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

[Carlton Banks]

It's on.


And, of course, the people will win. That's how Bitcoin was designed, and embodies it's purpose.



Decentralisation = Strength in numbers = Vires in Numeris

[kano]

Lulz, Core says they are gonna force everyone to accept what they want, and that's apparently OK.

Then a large % of the mining industry says they're gonna make a minor change to core code, include segwit, but with an 80% activation ...

I'm yet to see where these years of testing that the lousy core coders have done has been decided to be discarded.

OK switch the signalling bit and change a 1 to a 2
Lulz OP FUD.

Seriously do you have no idea about coding and what's already in the core code? Apparently NOT!

This is a joke beyond belief.
A solution that accepts segwit and a 2MB block size and the core fanboys go ape shit coz they don't get it activated in the manner they want.

What a joke.

[ComputerGenie]

Where is Bitcoin Core a company? What are you talking about?!...

OMG, it's so cute that you think that Core devs are doing this all for free.

[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. 

Complete bullshit lies, troll. Most want Segwit first.

Bigger block proposals were around for a long time before segwit even existed.  Anyway its not up to me, its up to the miners.  

[ComputerGenie]

Complete bullshit lies, troll. Most want Segwit first.

Actually most want whatever will be "the best solution" (in their hearts not caring if segwit is part of it or not) and have the "cable news" mentality when it comes to buying into the need for segwit to come 1st.

By and large, the mass of the community isn't even sure wtf segwit is/isn't.

[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.

Bigger block proposals were around for a long time before segwit even existed.  Anyway its not up to me, its up to the miners.  

And Segwit is the most superior capacity increase. Stay butthurt about UASF troll.

[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. 

Complete bullshit lies, troll. Most want Segwit first.

Bigger block proposals were around for a long time before segwit even existed.  Anyway its not up to me, its up to the miners.  

And Segwit is the most superior capacity increase. Stay butthurt about UASF troll.

The HF seems 50 times more likely to happen than the UASF. 

Don't be too butthurt yourself, big guy

[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.

Bigger block proposals were around for a long time before segwit even existed.  Anyway its not up to me, its up to the miners.  

And Segwit is the most superior capacity increase. Stay butthurt about UASF troll.

The HF seems 50 times more likely to happen than the UASF. 

Don't be too butthurt yourself, big guy

You BU idiots have been free to fork off for years. This is a pathetic attempt to subert UASF that will fail. Gig is up for you paid Jihan shills.

[BillyBobZorton]

Lulz, Core says they are gonna force everyone to accept what they want, and that's apparently OK.

Then a large % of the mining industry says they're gonna make a minor change to core code, include segwit, but with an 80% activation ...

I'm yet to see where these years of testing that the lousy core coders have done has been decided to be discarded.

OK switch the signalling bit and change a 1 to a 2
Lulz OP FUD.

Seriously do you have no idea about coding and what's already in the core code? Apparently NOT!

This is a joke beyond belief.
A solution that accepts segwit and a 2MB block size and the core fanboys go ape shit coz they don't get it activated in the manner they want.

What a joke.

I would be ok with a blocksize increase because being objective, UASF contains reasonable risks to worry about (even tho is still a valid tool, but if we can avoid it it would be better), but their roadmap is rushed. A hardfork must bring something more to the table than 1MB increase, there are other technologies we must implement in a hard fork that those guys are ignoring because they are not fit to make technological decisions. And don't get me started about getting the Rootstock scammers to replace Bitcoin Core:

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/866511081463828480

This is obviously the big hand of Bitmain bribing everyone while compromising code quality.

Lets do this right. Im ok with a blocksize increase, but let's not kick Core out and putting some idiots on board in return if you don't want to suffer the consequences eventually (see BU)

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.

Bigger block proposals were around for a long time before segwit even existed.  Anyway its not up to me, its up to the miners.  

It's up to you too as long as we have the power to run full validating nodes, but you want to get rid of that so it's 100% about the miners and take it up the ass like the little cuck bitch you are.

[jonald_fyookball]

It's up to you too as long as we have the power to run full validating nodes, but you want to get rid of that so it's 100% about the miners and take it up the ass like the little cuck bitch you are.

You are a foul mouth little troll that doesn't understand bitcoin.  That's fine.   just hodl you'll be ok.

[ComputerGenie]

Does anyone know where the false dichotomy started that claims "one must be for BU if they are against segwit"? 

[25hashcoin]

It's up to you too as long as we have the power to run full validating nodes, but you want to get rid of that so it's 100% about the miners and take it up the ass like the little cuck bitch you are.

You are a foul mouth little troll that doesn't understand bitcoin.  That's fine.   just hodl you'll be ok.

You just described yourself, little pathetic jihan slave.

[Carlton Banks]

Does anyone know where the false dichotomy started that claims "one must be for BU if they are against segwit"? 

+1

I'm against the changes in BU and Segwit, the latter threatens the (currently static at ~ 6500) Bitcoin node count, and the former essentially guarantees the death of Bitcoin nodes

But Segwit is the best compromise, so I'm supporting it, against my better judgement. Segwit that reduces the base block to 0.75 MB + 2.25 MB sigs block = 3 MB would be far more sensible, for me.

[dinofelis]

I visibly get offered an experiment over what has deciding power in bitcoin: full nodes or miners.  Wow !  Thanks, guys !  Could you get your timings right to try both simultaneously, just to get the correct experimental conditions ?  I propose, all full nodes go UASF, and all miners go MAHF simultaneously.  Let us see who wins

Note that if the result is two bitcoins, that is even better:
1) everybody has twice as many coins as before (or maybe three ?)
2) much more transaction room, because now you have two (or three) chains, you can run two (or three?) full nodes, the decentralization doubles (or triples ?)

 

[unamis76]

If this is real and these meetings actually happened, to me this simply looks like folks who were initially against SegWit are now converging with the other half of the community in order to move forward.

I don't think these people will develop any kind of client, this is just a way of them saying "let's end this dead-lock, this indecision, and move forward, here's what we'd like to see/what we'd accept".

We seem to finally be reaching the halfway point where we can have everyone come together in a solution that's of interest to most.

Now let's wait and see the community react. So far it's been a more positive reaction than what I expected, so that's a good sign. This also doesn't look as hostile to me as some are saying it is, neither does it look like they want to raise hostilities or push things further to their own side.

[The One]

If there is a HF, prepare for two versions and no it won't be like ETH and ETC, it will be much messier...

Secret meetings and miners getting butthurt over UASF, sound like good reasons to go ahead with UASF to me.

Infact let's have a UASF version and a secret cartel HF version and see which one ends up at < $10

The fork with most money will have an advantage in the beginning, but when their nodes start to crash like BU nodes and perhaps even more serious bugs are discovered, people will move their money into the good version of bitcoin.

No political agreement will make software run perfectly, you need the developers, and the most experienced and with most expertise developers are in Bitcoin Core's team.

If that is true then explain the current "civil war"? Both sides have developers, just two different ideologies what Bitcoin is suppose to be.

Settlement layer owned by Blockstream v Satoshi's electronic cash to cash peer-to-peer electronic cash for community. Edited (half asleep atm)

[European Central Bank]

http://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/innovation/major-bitcoin-firms-invest-1m-in-rootstock-to-take-on-ethereum-threat/

relevant.

jihan wu is a rootstock investor, as is barry silbert.

include bitpay's little u turn and it looks like an almost complete takeover by one party. i don't know where bitfury fit.

[CosmicVibe]

Segwit for dummies ? Please.

I understand basically what a fork is but I would like to understand fully the implications of this segwit thing.

Could someone explain ?

[The One]

In essence this means the pools are creating a fork of the current bitcoin code which is planned to be incompatible with any current version should their hard fork go ahead. Which means that every single current code node user, be they core, BU, classic, XT, whatever, is currently going to be on an incompatible fork of bitcoin after their planned deployment in September. So they are asking the entire community to ignore all existing bitcoin implementations and adopt their software node implementation before that time, or risk being on a very hashrate poor fork, even though there is no published code to support this September fork yet.

Brilliant.  My view of things is going to be tested experimentally.  Being a scientist, I love experiments even if it is to be shown that I misunderstood things: then I learn.

It's becoming every day more exciting.  What will win ?  Non-mining nodes ?  Hash rate collusion ?  Immutability ?  Experimental outcome will tell.
I'm looking forward to how this is going to work out... one way or another, it are interesting times in crypto land, and we're going to progress in our understanding of these things.

I am happy that you are excited. Now do you even have any Bitcoins?

[Carlton Banks]

Settlement layer owned by Blockstream v Satoshi's electronic cash to cash for community.

What part of "cash" don't you understand?

Cash doesn't have a worst case scenario of 1 hour 30 minutes to make the exchange, cash is as fast as the human's doing the trade can move their hands, think their thoughts and nod their heads.

Bitcoin is a settlement system already, you're just advocating for keeping it that way, so don't pretend that electronic cash is what you're supporting, it's demonstrably not