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

[Limx Dev]

Watching this thread

Yes that is a good idea.

[toknormal]

Bitbay now rallying on the disagreement over the Barry Silbert "agreement".

Dash also taking off.

Toys & prams in short supply.

yeah...that agreement is a piece of shit. just another attempt at a delaying tactic.

[CoinCube]

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.

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.  

+1

I strongly agree with the arguments above.

What all parties need to be looking at is not who is in "control" or what signal bit is used but does the solution

1) Allow for long term scaling
2) Maintain consensus

Everything else is just human ego.

[aarturka]

I think it's ok. First they activate SegWit. Then everyone will see that hardfork is redundant. But if some fools try to hard fork after SW they will end up with alt on their hands.

[bitbunnny]

I don't like all this games, it looks like some kind of bi war where everyone will loose at the end. Is the final goal of all of this for someone to control the Bitcoin and to become centralized? If this continues to go this way it will not end well, something constructive should be done very fast.

[CoinCube]

I think it's ok. First they activate SegWit. Then everyone will see that hardfork is redundant. But if some fools try to hard fork after SW they will end up with alt on their hands.

Yes this is exactly why the 2Mb folks want the block size increase after SegWit activation but before the lock.

So is it an attempt to stop the User activated fork getting traction ?

yes, because the period from august 2017 to november 2017 is the enforced period for Segwit ... not the LOCK period.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki

so Segwit2Mb is a trap.
they want introduce the 2Mb before SegWit LOCK.

So the folks who want 2Mb don't trust the SegWit people not to break away after SegWit is locked and block a later block size increase?

Sounds understandable given the emotionalism on this issue. It would be very disruptive to activate SegWit and then deactivate it before LOCK. Seems unlikely the miners would do this. It seems far more likely that the SegWit folks would increase their opposition to a block size increase to 2 Mb once they already have what they want.

I am not understanding why this is not a reasonable roadmap forward.

This is an issue that is not going to have a "winner" it can only be solved by compromise and consensus.

[dinofelis]

As far as I understand the new proposition, it has two advantages that I can see.  It can avoid a huge clusterfuck because it is a hard fork, so that once it is set up, it will split cleanly and nicely in two prongs that cannot unite any more.   As such, the immense clusterfuck that could happen if a minority soft fork splits off, making two coins, and taking over (becoming majority), orphaning the original one after a month or so, erasing all transactions on one prong in a go, can be avoided.

But if I understand correctly, this new proposition has a "power amplifier" built into it, even if initially there was a 50/50 split in hash rate on the two prongs.  Indeed, in that case, both prongs (both bitcoins, the original one and the new one) will only make blocks at half rate, so every 20 minutes.   However, the new one, having standard blocks of 2 MB, can accommodate just as many transactions as the old bitcoin did before the split, while the original chain has now half transaction rate.  

If the two coins are listed on exchanges, people will curse the old chain, that is now totally asphyxiated at HALF the current transaction rate (a 1 MB every 20 minutes !), while the new chain with same block rate can continue to work like old bitcoin used to.  This will give an edge to the new chain for users.

It can also have the opposite effect, that people do not even succeed in putting their old chain coins on an exchange to sell them and are hence constrained to hold them, thus increasing the market value of the old chain.  This could be even a danger if the split is too favourable to the new chain, and the split is 20% - 80%, and exchanges list both of them.   The old chain will only have about a block every hour (imagine !!) while the new one will essentially double bitcoin's transaction capacity.   But people will not be able to sell their old coins, so maybe the few of them on exchanges will explode in price, reversing the hash rate distribution.

Normally, once both chains are active and separated, the market will determine the market cap split, and the miners will follow with their hash rate.  

If the new chain doesn't asphyxiate entirely the old chain, two bitcoin will emerge, but at least, the two coins will never mingle again, and all transactions on both chains will continue to exist.

[Calangaman]

Anyone at NYC Consensus 2017 today ?

They should make the segwit announcement today or tomorrow, no ?

[ComputerGenie]

...Everything else is just human ego.

Devs? Ego?  Surely not!  

Anyone else see a Bitcoin Classic on the horizon? 

[bartolo]

Has been any response from Core already? I don´t understand the euphoria of Charlie Shrem in his messages a few hours ago. With what has been announced so far, the solution to the conflict is still far away. It´s true that it´s a small approach when compared to previous positions but I don´t think that bitcoin can advance without taking Core into account. Highly announcing this agreement, given its terms, doesn´t make sense.

[MoinCoin]

Does anyone know if ASICBoost is addressed?
Will the segwit be a HF Segwit without OP_RETURN commitment?
So - will covert ASICBoost continue to work as is?

I'm not conviced this is a fair compromise.

[mindrust]

So it is O.K. for big mining companies to make deals without asking the community's opinion behind the closed doors but it is not O.K. to change the PoW algo to prevent these kind of situations.

I didn't sign up for a centralized piece of shit coin and a toy for big companies.

We must drain the swamp.

[ComputerGenie]

So it is O.K. for big mining companies to make deals without asking the community's opinion behind the closed doors but it is not O.K. to change the PoW algo prevent these kind of situations.

I didn't sign up for a centralized piece of shit coin and a toy for big companies.

We must drain the swamp.

You're right, it's bad for companies (like Bitcoin Core) to make deals/decisions without asking the community's opinion behind the closed doors.  It's almost entertaining to watch you ignore the fact that everything you say applies to the group you seem to be a fanboy of. 

[cellard]

So it is O.K. for big mining companies to make deals without asking the community's opinion behind the closed doors but it is not O.K. to change the PoW algo to prevent these kind of situations.

I didn't sign up for a centralized piece of shit coin and a toy for big companies.

We must drain the swamp.

What are you specifically proposing?

We change the PoW algo to something else... then what? For how long is the hashrate decentralized until china, which is positioned with a perpetual advantage due cheap electricity and cheap human labor, can develop again specialized machines for cheap and run them for cheap and keep staking more and more machines?

You have to think about what you are going to do long term with a PoW change. Changing to some other algo is useless, we need something clever to avoid future miner centralization if we have to resort to that.

[aarturka]

I'm very dissapointed of BitFury starting to collaborate with obvious Bitcoin foes like CIA snitch Gavin Andressen or altcoin cheer girl Roger Ver. We should procede with UASF

[philipma1957]

So far  I see  cryptocoin market cap booming. Last year BTC was 80% of all crypto wealth.

it is now 37 bill/79 bill  or 46% of all crypto wealth

The no scaling solution delay has caused explosive growth in other coins value and good growth in btc value.

an economic fact
there is a second issue  most BTC is in wallets  16.3 million of 21 million coins.

Some would say this delay is terrible. But maybe it is the end of crypto coins as we know them.

Everyone has read my list of companies that benefit by GPU mining.

Dell
HP
Lenovo
Acer

Intel
AMD

Nvidia

Asus
Asrock
BioStar
Evga
Gigabyte
Msi

Seasonc
Corsair

Crucial
Mushkin
Samsung

And 100 other companies.

Btc needs a simple easy move to show  solidarity

 One change just 2x the tx size from 1mb to 2mb

and revisit it 1 year later.

  Why?


  Simple it is no longer a technical problem look at the caps below.


BTC needs to show it has a consensus and can agree on something.

It has been passed as the $$$ leader  as it in now under 50% of all coins.

No dilution needed a 2x the tx size and come back in a year shows the btc people will stick together.

look at the list of wealth below.

http://coinmarketcap.com/


1   Bitcoin.................$37,041,273,266

   
2   Ethereum.............$17,184,250,941   
3   Ripple..................$12,424,084,808   
4   NEM.....................$ 2,213,523,000   
5   Litecoin................$ 1,293,282,677   
6   Dash....................$   917,737,253   
7   Ethereum Classic...$   884,060,685
8   Bytecoin...............$   693,777,114
9   Monero Monero.....$   511,980,651
10   Stellar..................$   508,732,790   
11   Dogecoin..............$   310,555,813   
12   Zcash..................$    284,001,799   
13   Golem..................$   261,081,062   
14   Gnosis..................$   255,814,207   
15   Steem..................$   252,134,350
16   BitShares..............$   217,877,756
17   Siacoin.................$   213,419,172   
18   Augur...................$   203,931,200   
19   Stratis..................$  201,833,687   
20   Waves..................$  185,432,000   
21   GameCredits.........$  168,968,598   
22   MaidSafeCoin........$   168,455,847   
23   DigixDAO..............$   165,657,800   
24   Ardor....................$  132,753,047   
25   Round..................$   127,830,650   

A muscle move is not the way to go here.

[jonald_fyookball]

So it is O.K. for big mining companies to make deals without asking the community's opinion behind the closed doors but it is not O.K. to change the PoW algo to prevent these kind of situations.

I didn't sign up for a centralized piece of shit coin and a toy for big companies.

We must drain the swamp.

   

Most bitcoin investors have been asking for bigger blocks for years now. 

[25hashcoin]

So it is O.K. for big mining companies to make deals without asking the community's opinion behind the closed doors but it is not O.K. to change the PoW algo to prevent these kind of situations.

I didn't sign up for a centralized piece of shit coin and a toy for big companies.

We must drain the swamp.

   

Most bitcoin investors have been asking for bigger blocks for years now. 

Complete bullshit lies, troll. Most want Segwit first.

[Calangaman]

Just watched the live broadcast of Consensus 2017 scaling debate.
What do you make out of it ?

Seems that almost everyone is OK to go to 2MB and segwit...

[Denker]

So it is O.K. for big mining companies to make deals without asking the community's opinion behind the closed doors but it is not O.K. to change the PoW algo prevent these kind of situations.

I didn't sign up for a centralized piece of shit coin and a toy for big companies.

We must drain the swamp.

You're right, it's bad for companies (like Bitcoin Core) to make deals/decisions without asking the community's opinion behind the closed doors.  It's almost entertaining to watch you ignore the fact that everything you say applies to the group you seem to be a fanboy of. 

Where is Bitcoin Core a company? What are you talking about?!
And he is right! Why shoudl the community agree to such a shady backroom deal made by some stupid CEOs??
This is not banking here!
UASF BIP148!! If these guys wanna learn it the hard then fine! Let 'em fork off with their Chinacoin! Centralized as f** and without any talent and skills in terms of coding!
This is not an agreement. Just another attempt to hijack Bitcoin!