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

[dinofelis]

Regularly change bitcoin algorithm can solve this problem (mining dominance by big companies), but it needs central hard fork policy

Indeed, I said that already a few times.  This is why PoW has always a centralization effect of some sorts.

[1714715669]

1714715669

[1714715669]

1714715669

[1714715669]

1714715669

[1714715669]

1714715669

[1714715669]

1714715669

[DooMAD]

so no one sees this as one step towards a broader consensus rather than the final deal?

a significant enough spread of mining power just stated their willingness to go segwit. they also did it without any technical input. maybe they're now waiting to see what developers and exchanges have to say and it'll finish up with something everyone's happy enough with after their suggestions.

Nah, that would be too easy.  We have to continue casting aspersions, fighting and escalating until everyone is completely alienated and no one agrees with anyone.  

A fractious split is pretty much a self fulfilling prophecy if the tone doesn't change soon, because nearly everyone involved is beating the war drums like an asshat lately.

Let's be fair here.  You can't exactly begrudge them drawing up their own plans when the UASF crowd fired first.

False comparison. One plans to be a *user-activated-soft-fork* the other one plans to be a *cartel-activated-hard-fork*.

Talk about being blinded by your own hubris.  "My nuke is morally superior to their nuke"?  Is that what we're going with?

Well maybe both of them started as a bluff and now are forced to play their hands to completion...

Nothing's being forced until someone pulls the trigger.  If you set yourself down the path of activating UASF, you're pulling the trigger and forcing their hand.  If they set themselves down the path of activating a non-consensual hard fork, they're pulling the trigger and forcing your hand.  No one has pulled the trigger yet, so simmer down and start negotiating before things escalate any further.

[Denker]

This agreement is a joke and a trap to fool the community once again!
BIP148!
Enough said.

[ComputerGenie]

...It is time to drain the swamp. Let's kick ASIC miners out of bitcoin.

Thanks for that; I needed a good chuckle this morning. 

[mindrust]

The core Devs were too late to act. All of these crap has been foreseen by many people years ago.

ASIC Mining = Centralized business

They should have changed the PoW mech. before everything went out of control. It is still not too late. Many people will cry, many will leave bitcoin, bitcoin will make a huge dive but it is more important to have a decentralized/user supported currency.

I don't give a little fuck about if bitcoin loses its marketcap to eth, dash or any other centralized scamcoin. It doesn't matter.

Do i worry because Facebook has a bigger market cap than bitcoin? No. Same goes for the other altcoins. Printing your own money is not a joke. The governments may not take action against them and they may even promote them but you'll never know what they are going to do tomorrow.

There was a reason why Satoshi hid his identity. It is because this shit is serious.

When cryptocoins become a threat to the Banks, all of those altcoin owners will look for a hole to hide themselves.

Make your mind. Stay anonymous, stay decentralized. Peace.  

[BitcoinHodler]

can someone explain to me how these two are different

They plan to do a hard fork within 4 months that both activates segwit and creates a base block size increase of 2MB concurrently.

agreed to ignore pretty much all scaling signalling and adopt their own

i guess my question is what is the difference between their "SegWit" and the one that have been being signaled so far apart from the obvious 2MB and why is it bad?

[ComputerGenie]

The core Devs were too late to act...
ASIC Mining = Centralized business
...

There seems to be a confused irony in your statements. It seems that you think that a decentralized Bitcoin should remain centralized around the devs of a specific wallet. Or am I reading that all wrong?

[-ck]

can someone explain to me how these two are different

They plan to do a hard fork within 4 months that both activates segwit and creates a base block size increase of 2MB concurrently.

agreed to ignore pretty much all scaling signalling and adopt their own

i guess my question is what is the difference between their "SegWit" and the one that have been being signaled so far apart from the obvious 2MB and why is it bad?

2 years of planning and explanation and community involvement, feedback, critical review, code auditing and testing, followed by a 1 year long activation phase followed by the bulk of the bitcoin community running full nodes choosing to run core's segwit signalling. So far we have nothing from BSFORK in terms of code and a bombshell announcement and everyone is expected to be running it within 4 months or be left high and dry.

[sturle]

They don't like the 4 MB segwit blocks, but want to shrink them to 2 MB?  What a mess!  Why can't they just go with the current proposal, and cap the blocks at 2 MB?

Babies.

[Foxpup]

They don't like the 4 MB segwit blocks, but want to shrink them to 2 MB?

No, they want to grow them to 8MB, with non-witness blocks being 2MB, which a) requires a hard fork, and b) is vulnerable due to the quadratic hash validation issue (they're saying it's 2MB solely to cause confusion on this point). If they really wanted 8MB blocks, they could do so mostly safely by increasing the non-witness weight to 8x, so as to leave non-witness blocks at 1MB, but they're not interested in increasing capacity safely; they just want to take over the network, or destroy it in the attempt.

[-ck]

They don't like the 4 MB segwit blocks, but want to shrink them to 2 MB?

No, they want to grow them to 8MB, with non-witness blocks being 2MB, which a) requires a hard fork, and b) is vulnerable due to the quadratic hash validation issue (they're saing it's 2MB solely to cause confusion on this point). If they really wanted 8MB blocks, they could do so mostly safely by increasing the non-witness weight to 8x, so as to leave non-witness blocks at 1MB, but they're not interested in increasing capacity safely; they just want to take over the network, or destroy it in the attempt.

I hesitate to point out, I suspect sturle was being sarcastic.

[mindrust]

The core Devs were too late to act...
ASIC Mining = Centralized business
...

There seems to be a confused irony in your statements. It seems that you think that a decentralized Bitcoin should remain centralized around the devs of a specific wallet. Or am I reading that all wrong?

What is it you don't understand? Devs set the rules. If the rules are broken, the whole system becomes broken. This system is broken for what it is and devs should fix it.

Everything has a starting point. Satoshi created bitcoin and he was in the center of the bitcoin's blockchain system for a while. Means bitcoin was centralized around Satoshi but he didn't like it so he tried to make it decentralized with the support of the people, us. ASIC companies hacked the code, he failed.

Now the core devs can accomplish what satoshi couldn't. They can set new rules and save bitcoin from being centralized.

[ComputerGenie]

...followed by a 1 year long activation phase followed by the bulk of the bitcoin community running full nodes choosing to run core's segwit signalling...

While that is technically true, a certain percentage (unknown if large or small) did so because (until this last update) the choice was:

• updates and signal,
• no updates and no signal, or
• some unknown new entity.

There was no option to both use an updated Core wallet and not have segwit; and, for the average person, there still isn't.  

[ComputerGenie]

What is it you don't understand? Devs set the rules. If the rules are broken, the whole system becomes broken...
Now the core devs can accomplish what satoshi couldn't. They can set new rules and save bitcoin from being centralized.

Yeah, no. Seems like you need to read the whitepaper again.  
You can't "save bitcoin from being centralized" by centralizing around only 1 group of devs. Because, English.

[freebutcaged]

Why do we have governments?

Why do we have central authorities? central banks?

There must be some compelling reasons for the above.

Isn't everything in the code?

Wasn't this intended to happen?

Who are miners and who are users?

Bitcoin was meant to be mined but never thought about times like now, miners being separated from users/supporters. in the eyes of code, miners are users and users are miners/community.

[dinofelis]

Bitcoin was meant to be mined but never thought about times like now, miners being separated from users/supporters. in the eyes of code, miners are users and users are miners/community.

One always forgets Satoshi's understanding of this from 2008:

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/

At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would
only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with
that one node.

This is not to "quote authority", it is simply to show you that to its creator, this was understood, that one would separate users and miners (the "specialists with server farms of specialized hardware").

That said, Satoshi erroneously thought that there wouldn't be pools, and that there would be more of these "specialists" than the handfull right now.  But the idea that one would develop ASICS "specialized hardware", and that this would result in an industry of "specialists" was understood by him.  In other words, one cannot "discover this with horror" right now.  It was understood as part of the logical consequence of his design.  Maybe not desired, but at least logically understood.

[Iranus]

The core Devs were too late to act...
ASIC Mining = Centralized business
...

There seems to be a confused irony in your statements. It seems that you think that a decentralized Bitcoin should remain centralized around the devs of a specific wallet. Or am I reading that all wrong?

What is it you don't understand? Devs set the rules. If the rules are broken, the whole system becomes broken. This system is broken for what it is and devs should fix it.

Everything has a starting point. Satoshi created bitcoin and he was in the center of the bitcoin's blockchain system for a while. Means bitcoin was centralized around Satoshi but he didn't like it so he tried to make it decentralized with the support of the people, us. ASIC companies hacked the code, he failed.

Now the core devs can accomplish what satoshi couldn't. They can set new rules and save bitcoin from being centralized.

...No.  If devs could just change anything that they wanted to, they could completely destroy Bitcoin at any point.  That's the whole reason that we have consensus systems like hashrate.

[DooMAD]

What is it you don't understand? Devs set the rules.

Pffft.  Not even close.  Devs can only propose rules, consensus sets them.  Maybe you're thinking of Ripple or some other closed-source shitcoin based on centralised development and the users having no say in the code they choose to run.  Like so many people out there, you're willing to sacrifice the freedom of choice you've been given and surrender yourself to one centralised authority because you're scared of another one taking over.

The time of the cypherpunks was all too short, now only the cypherpussies remain, pleading for someone in power to trust with their hopes and dreams.  Pathetic.  

[BillyBobZorton]

Who is going to develop for them?

Where there any developers to discuss this "agreement"?

The only group amongst them that has any software developers to speak of is RSK. I don't believe any actual bitcoin developers had anything to do with it. The rest are all mining companies or services which have no real history of bitcoin core development.

Looks like Sergio Damian or whatever he is called, has been bribed by the PBOC money. Anyway, he has been selling vaporware for ages, he's incompetent compared to Core devs.

If this nonsense goes through, then Core must officially support UASF. What else is there? it's not like there are many other chances left.

It's either that, or Core officially supporting a 2MB increase, even tho doing a hardfork for only 1MB increase is pretty dumb, let alone rushed in 4 months, since I would like to see further tech improvements that would come with a properly planned HF, but we are running out of time, Chinacoin is coming.

[eXpl0sive]

Watching this thread