 points 9 hours ago*

Read the Troll Buster criticism. He's spot on. Can confirm. Am a C++ programmer with 18 years' in the biz. Everything he says is technically accurate.

Even small things suck in core. Try compiling it for Windows. You'll quickly find that despite their blathering on about being cross-platform -- you end up having to compile it using MinGW (either cross-compile it on Linux or 'natively' [again, using MinGW] on Windows) due to lack of build system support for Windows.

So even GMaxwell's weak defense about why they never bothered with architecture-specific optimizations falls apart. He cries "but but cross platform" and the reality is even at cross-platform they do a shit job.

And also, seriously. Optimize yo' SHA256 lib, fuckers. It's the single most critical code path in all of bitcoin. And.. it's shitty. As Troll Buster said -- there are fast platform-specific libs available (freely) that are many times faster.

Also GMaxwell clearly just finds arguments and defenses for why he's right and is a lazy motherfucker. Troll Buster is right -- compression is very standard stuff and deserves to at least be an option in bitcoin and be explored. All people like GMaxwell do is come up with excuses for not doing ANYTHING.

GMaxwell is ignorant and incompetent, basically.

This Troll Buster dude really knows what he's talking about. 100% spot-on.

[–] NilacTheGrim 23 points 11 hours ago

Yeah and what does idiot GMaxwell do? Hand-wavy explanations for why not to do it.

He's lazy and incompetent.

[–] chernobyl169 19 points 11 hours ago

Well, I wouldn't call them hand-wavey. He at least tries to make his arguments sound technical, but they are in fact hollow or disingenuous. It's saddening to know that coders with his attitude are involved in production-level projects all over the world.

ck-, if you're going to delete posts, don't do it selectively. You make real enemies that way. Some people don't forgive and forget when they're fuked with.

You might be god here but I don't really give a shit about this board, this board is 80% shill anyway.

I can't even remember my old account's password. I registered again because agentofcoin pissed me off about 4 months ago and I placed him on a timetable to remind me a few months later when I have time to toy with him.

Feel free to play selective deletes again. I have free slots around December and plenty of room next year.

Power on a forum is nothing more than a plastic dildo.

[Lauda]

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pool/btccom
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pool/antpool
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pool/viabtc
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pool/btctop

All of these have started to signal Segwit. BIP148 working as intended.

i'm a little confused.. we're getting SegWit, then a 2MB hardfork.. why does Tone Vays refer to segwit2x as "clown code" that's untested or something?

No. There is absolute no guarantee that there will be a 2 MB hard fork, and there is almost zero community support for it. It is way too rushed (3 months after BIP91).

[mindrust]

I still don't understand one thing:

It was a bit surprising to see that there are miners who actually don't live in a cave. I am saying this because as for now, even the most hardcore segwit haters are signalling for segwit and the support levels are over  %95!!! which was already needed to activate segwit via BIP141.

Anyway It is nice to see that UASF worked out.

Without threatening the lazy miners we will be having hard times to get future protocol upgrades it seems. Miners only understand one language; Violence.  

[hv_]

I still don't understand one thing:

It was a bit surprising to see that there are miners who actually don't live in a cave. I am saying this because as for now, even the most hardcore segwit haters are signalling for segwit and the support levels are over  %95!!! which was already needed to activate segwit via BIP141.

Anyway It is nice to see that UASF worked out.

Without threatening the lazy miners we will be having hard times to get future protocol upgrades it seems. Miners only understand one language; Violence.  

Sure - and in the mean time they (NYA) saved just bitcoin a little.

[Gyrsur]

I still don't understand one thing:

It was a bit surprising to see that there are miners who actually don't live in a cave. I am saying this because as for now, even the most hardcore segwit haters are signalling for segwit and the support levels are over  %95!!! which was already needed to activate segwit via BIP141.

Anyway It is nice to see that UASF worked out.

Without threatening the lazy miners we will be having hard times to get future protocol upgrades it seems. Miners only understand one language; Violence.  

BigBlockers (BU) will split to BitcoinCash after SegWit is activated. there will be a Hard Split (HS) after that event in the so called Bitcoin Community. 

[ComputerGenie]

... so I'll just quote from reddit...

In a world where reddit didn't exist, would any of the last or following months been contentious?

[hv_]

Time Lines / Mile Stones

https://medium.com/@jimmysong/uasf-segwit2x-scenarios-and-timelines-1a540336c4be

[Netnox]

Without threatening the lazy miners we will be having hard times to get future protocol upgrades it seems. Miners only understand one language; Violence.  

At least some of the mining pools got too arrogant with the scaling issue, but I am glad that an agreement has been reached in the end. Infighting is not good with any coin and it can only help the competitors. The quicker these guys realize it, that better.

[allinvain]

@Troll Buster - What does Core have to do with this forum and why would -ck have to suck up to Core cause he's a mod here?

[williamuk]

No. There is absolute no guarantee that there will be a 2 MB hard fork, and there is almost zero community support for it. It is way too rushed (3 months after BIP91).

I've heard this time and again, what is that community you speak of?

[joebrook]

No. There is absolute no guarantee that there will be a 2 MB hard fork, and there is almost zero community support for it. It is way too rushed (3 months after BIP91).

I've heard this time and again, what is that community you speak of?

She is talking about the mining community, they are the ones who must support either Segwit or Segwit2x  so that that the fork must take place and currently its the hard fork which seems to have won.

[williamuk]

No. There is absolute no guarantee that there will be a 2 MB hard fork, and there is almost zero community support for it. It is way too rushed (3 months after BIP91).

I've heard this time and again, what is that community you speak of?

She is talking about the mining community, they are the ones who must support either Segwit or Segwit2x  so that that the fork must take place and currently its the hard fork which seems to have won.

Thanks but the mining community is supporting 2mb to a large extent as far as I understand(?) but Lauda says "zero community support" for 2mb so it must be another community. What community is that??

[ComputerGenie]

I'm sleepy and I forgot, please remind me....these segwit improvements of fitting 6 billion GB into a 1MB block start when?

[Iranus]

No. There is absolute no guarantee that there will be a 2 MB hard fork, and there is almost zero community support for it. It is way too rushed (3 months after BIP91).

I've heard this time and again, what is that community you speak of?

She is talking about the mining community, they are the ones who must support either Segwit or Segwit2x  so that that the fork must take place and currently its the hard fork which seems to have won.

Thanks but the mining community is supporting 2mb to a large extent as far as I understand(?) but Lauda says "zero community support" for 2mb so it must be another community. What community is that??

Clearly an exaggeration, but it wasn't meant to be literal.

R/bitcoin has about 4,500 users online right now (biased against larger blocks) and r/btc has about 1,000 users online (biased in favour of larger blocks).  Bitcointalk's support is somewhat mixed, but I'd say there's more  people against large blocks (this has been shifting a tad to the bigger-block side over time, but is still not there yet).

If you go on a big-block figure's Twitter (e.g. Roger Ver, Jihan Wu), you'll notice hatred that streams for miles.

[ComputerGenie]

...R/bitcoin has about 4,500 users online right now (biased against larger blocks) and r/btc has about 1,000 users online (biased in favour of larger blocks)...

Given that one of those is massively censored (and the other is spawned off of that censorship), it's neither a good nor accurate measure of anything (nor is it even meaningful in any way, given the general biases inherent in each).

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

Jimmy Song lays out some Pathological BIP91/UASF Scenarios.

[BrewMaster]

signalling means changing a variable. this variable is the block version.
to support BIP91 which SegWit2x implemented you change that variable to 0x20000010 and to support more than one BIP you add the bits to this number for example to support both SegWit2x (BIP91) and SegWit you change it to 0x20000012 (addition of bit 1 and bit 4 if i am not mistaken)
SegWit alone is 0x20000002

for these stuff you don't need to run a specific client, you just edit a single line of code.

you may also run btc1 client and change your useragent to something different to mask the fact that you are running that client, maybe to protect against getting DDoSed

No. Changing just one bit is not enough to be safe with the BIP91 fork because part of running BIP91 means orphaning any blocks that aren't signalling segwit once support is over 80%

@-ck what client you running? Bitnodes shows only 64 btc1 clients while BIP91 is almost 65% at xbt.eu. Almost no one is running Garzik's client just signaling BIP91 it seems.

I run a custom coin daemon but the extra code for BIP91 comes from here:
https://github.com/segsignal/bitcoin

thanks for the explanation. what i wrote, i did with only activation in mind not all that comes after it locks in. i guess i missed quite a bit

[allinvain]

Is BTC.com owned by Bitmain? These guys are signalling SW instead of BIP91. Not that it's a huge issue now, but I was just curious.

[ComputerGenie]

Is BTC.com owned by Bitmain? These guys are signalling SW instead of BIP91. Not that it's a huge issue now, but I was just curious.

Coinbase
EzrY/BTC.COM/NYA/...4$