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

[CoinCube]

Regarding demonization of the miners it is a common human failing to try to dehumanize your political opponents as a pretext and attempted justification for employing force against them.

Demonization of Core-devs happened first. Cool down man, #UASF is just the reaction.

Yes that is not really surprising. I was not following this dispute until recently but I would imagine that the failed hard fork attempts were preceded by intense attacks on the core-developers. Just guessing I would anticipate accusations of incompetence, evidence free denunciations of conflicts of interest, warnings that the bitcoin network would break unless control was taken away etcetera (these are just guesses based on human nature so my apologies if the community held itself up to a higher standard). Politics is usually a fairly predictable affair and this is essentially a political dispute.

Upgrading the protocol and the politics that comes with it is the Achilles heel of bitcoin. It is the one area where it is not possible to remove flawed humans from an otherwise technically elegant process. What is fascinating is the unique political nature of this process. In essentially all political disputes throughout history success was a function of violence, the threat of violence, or getting majority to vote for something and then imposing that vote on the minority via the police and you guessed it more violence. Consensus governance has never existed before yet here we are.

We are forced to overcome our baser political natures and our tendency to always resort to force or watch the network fracture destroying both network effects and confidence. Our economic interests favor forging a consensus our history favors self destructive fracturing.

My position is simple. Consensus or bust!

I can live with status quo bitcoin and high transaction fees. I would be much happier if the core-developers roll out something safe that we can build a consensus around ideally with a start date in December when the current implementation expires.

People dramatically underestimate the destructive nature of a contentious split. Here is an interview I posted upthread with Simon Dixon where he essentially says he will leave the ecosystem if bitcoin fractures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNGzhWODF2s&t=3761
I know that I would sell my bitcoins shut down my node and exit as well.

[1714037892]

1714037892

[1714037892]

1714037892

[1714037892]

1714037892

[1714037892]

1714037892

[CoinCube]

And the inevitable market reaction. I should put this thread on notify. One can make money by simply following -ck posts and acting accordingly.

[ComputerGenie]

And the inevitable market reaction. I should put this thread on notify. One can make money by simply following -ck posts and acting accordingly.

Imo, if you can't make money on a $300 market correction, then you shouldn't be investing (no matter who your adviser is). 

[pressureonme]

And the inevitable market reaction. I should put this thread on notify. One can make money by simply following -ck posts and acting accordingly.

Imo, if you can't make money on a $300 market correction, then you shouldn't be investing (no matter who your adviser is). 

I don't understand how you mention making money is like very easy in this crazy crypto market. Bitcoin went to 2.3k dollars from 3k dollars. When you can't react well, you lose your all. Actually in margin trade you would die.

[ComputerGenie]

... Bitcoin went to 2.3k dollars from 3k dollars. When you can't react well, you lose your all. ..

* And that should mean, to any investor with more than a week's experience, that there will be a correction to be vigilantly prepared for.



*(Actually, it went from $1,200 to $2,900 with minimal pushback, but I'll save that convo for another thread.)

[OROBTC]

Regarding demonization of the miners it is a common human failing to try to dehumanize your political opponents as a pretext and attempted justification for employing force against them.

Demonization of Core-devs happened first. Cool down man, #UASF is just the reaction.

Yes that is not really surprising. I was not following this dispute until recently but I would imagine that the failed hard fork attempts were preceded by intense attacks on the core-developers. Just guessing I would anticipate accusations of incompetence, evidence free denunciations of conflicts of interest, warnings that the bitcoin network would break unless control was taken away etcetera (these are just guesses based on human nature so my apologies if the community held itself up to a higher standard). Politics is usually a fairly predictable affair and this is essentially a political dispute.

Upgrading the protocol and the politics that comes with it is the Achilles heel of bitcoin. It is the one area where it is not possible to remove flawed humans from an otherwise technically elegant process. What is fascinating is the unique political nature of this process. In essentially all political disputes throughout history success was a function of violence, the threat of violence, or getting majority to vote for something and then imposing that vote on the minority via the police and you guessed it more violence. Consensus governance has never existed before yet here we are.

We are forced to overcome our baser political natures and our tendency to always resort to force or watch the network fracture destroying both network effects and confidence. Our economic interests favor forging a consensus our history favors self destructive fracturing.

My position is simple. Consensus or bust!

I can live with status quo bitcoin and high transaction fees. I would be much happier if the core-developers roll out something safe that we can build a consensus around ideally with a start date in December when the current implementation expires.

People dramatically underestimate the destructive nature of a contentious split. Here is an interview I posted upthread with Simon Dixon where he essentially says he will leave the ecosystem if bitcoin fractures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNGzhWODF2s&t=3761
I know that I would sell my bitcoins shut down my node and exit as well.

As an enthusiastic user of BTC, but not a programmer nor able to even come close to CoinCube's observations, should "they" (all of them) fail to reach a reasonable consensus, I am OUT as well.  I will take my BTC and just buy gold, and wait for an "Alt" that maybe has its act together.

And a little better planning for "the next time" might minimize these alarming splits in our community in the future...

[I do understand that the Bitcoin Ecosystem is extremely complex, but if not fixed, THIS non-tekkie is pushing the "AMF" button]

[ComputerGenie]

As an enthusiastic user of BTC, but not a programmer nor able to even come close to CoinCube's observations, should "they" (all of them) fail to reach a reasonable consensus, I am OUT as well...

As the resident passive-agressive ass of the convo, I'd have to ask:

What exactly is "wrong" with Bitcoin? Is it the fact that transfers are now only 900x faster than fiat? Or is it the fact that transfers are now cost a whole ~$1-2.50USD because BTC is $2,600+USD?  

[-ck]

Random ~related factoid: Gbminers (2% of the network) just mined a segwit block.

https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000010dd7c2f8762277fe958ac983a4069d7e6767970c45515

Now I'm aware they use ckpool and there's the possibility they simply upgraded to a more recent ckpool which enables segwit by default but they would have to be complicit in using a recent enough core bitcoind which is segwit capable, so I'm guessing it's a conscious choice and not by accident. However they're missing the default commitment suggesting it's not the latest ckpool. They consciously did remove their EC flags in their coinbase which pretty much confirms it.

Perhaps this will be the ultimate answer... after all the shouting and threats and attacks, everyone will one by one simply enable segwit after all...?

[Last of the V8s]

Random ~related factoid: Gbminers (2% of the network) just mined a segwit block.

https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000010dd7c2f8762277fe958ac983a4069d7e6767970c45515

Now I'm aware they use ckpool and there's the possibility they simply upgraded to a more recent ckpool which enables segwit by default but they would have to be complicit in using a recent enough core bitcoind which is segwit capable, so I'm guessing it's a conscious choice and not by accident. However they're missing the default commitment suggesting it's not the latest ckpool. They consciously did remove their EC flags in their coinbase which pretty much confirms it.

Perhaps this will be the ultimate answer... after all the shouting and threats and attacks, everyone will one by one simply enable segwit after all...?

Aha. The fabled scammer nose entrepreneurial pivot.

Come on Jihan - there are plenty of Lambos for the lads on this side too.

Edit: hmm, maybe not. Apparently we are 'lazy', and should be assimilated: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014574.html

[pokapeski]

As an enthusiastic user of BTC, but not a programmer nor able to even come close to CoinCube's observations, should "they" (all of them) fail to reach a reasonable consensus, I am OUT as well...

As the resident passive-agressive ass of the convo, I'd have to ask:

What exactly is "wrong" with Bitcoin? Is it the fact that transfers are now only 900x faster than fiat? Or is it the fact that transfers are now cost a whole ~$1-2.50USD because BTC is $2,600+USD?  

Traders and exchanges are the main concerned about that fee and the actual stakeholders behind UASF. This poses an unconfortable precedent about bitcoin governance. What is going to be the next occurrence of traders and exchanges?
We should however reckon that 2.5 USD is quite an steep fee for some people and in my view the fees must come down if we want bitcoin to become commonly used in all countries. the bottleneck for this is actually the size of verified transactions flow. Segwit does not tackle this problem. It is just a mean to replace miners.

...
Regarding Jihan and Asicboost, if we are not happy merely by trusting that bitmain is not using it we should agree that it would be completely idiotic of them to use it and make a fuss in the community for no gain at all. They already have a dominant position.

[chek2fire]

Random ~related factoid: Gbminers (2% of the network) just mined a segwit block.

https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000010dd7c2f8762277fe958ac983a4069d7e6767970c45515

Now I'm aware they use ckpool and there's the possibility they simply upgraded to a more recent ckpool which enables segwit by default but they would have to be complicit in using a recent enough core bitcoind which is segwit capable, so I'm guessing it's a conscious choice and not by accident. However they're missing the default commitment suggesting it's not the latest ckpool. They consciously did remove their EC flags in their coinbase which pretty much confirms it.

Perhaps this will be the ultimate answer... after all the shouting and threats and attacks, everyone will one by one simply enable segwit after all...?

bitcoin market loose share from miners ridiculous actions. Has no logic for them to continue to stall bitcoin especially from miners like Bitmain that are heavily exposed economical to bitcoin space.
For what happen now show and the quality of this guys. There are so stupids that they not even understand that act against their own profits.
In the other hand Garzik segwitx2 proposal seems dead. the project in github is dead for days now.

[DooMAD]

bitcoin market loose share from miners ridiculous actions. Has no logic for them to continue to stall bitcoin especially from miners like Bitmain that are heavily exposed economical to bitcoin space.
For what happen now show and the quality of this guys. There are so stupids that they not even understand that act against their own profits.

I thought as a community we might have moved beyond this point by now.  Why is it always the first thought that comes into someone's head to insult the miners and question their intelligence?  I don't see groups of miners storming into threads and making disparaging generalisations about node operators and their preferences towards scaling.  It just doesn't happen.  So why do you think it's okay for you to constantly make disparaging generalisations about them?  Either you respect the fact they can choose to run whatever software they like, or you can fork away and "enforce" your preferences on your own minority chain, much like you're probably going to do with BIP148 anyway.  Some would argue that trying to turn Bitcoin into some sort of perverted oligarchy of <1000 nodes is acting against your own self interests and a bit stupid, but hey, whatever floats your boat.  Have fun.

[chek2fire]

bitcoin market loose share from miners ridiculous actions. Has no logic for them to continue to stall bitcoin especially from miners like Bitmain that are heavily exposed economical to bitcoin space.
For what happen now show and the quality of this guys. There are so stupids that they not even understand that act against their own profits.

I thought as a community we might have moved beyond this point by now.  Why is it always the first thought that comes into someone's head to insult the miners and question their intelligence?  I don't see groups of miners storming into threads and making disparaging generalisations about node operators and their preferences towards scaling.  It just doesn't happen.  So why do you think it's okay for you to constantly make disparaging generalisations about them?  Either you respect the fact they can choose to run whatever software they like, or you can fork away and "enforce" your preferences on your own minority chain, much like you're probably going to do with BIP148 anyway.  Some would argue that trying to turn Bitcoin into some sort of perverted oligarchy of <1000 nodes is acting against your own self interests and a bit stupid, but hey, whatever floats your boat.  Have fun.

i am not support UASF if it is a minority. I only support common sense and the common sense says that the most trust scaling solution atm is segwit. A reminder to everyone is that this Miners support until now the most crap software as a solution and replace of core. And i talk about Bitcoin Unlimited.
We all agree that this code is crap. And you talk to me about the intelligent of miners after that? lol

[chek2fire]

Miners are completely fools imo. There are so stupids that they are not only act against their own proftis but against their economical future survivor.
If they had activate segwit bitcoin will be much higher in price and bitcoin ecosystem will ha a huge innovation atm.  And innovation means money to everyone especially startups and miners. They will be even in e much better position for a hard fork future proposal.
But what choose this "brilliant" mind? to stall bitcoin and risk a not consensus fork that will create an economical disaster to the whole bitcoin ecosystem.
Especially Bitmain will hit hard from this economical collapse because is one of the Bitcoin mining startups that are heavily exposed to bitcoin ecosystem. They have invest huge amount of money to bitcoin startups and of course to btc mining.

[mindrust]

Miners are completely fools imo. There are so stupids that they are not only act against their own proftis but against their economical future survivor.
If they had activate segwit bitcoin will be much higher in price and bitcoin ecosystem will ha a huge innovation atm.  And innovation means money to everyone especially startups and miners. He will be even in e much better position for a hard fork future proposal.
But what choose this "brilliant" mind? to stall bitcoin and risk a not consensus fork that will create an economical disaster to the whole bitcoin ecosystem.
Especially Bitmain will hit hard from this economical collapse because is one of the Bitcoin mining startups that are heavily exposed to bitcoin ecosystem. They have invest huge amount of money to bitcoin startups and of course to btc mining.

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/868896110760181760

"You will find that the canonical block is less than 1MB but your tx fee is so high, after SegWit is activated. SegWit tx is unfairly cheap"
-Bitmain's super clever CEO Jihan Wu.

Jihan is a brainless moron who is after the fee income and nothing else. They want 8mb blocks because there will be x8 more transactions and x8 more people using bitcoin. (in theory) That means x8 more fee income. They are only after that. They think nothing else.

I can't and I will never respect a moron like him.

His moronic buddy Roger Ver is no different than him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIA8w5tfr70&t=2122s

He is a shopkeeper and don't have a basic knowledge about decentralization/economics/coding. A fucking shopkeeper whos after more customers.

[DooMAD]

bitcoin market loose share from miners ridiculous actions. Has no logic for them to continue to stall bitcoin especially from miners like Bitmain that are heavily exposed economical to bitcoin space.
For what happen now show and the quality of this guys. There are so stupids that they not even understand that act against their own profits.

I thought as a community we might have moved beyond this point by now.  Why is it always the first thought that comes into someone's head to insult the miners and question their intelligence?  I don't see groups of miners storming into threads and making disparaging generalisations about node operators and their preferences towards scaling.  It just doesn't happen.  So why do you think it's okay for you to constantly make disparaging generalisations about them?  Either you respect the fact they can choose to run whatever software they like, or you can fork away and "enforce" your preferences on your own minority chain, much like you're probably going to do with BIP148 anyway.  Some would argue that trying to turn Bitcoin into some sort of perverted oligarchy of <1000 nodes is acting against your own self interests and a bit stupid, but hey, whatever floats your boat.  Have fun.

i am not support UASF if it is a minority. I only support common sense and the common sense says that the most trust scaling solution atm is segwit. A reminder to everyone is that this Miners support until now the most crap software as a solution and replace of core. And i talk about Bitcoin Unlimited.
We all agree that this code is crap. And you talk to me about the intelligent of miners after that? lol

I still get the impression that most of them are running it as a kind of protest vote.  I could be wrong, but I still think this whole sorry mess could have been avoided if developers had placed more commitment on exactly *when* there would be an adjustment to the blocksize, because it's undeniably a large concern for the miners.  I suspect many of them are wary of fees being sapped away by second layers.  We should have off-chain as an option, but shouldn't be driving away too much fee-paying traffic.  

It's all so vague and nebulous at the moment.  SegWit is fine, but it seems clear to me that miners want some certainty and guarantees about the blocksize, not estimates or indeterminate future actions that may never materialise.  You can't pin the delay on SegWit entirely on the miners, it takes two to have an argument.  Both sides need to make some concessions for this impasse to end.  As such, I still think something like this is the way forward.

[Tigggger]

I still get the impression that most of them are running it as a kind of protest vote.  I could be wrong, but I still think this whole sorry mess could have been avoided if developers had placed more commitment on exactly *when* there would be an adjustment to the blocksize, because it's undeniably a large concern for the miners.  I suspect many of them are wary of fees being sapped away by second layers.  We should have off-chain as an option, but shouldn't be driving away too much fee-paying traffic.  

It's all so vague and nebulous at the moment.  SegWit is fine, but it seems clear to me that miners want some certainty and guarantees about the blocksize, not estimates or indeterminate future actions that may never materialise.  You can't pin the delay on SegWit entirely on the miners, it takes two to have an argument.  Both sides need to make some concessions for this impasse to end.  As such, I still think something like this is the way forward.

It's also a concern for some of us users too

If I want to send you a payment all I want to do is enter it in my wallet, press send and pay a reasonable fee. I have no desire to think about whether I do or do not open a channel between us and how much I want to tie up just in case I later decide to send you some more, and the hassle of getting it back if I then change my mind.

It's a hugely complicated solution to a simple problem, increase the bloody blocksize. Yes segwit has a little extra but it's all determined by too many factors that it's not going to make much difference.

Segwit + 2MB sounds ok at first thought, but it seems to me that Devs have fought tooth and nail against increasing the blocksize, we are only at this compromise point now because of the miners pressure. But what's going to happen down the road, once devs have segwit then pools have nothing to bargain with and before too long, those new 2MB blocks are going to be full and the fees will be high again, at that point the chances of any further increases in the blocksize are pretty much zero so high fees will be here to stay and it will only get worse, at that point you will only have 2 choices

1. On Chain, High Fee
2. Off Chain, Still High (But not as high as above)

Oh there may be various off chain solutions competing to get your transactions and offering a decent price at first, but as sure as eggs are eggs the number will diminish and the prices will rise, it seems that people cry about centralisation of one thing, and ignore the centralisation of another.

I'm not anti-segwit or against off chain scaling, like you I think it should be an option for those that find it useful, I can't think of why I personally would need to use it, but there may be a reason in the future, so bring in segwit but I want a one time solution at the same time, not a sticking plaster and kicking a can down the road.

Bigger blocks are the solution, but core doesn't want them and pools don't want them, I have just read your linked post (sorry should have done it first), yes that's a compromise I'd be more than happy with, but sadly I don't see either side agreeing because both sides aren't after that (but I could be wrong).

[classicsucks]

Miners are completely fools imo. There are so stupids that they are not only act against their own proftis but against their economical future survivor.
If they had activate segwit bitcoin will be much higher in price and bitcoin ecosystem will ha a huge innovation atm.  And innovation means money to everyone especially startups and miners. He will be even in e much better position for a hard fork future proposal.
But what choose this "brilliant" mind? to stall bitcoin and risk a not consensus fork that will create an economical disaster to the whole bitcoin ecosystem.
Especially Bitmain will hit hard from this economical collapse because is one of the Bitcoin mining startups that are heavily exposed to bitcoin ecosystem. They have invest huge amount of money to bitcoin startups and of course to btc mining.

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/868896110760181760

"You will find that the canonical block is less than 1MB but your tx fee is so high, after SegWit is activated. SegWit tx is unfairly cheap"
-Bitmain's super clever CEO Jihan Wu.

Jihan is a brainless moron who is after the fee income and nothing else. They want 8mb blocks because there will be x8 more transactions and x8 more people using bitcoin. (in theory) That means x8 more fee income. They are only after that. They think nothing else.

I can't and I will never respect a moron like him.

His moronic buddy Roger Ver is no different than him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIA8w5tfr70&t=2122s

He is a shopkeeper and don't have a basic knowledge about decentralization/economics/coding. A fucking shopkeeper whos after more customers.

2 fools > 1 fool. You both have the reasons bitcoin is stagnating precisely backwards. Segwit is not a scaling solution, it forces people onto sidechains (it's specifically what Blockstream's business plan and prospectus says). Blocksize was supposed to be increased years ago, it didn't happen because the current trollish core devs took over the project from the original devs. Miners could care less about fees - the block rewards are still many times what they collect in fees. Most sane people want bitcoin to grow, but not Blockstream and core - they want blocks to be full to force people into their (second-rate) second-tier solutions. It's not working. All it's accomplished so far is a massive erosion of Core's credibility, loss of bitcoin's dominance, and a huge bubble in the altcoin space.

Oh, and it got a bunch of people all butthurt.

[chek2fire]

Miners are completely fools imo. There are so stupids that they are not only act against their own proftis but against their economical future survivor.
If they had activate segwit bitcoin will be much higher in price and bitcoin ecosystem will ha a huge innovation atm.  And innovation means money to everyone especially startups and miners. He will be even in e much better position for a hard fork future proposal.
But what choose this "brilliant" mind? to stall bitcoin and risk a not consensus fork that will create an economical disaster to the whole bitcoin ecosystem.
Especially Bitmain will hit hard from this economical collapse because is one of the Bitcoin mining startups that are heavily exposed to bitcoin ecosystem. They have invest huge amount of money to bitcoin startups and of course to btc mining.

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/868896110760181760

"You will find that the canonical block is less than 1MB but your tx fee is so high, after SegWit is activated. SegWit tx is unfairly cheap"
-Bitmain's super clever CEO Jihan Wu.

Jihan is a brainless moron who is after the fee income and nothing else. They want 8mb blocks because there will be x8 more transactions and x8 more people using bitcoin. (in theory) That means x8 more fee income. They are only after that. They think nothing else.

I can't and I will never respect a moron like him.

His moronic buddy Roger Ver is no different than him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIA8w5tfr70&t=2122s

He is a shopkeeper and don't have a basic knowledge about decentralization/economics/coding. A fucking shopkeeper whos after more customers.

2 fools > 1 fool. You both have the reasons bitcoin is stagnating precisely backwards. Segwit is not a scaling solution, it forces people onto sidechains (it's specifically what Blockstream's business plan and prospectus says). Blocksize was supposed to be increased years ago, it didn't happen because the current trollish core devs took over the project from the original devs. Miners could care less about fees - the block rewards are still many times what they collect in fees. Most sane people want bitcoin to grow, but not Blockstream and core - they want blocks to be full to force people into their (second-rate) second-tier solutions. It's not working. All it's accomplished so far is a massive erosion of Core's credibility, loss of bitcoin's dominance, and a huge bubble in the altcoin space.

Oh, and it got a bunch of people all butthurt.

yeah again blockstream conspiracy theory.
Blockstream has activate this tech to all of that altcoin heh? lol

Litecoin
Groestlecoin
Syscoin
Digibyte
Viacoin
Vertcoin
NAV coin

and all of them works without a single problem...because blockstream told them :evil:

[jbreher]

Bitcoin Unlimited.
We all agree that this code is crap.

Well, no. We do not all agree that BU code is crap. It has had some high-visibility bugs. All SW has bugs. The amount of detected bugs has been in inverse proportion to the size of the team. As is normal.

It is certainly possible that there are more critical bugs that will be exposed within the BU codebase over time. However, it is the only codebase in somewhat wide distribution that implements easily user-settable maxblocksize. As such, it is the only codebase that has a chance of solving the current scaling defect.

Right now, the largest bug in the entire Bitcoin sphere is the limit on transactions per unit time. BU solves Bitcoin's biggest bug. Permanently. And it is the only codebase which does so.