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

[CoinCube]

That's what squishalised Unlimited in the end.

I like the word 'squishalised'. But I do not think that word means what you think it means.jpg. Just now:



BU still #1 in miners signaling support.

If this chart holds, we still have stalemate. Just flipped on who blocks whatever is
Proposed.





Hope I won't still be pointing this out 4 years from now.

Yes there is fundamental disagreement in the community regarding on-chain versus off-chain scaling. Best hope of a breakthrough is a half-measure that allows both sides time to show what their solution offers.

Personally I hope to see some variation of Barry Silbert segwit agreement coded up vetted and released by the Bitcoin Core team as this is the only option on the table that appears to have any chance of achieving consensus.

[1714171238]

1714171238

[1714171238]

1714171238

[1714171238]

1714171238

[1714171238]

1714171238

[1714171238]

1714171238

[1714171238]

1714171238

[jonald_fyookball]

Does anyone know if this segwit version is ASIC boost compatible?

No it is not. That's why Jihan fanboys are crying out loud. Their hackwares will be useless after UASF/Segwit activates.

ASICBOOST and Bitmain + Ver are the main enemies of bitcoin. If we succeed to get rid of them and activate SegWit, bitcoin has the potential of going 10k$ in a year and 100k$ in 5 years.

But Bitmain/Wu/Ver are doing everything to block the development. I have serious suspicions that Bitmain is actually getting funded by JP Morgan. (the biggest scam banking company ever) Because if we can't develop bitcoin further, only bankers like JPM will benefit from it.

wrong on everything. 

Segwit doesn't do a thing for Asicboost because no one is forced to use it.  Since its a soft fork,  a miner using asicboost can just choose not include segwit tx. 

[jbreher]

That's what squishalised Unlimited in the end.

I like the word 'squishalised'. But I do not think that word means what you think it means.jpg. Just now:

[fancy image]

BU still #1 in miners signaling support.

True, but misleading.  All of the pools signalling for each proposal are fairly stubborn about their stance, so those levels of support have remained the same for quite a long time now.

A compromise is fully necessary if there are two solutions with neither willing to conform to the other side's ideas.  Whether this is the right one is another matter, but I'd call Unlimited "squishalised" until it's broken out of the position it's been in for a couple of months now.

So then The Segwit Omnibus Change Set is squishalized-er?

Incidentally, the post to which you have replied has been purged by the thread starter -ck. I certainly feel it has direct bearing on the veracity of the claim of ">80% miner agreement". Because 100% - 80% would be a max of 20% for everything but this new proposal, and BU has >40% miner support. As measured. Verifiably encoded within the blockchain.

You can find more on this at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1936835.0

[jbreher]

Signalling makes you look all cool and powerful. When it comes to actually forking, your knickers suddenly fall around your ankles.

One does not simply

Prematurely e-fork-ulate

We're just biding our time waiting for the scales to drop from the eyes of the indoctrinated masses.

When put on the spot, almost every single economic actor of importance wiped their posterior on the idea of an Unlimited chain being acceptable.

Well, apart from a measurable plurality of miners, and and unknowable but certainly not insignificant proportion of hodlers.

[jonald_fyookball]

Signalling makes you look all cool and powerful. When it comes to actually forking, your knickers suddenly fall around your ankles.

One does not simply

Prematurely e-fork-ulate

We're just biding our time waiting for the scales to drop from the eyes of the indoctrinated masses.

When put on the spot, almost every single economic actor of importance wiped their posterior on the idea of an Unlimited chain being acceptable.

Well, apart from a measurable plurality of miners, and and unknowable but certainly not insignificant proportion of hodlers.

Forking with a minority of hashpower on an anyone-can-spend chain is retarded.  Anyone who understands this understands that UASF is just a bluff.

[dinofelis]

Does anyone know if this segwit version is ASIC boost compatible?

No it is not. That's why Jihan fanboys are crying out loud. Their hackwares will be useless after UASF/Segwit activates.

ASICBOOST and Bitmain + Ver are the main enemies of bitcoin. If we succeed to get rid of them and activate SegWit, bitcoin has the potential of going 10k$ in a year and 100k$ in 5 years.

But Bitmain/Wu/Ver are doing everything to block the development. I have serious suspicions that Bitmain is actually getting funded by JP Morgan. (the biggest scam banking company ever) Because if we can't develop bitcoin further, only bankers like JPM will benefit from it.

wrong on everything. 

Segwit doesn't do a thing for Asicboost because no one is forced to use it.  Since its a soft fork,  a miner using asicboost can just choose not include segwit tx. 

It is even more complex than this.  Even segwit blocks can use asicboost.  It only becomes less profitable to do so.

I found a good explanation here:

https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2017/04/10/the-relation-between-segwit-and-asicboost-covert-and-overt/

[kellogsblocks]

https://twitter.com/eric_lombrozo/status/868695832257843200

I like the core devs. It's up to Jihan...

[-ck]

As a first step, let's see if lowering the threshold to 80% is enough for them to consider BIP91. Without clear explanation of all their motivation it's hard to know exactly what they'll agree to. Offering 80% is to see if it's the prohibitively high 95% that is one of the major stumbling blocks to segwit. The fact they've included segwit at 80% in their own proposal makes it a clear match for that part of their conditions. However I'm inclined to believe they only care about their 2MB base size hard fork and are agreeing to segwit only to barter that in and won't agree to just changing the activation percentage. Additionally different pools have different motivations and flexibility - btcc and f2pool have already said yes to 80% but then they were already signalling segwit...

Alas my own pools amount to less than 0.1% of the network hashrate so what I have to say makes no difference to anyone or anything, though there are hundreds of PH now running my pool software...

[jbreher]

Alas my own pools amount to less than 0.1% of the network hashrate so what I have to say makes no difference to anyone or anything.

Alas, it was only recently that I learned that the only votes that really count are those of the miners. And to think that I used to hold a single-digit percentage of the entire system hashpower. And I abdicated my authority. Not realizing what I was casting asunder.

Respect for you fighting for what you believe.

[mindrust]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjZk7N7RXfA

"Miners' work only has value if users value it."

It is coming. I suggest you Bitmain's paid shills to accept the reality. UASF is far more superior to Cartel's HF agreement because they have no base. They are only miners. They are not special snowflakes. Users make bitcoin valuable not miners.

UASF > Cartel HF

[jubalix]

Ok I have posted this a few times....


Why can we not merge mine segwit, BU, and whatever else with BTC as it stands now, with the same distribution of coins, and just let the market decide which one has more value,

every one wins!

[-ck]

Ok I have posted this a few times....


Why can we not merge mine segwit, BU, and whatever else with BTC as it stands now, with the same distribution of coins, and just let the market decide which one has more value,

every one wins!

No matter how many threads you post it on, it still remains nonsense.

Merge mining and forks simply don't work that way. Merged mine coins do so voluntarily on the back of a real coin that has a high degree of compatibility. Segwit and BU would be completely incompatible and obviously neither would want to ride on the back of the other.

[CoinCube]

As a first step, let's see if lowering the threshold to 80% is enough for them to consider BIP91. Without clear explanation of all their motivation it's hard to know exactly what they'll agree to. Offering 80% is to see if it's the prohibitively high 95% that is one of the major stumbling blocks to segwit. The fact they've included segwit at 80% in their own proposal makes it a clear match for that part of their conditions. However I'm inclined to believe they only care about their 2MB base size hard fork and are agreeing to segwit only to barter that in and won't agree to just changing the activation percentage. Additionally different pools have different motivations and flexibility - btcc and f2pool have already said yes to 80% but then they were already signalling segwit...

Alas my own pools amount to less than 0.1% of the network hashrate so what I have to say makes no difference to anyone or anything, though there are hundreds of PH now running my pool software...

I would not sell yourself short. 0.1% is still 1/1000 of the network. Also you have both the history and technical background that makes you very relevant to this discussion.

From what I have read about thus dispute I agree with your bolded analysis above. That offer will almost certainly be rejected but it is still progress.

Honestly I am somewhat optimistic that some general consensus will come from this. It really is in everyone's best interest to reach a compromise. If you love big blocks then 2Mb is insufficient but still a step in the right direction. If you hate big blocks then SegWit a a step in the right direction and 2Mb represent a finite threat with limited fallout.

We don't need to make a final determination between on-chain and off-chain scaling at this time. Kicking the can down the road by allowing both to be tried in parallel under the vetting and safety provided by the Bitcoin Core team sounds pretty good to me.

Plus though it is not the primary concern here it is worth mentioning that a successful consensus solution to this problem would likely be very good to everyone's pocketbook.

[Gyrsur]

let them get their ChinaCoin! here we go with uasf to SegWit --> www.uasfguide.com



EDIT: the reference implementation is the heritage of Nakamoto. Core manages this heritage very well. miners are service providers for the network. for their services they are getting a compensation (blockreward + fees). but they are never allowed to define the strategic direction. this is power abuse which they blaming Core for.

[-ck]

I would not sell yourself short. 0.1% is still 1/1000 of the network. Also you have both the history and technical background that makes you very relevant to this discussion.

From what I have read about thus dispute I agree with your bolded analysis above. That offer will almost certainly be rejected but it is still progress.

Honestly I am somewhat optimistic that some general consensus will come from this. It really is in everyone's best interest to reach a compromise. If you love big blocks then 2Mb is insufficient but still a step in the right direction. If you hate big blocks then SegWit a a step in the right direction and 2Mb represent a finite threat with limited fallout.

Thanks. As I said earlier I've already predicted what I believe will be the outcome, it's just how we're going to get there that's left to determine.

The halfway point is core agreeing to their current segwit implementation AND a 2MB base blocksize hard fork that they implement - it's my gut feeling that's what we'll end up with but there needs to be a lot of rhetoric, chest thumping and circle jerking in the interim.

[jubalix]

Ok I have posted this a few times....


Why can we not merge mine segwit, BU, and whatever else with BTC as it stands now, with the same distribution of coins, and just let the market decide which one has more value,

every one wins!

No matter how many threads you post it on, it still remains nonsense.

Merge mining and forks simply don't work that way. Merged mine coins do so voluntarily on the back of a real coin that has a high degree of compatibility. Segwit and BU would be completely incompatible and obviously neither would want to ride on the back of the other.

ok i c i though they could make the essentials compatible ...  i don't think anyone has to ride anyone just comes down to how many miners run the mm insatiation.

[mike4001]

What I really don´t get.

Shouldn't avoiding a chain split be the absolute top priority?

I cannot really see a scenario where both coins combined (after a split) will be worth the same as the single coin before.

So users and miners should do everything to avoid that.

[jonald_fyookball]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjZk7N7RXfA

"Miners' work only has value if users value it."

It is coming. I suggest you Bitmain's paid shills to accept the reality. UASF is far more superior to Cartel's HF agreement because they have no base. They are only miners. They are not special snowflakes. Users make bitcoin valuable not miners.

UASF > Cartel HF

I think most real users want bigger blocks and the benefits that come with it (lower fees, faster confirmations).

UASF support is fake/astroturfing.

But maybe there will be a network split if some miners insist on it.

[dinofelis]

What I really don´t get.

Shouldn't avoiding a chain split be the absolute top priority?

I cannot really see a scenario where both coins combined (after a split) will be worth the same as the single coin before.

So users and miners should do everything to avoid that.

I don't see why a chain split is to be avoided ; I would say, on the contrary: the more it splits, the more different versions can compete in the market, and the better the outcome will be.   Yes, of course, speculative value will get lost, but speculative value is what kills this environment in any case, so the more speculators can bleed, the better, I would think.  Real usage is what would thrive it, speculative "to the moon" considerations is what is killing it.   I think real hard fork splits are the best way forward, to a myriad of different branches, with miriads of different properties.  In fact, in a certain way, alt coins do that already, but I think that it would be better, instead of starting new chains all the time, to fork off from existing ones, to have initial distributions which mean something.  After all, to get something going, it is much better to hand it out to a large existing audience than to try to win a new audience.

[ComputerGenie]

What I really don´t get.
Shouldn't avoiding a chain split be the absolute top priority?...

Not if your goal is to create a new altcoin (the new, ASIC-free, non-Bitcoin altcoin that they're wanting to turn Bitcoin into) and scam people into thinking it's still Bitcoin.