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

[CoinCube]

The 1MB blocks size is not a mess. If it was not the 1MB block size it would be something else later on.

This dispute is the natural result and challenge inherent in government by consensus. There is a reason that no human society has used government by consensus in the past. Its far easier to simply use force to subdue your opponents or get 51% of the voters to vote you power over your opponents.

Personally I would supports SegWit + 2Mb block fork provided the code was vetted and tested by the Bitcoin Core team and was supported by 95% of the available hashing power and all the major exchanges.

I believe Bitcoin Core's vision of scaling is ultimately the correct one but no one has convinced me that we cannot afford to throw the big block folks a bone in order to keep things moving along smoothly.

But I am not a technical expert and if someone can present a compelling case why SegWit + 2Mb would significantly damage the network or it becomes clear that it is impossible for SegWit + 2Mb to ever achieve consensus I would change my mind.

I still can't reconcile this ridiculous notion that everyone is arguing over 'SegWit with 1MB stab in the dark' or 'SegWit with 2MB stab in the dark' when both options are shortsighted, involve too much rigidity and are guaranteed to require further hardforks in future.  Why not just do one hardfork allowing for a slow and gentle ease of pressure?

Both camps have clearly already decided on central planning to dictate or coerce whether it's going to be on-chain or off-chain scaling and we seemingly have a binary choice between the two stupid extremes.  Neither wants to let the market choose freely and decide for itself how best to grow.  I'd argue that both sides are spineless cowards in this regard.

Some parties that are have argued that ever increasing block sizes will lead to progressive centralization over time. Bigger block folks disagree.

Regardless of the underlying truth no matter what is decided we will face hard forks in the future. For bitcoin to grow
there are certain to be multiple necessary upgrades along the way some of which will require hard forks.
There is no avoiding this challenge by forcing though single automatic scaling algorithm and hoping for the best.  

The fact that their is not widespread consensus currently for on-chain or off-chain scaling is yet another reason to support a compromise position along the lines of SegWit + 2Mb. It give both sides time to show what their solution offers without fundamentally committing us to either.

[1715015318]

1715015318

[ComputerGenie]

so is this ASICBOOST proof then? if so, why did Bitmain agree?

And why was Core not invited? 

No, one has nothing to do with the other (despite the rumors, unfounded accusations, and wild conspiracy theories). Given that they are still pushing BU blocks at Antpool, I'm not entirely convinced that they did. And because they don't have to be.

[-ck]

so is this ASICBOOST proof then? if so, why did Bitmain agree?

If they wish to replace the existing soft fork implementation of segwit with their hard fork implementation then it will still allow covert asicboost to work. Of course this isn't evidence that they are using it or plan to but it certainly doesn't help suspicions...

[The One]

...Far better would be to achieve widespread consensus around some compromise that is not perfect but is "good enough for now"...

Isn't that the mentality that got us in this 1MB size mess in the 1st place (not perfect but "good enough for now")?  

The 1MB blocks size is not a mess. If it was not the 1MB block size it would be something else later on.

This dispute is the natural result and challenge inherent in government by consensus. There is a reason that no human society has used government by consensus in the past. Its far easier to simply use force to subdue your opponents or get 51% of the voters to vote you power over your opponents.

Personally I would supports SegWit + 2Mb block fork provided the code was vetted and tested by the Bitcoin Core team and was supported by 95% of the available hashing power and all the major exchanges.

I believe Bitcoin Core's vision of scaling is ultimately the correct one but no one has convinced me that we cannot afford to throw the big block folks a bone in order to keep things moving along smoothly.

But I am not a technical expert and if someone can present a compelling case why SegWit + 2Mb would significantly damage the network or it becomes clear that it is impossible for SegWit + 2Mb to ever achieve consensus I would change my mind.

I still can't reconcile this ridiculous notion that everyone is arguing over 'SegWit with 1MB stab in the dark' or 'SegWit with 2MB stab in the dark' when both options are shortsighted, involve too much rigidity and are guaranteed to require further hardforks in future.  Why not just do one hardfork allowing for a slow and gentle ease of pressure?

Both camps have clearly already decided on central planning to dictate or coerce whether it's going to be on-chain or off-chain scaling and we seemingly have a binary choice between the two stupid extremes.  Neither wants to let the market choose freely and decide for itself how best to grow.  I'd argue that both sides are spineless cowards in this regard.

The "civil war" is a bizarre one. If 2mb seggy hardfork, might as well do a difficulty retargeting adjustment too. Fed up with seeing no block for 30 minutes then 3 blocks in 10 minutes. It makes confirmation time yo yo unpredictable.

[ComputerGenie]

...Fed up with seeing no block for 30 minutes then 3 blocks in 10 minutes. It makes confirmation time yo yo unpredictable.

That's likely to happen no matter what the diff is.

[Wind_FURY]

I did not read through the entire thread out of sheer laziness but I will later.

For now I ask, why not activate Core's Segwit via soft fork now and then have new rounds of talks again for a hard fork to bigger block sizes? It would be better to do things conservatively than risk splitting the blockchain in 2.

[European Central Bank]

I did not read through the entire thread out of sheer laziness but I will later.

For now I ask, why not activate Core's Segwit via soft fork now and then have new rounds of talks again for a hard fork to bigger block sizes? It would be better to do things conservatively than risk splitting the blockchain in 2.

That would be far too easy with little room for flexing or grabbing power.

[Wind_FURY]

I did not read through the entire thread out of sheer laziness but I will later.

For now I ask, why not activate Core's Segwit via soft fork now and then have new rounds of talks again for a hard fork to bigger block sizes? It would be better to do things conservatively than risk splitting the blockchain in 2.

That would be far too easy with little room for flexing or grabbing power.

So is this really a plan to dump the Core developers and they place a new group of developers under their payroll to become "stewards" of the network?

I might start my long delayed plan of buying into an altcoin now. Any suggestions?

[-ck]

For now I ask, why not activate Core's Segwit via soft fork now and then have new rounds of talks again for a hard fork to bigger block sizes? It would be better to do things conservatively than risk splitting the blockchain in 2.

What you are proposing is what core has been offering all along...

[The One]

I did not read through the entire thread out of sheer laziness but I will later.

For now I ask, why not activate Core's Segwit via soft fork now and then have new rounds of talks again for a hard fork to bigger block sizes? It would be better to do things conservatively than risk splitting the blockchain in 2.

That's the whole point of the "civil war."

If seggy gets activated then who's to say the Core will turn their back on increasing blocksize. Blocksize increase is simple and must come first.

[25hashcoin]

so is this ASICBOOST proof then? if so, why did Bitmain agree?

And why was Core not invited? 

It's not asicboost proof because its not really a soft fork of segwit first (even though some people are purposefully trying to confuse others to think differently).

[25hashcoin]

I did not read through the entire thread out of sheer laziness but I will later.

For now I ask, why not activate Core's Segwit via soft fork now and then have new rounds of talks again for a hard fork to bigger block sizes? It would be better to do things conservatively than risk splitting the blockchain in 2.

That's the whole point of the "civil war."

If seggy gets activated then who's to say the Core will turn their back on increasing blocksize. Blocksize increase is simple and must come first.

The HK agreement was botched and didn't include everyone. If we had a revamped agreement with all necessary parties signing on to be accountable then we can get some real traction. (assuming BU can ever deal with segwit being added via soft fork and assuming Core can deal with a blocksize increase).

[dinofelis]

This dispute is the natural result and challenge inherent in government by consensus. There is a reason that no human society has used government by consensus in the past. Its far easier to simply use force to subdue your opponents or get 51% of the voters to vote you power over your opponents.

This is why "government by consensus" if there is no central government, is immutability, THE invention of decentralized crypto.

[jacafbiz]

I believe what this plan is all about is to divide and rule, there is no sense in not involving Core developers, you want to implement Segwit that was developed by Core without carrying them along. It is a frustrating thing to see your transaction not been moved for 24hrs but this agreement is a perfect disagreement

[Quantus]

Does anyone else think this could have been nothing more then just a PR stunt, to pump bitcoin?
I mean they can't really think will fall for this this crap can they?
I think this was ment to target investors not the bitcoin user base.
This has to be some PR bullshit to get VC money.

[The One]

I believe what this plan is all about is to divide and rule, there is no sense in not involving Core developers, you want to implement Segwit that was developed by Core without carrying them along. It is a frustrating thing to see your transaction not been moved for 24hrs but this agreement is a perfect disagreement

Funnily enough, i believe the whole plan is to create an altcoin bull pump and dump, so certain parties make more BTC from the suckers.

[azguard]

Does anyone else think this could have been nothing more then just a PR stunt, to pump bitcoin?
I mean they can't really think will fall for this this crap can they?
I think this was ment to target investors not the bitcoin user base.
This has to be some PR bullshit to get VC money.

It is possible that it is PR but i must add pretty good one with to good background story.
And most likely it it to target investors in this, no wonder that price went so high just this month.

[ComputerGenie]

Funnily enough, i believe the whole plan is to create an altcoin bull pump and dump, so certain parties make more BTC from the suckers.

Well, if that's the plan, then it seems to be a success. Since many alts aren't taking their normal inverse dive, I'm certain that more than a few miners are happy to have the 4:1 income increase over mining bitcoin.  

[Carlton Banks]

Both camps have clearly already decided on central planning to dictate or coerce whether it's going to be on-chain or off-chain scaling and we seemingly have a binary choice between the two stupid extremes.  Neither wants to let the market choose freely and decide for itself how best to grow.  I'd argue that both sides are spineless cowards in this regard.

So, everyone should just make their own personalised Bitcoin, with exactly the rules and limits they want, "because decentralise all the things" ?


Do it. I'm sure everyone will be accepting DooMADCoin and CarltonCoin without question, they'll audit our code themselves, just a quick 5 minute job before they trade with us for the first time ever, and they'll keep their "money" with all the other IndividualCoins thye get from everyone else.


You're not very smart for someone who tries to behave like they're relevant in this debate. The market can choose what it wants, and a good standard, whether it's money or any other economic good, is something the market frequently settles on, however long that standard lasts for. And standards are, wait for it.......... inherently centralised, by definition.

Bitcoin is a paradox, a centralised standard for decentralising money. Cry onto your Ayn Rand pillowcases, why don't ya

[dinofelis]

Both camps have clearly already decided on central planning to dictate or coerce whether it's going to be on-chain or off-chain scaling and we seemingly have a binary choice between the two stupid extremes.  Neither wants to let the market choose freely and decide for itself how best to grow.  I'd argue that both sides are spineless cowards in this regard.

So, everyone should just make their own personalised Bitcoin, with exactly the rules and limits they want, "because decentralise all the things" ?


Do it. I'm sure everyone will be accepting DooMADCoin and CarltonCoin without question, they'll audit our code themselves, just a quick 5 minute job before they trade with us for the first time ever, and they'll keep their "money" with all the other IndividualCoins thye get from everyone else.


You're not very smart for someone who tries to behave like they're relevant in this debate. The market can choose what it wants, and a good standard, whether it's money or any other economic good, is something the market frequently settles on, however long that standard lasts for. And standards are, wait for it.......... inherently centralised, by definition.

Bitcoin is a paradox, a centralised standard for decentralising money. Cry onto your Ayn Rand pillowcases, why don't ya

As you say, everyone can launch a coin.  Bitcoin is not different.  A guy calling himself Satoshi on the internet launched it.  The entity that launches a coin is of course a centralized entity.  However, once it is launched, if the dynamics of the system is such that it decentralizes (hint: most of them don't, including bitcoin) sufficiently, which means that nobody can find any majority collusion over any agreement that deviates from "sticking to the rules", then these rules should remain in place by the very dynamics of the system.  This emergent property has a name: immutability.

Immutability is the fact that game-theoretically, none of the participating entities can find an advantage in deviating from continuing to apply the rules of the system as it stands.  In other words, the system started out as a centralized one with a given rule set, other entities joined.  These other entities could only join initially if they played by the rules of the central authority.  Each new entity that joined, could only join by "playing by the rules".  After a while, there were so many different entities, that the original central authority lost its "majority" and couldn't, on his own, change anything any more.  

Moreover, the idea is that a well-designed crypto currency is such that the original rule set is a Nash equilibrium.  That is, no single entity can deviate from his strategy to continue to follow the rules if all the others keep following the rules.  The whole idea of a *decentralized* system is that entities have to take their decisions of strategy alone, and cannot collude.  If they can sit together in a room and negociate something, it is centralized.  If there is a (moral?) authority that can dictate change (Satoshi ?  Core ?), then it is a centralized entity. A truly decentralized system has a Nash equilibrium on the actual rule set, and *simply cannot deviate from it*.  That property is "immutability".

Bitcoin, until recently, was centralized on Core's moral authority ; the low number of mining pools is shifting this to another central control: the "cartel of the miners" if ever they can sit in a room and come to agreements.  Cartel formation is the only way to leave a Nash equilibrium in a decentralized system, which, by definition, becomes centralized on that cartel then.

If bitcoin is truly decentralized, it cannot change its protocol any more (for instance, the block size).

The *only* way, in that case, to propose a modification, is to make a hard fork and hence, a new coin.  That can be done by just any entity.
And the game starts all over: the forker is the central authority fixing the new rules on the new coin.  If enough entities join, this new rule set will become immutable too, unless a cartel forms and the thing centralizes again.  Or someone else forks off.