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

[The One]

Oh really, just like that.

If Satoshi said Segwit is rubbish and the blocksize should be 10mb, with built in future increases, difficulty retargeting every 3 blocks, current fees are flawed and needs this **** formulae. I expect you will fall in line "everything will get solved in a decentralized fashion."

I said people will follow him, but I didn't say we are stupid enough to follow a lunatic. (Some people are apparently -hint: 8mb blocks) People will follow him as long as he makes sense and no matter how much you twist it, you won't change this fact.

You obviously cannot differentiate between 'fact' and 'assumption'. I might as well add 'opinion'.

[1713939703]

1713939703

[1713939703]

1713939703

[1713939703]

1713939703

[1713939703]

1713939703

[1713939703]

1713939703

[gentlemand]

So scratching each others' eyes out aside, can anyone here point to any further comments from Core or the signees about what happens next?

[classicsucks]

So you want a hard fork to destroy bitcoin and it's dominance, and the other arguments you made were just nonsense?

STAHP. Educate yourself. Don't you know that bitcoin has already hard forked several times in its history?

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawiki

Bitcoin didn't split in half - there is still only one bitcoin.

This is different for many reasons.

First of all the immediate fix was a soft fork.  They went back to a chain which every node could validate, instead of having two chains.  One which only new nodes could validate, and one which only old nodes could validate correctly.  Then people could either upgrade or increase the maximum locks for BerkleyDB.  Those who didn't would experience random crashes.

The solution was a bugfix.  Non-upgraded nodes would experience random crashes.

This happened a long time ago when Bitcoin still was young and had very few tech-savvy users.  Upgrading all nodes with a non-controversial bugfix or just increase the maximum locks, was easy.

There was absolutely no risk of anyone losing money by getting on the wrong side of a hard fork.  In fact, there never was a hard fork.  No block has ever been produced on what would be the other side of that fork.

OK I see, since you're afraid of hard forks, they've never happened  .

In fact, TWO bitcoin hard forks happened March 2013 - one due to a bug, and one planned. Due to differing database locking implementations in 0.8 during the BerkeleyDB -> leveldb move, the main chain got split 60/40%. Devs and users then moved quickly to adopt another hard fork, version 0.8.1, which changed consensus rules again, and forked unpatched nodes off the network. The last unpatched node disappeared in August 2013. One person did a double spend, but returned the funds.

As others have said, many altcoins hard fork all of the time, it's not a big deal. Monero has hard forked 4 times in the past year.  See how dead Monero is, only $50/coin. /sarc

[DooMAD]

So scratching each others' eyes out aside, can anyone here point to any further comments from Core or the signees about what happens next?

More drama, but nothing of significance, probably.  Both sides are idiots at this stage.  The stalemate continues until one side gets brave and pulls either the UASF or MAHF trigger.  More drama ensues.

[OROBTC]

So scratching each others' eyes out aside, can anyone here point to any further comments from Core or the signees about what happens next?

More drama, but nothing of significance, probably.  Both sides are idiots at this stage.  The stalemate continues until one side gets brave and pulls either the UASF or MAHF trigger.  More drama ensues.

So, lots more drama, sigh.

I was hoping the the Miner Wankers and the Developer Wankers had grown up and saw that a good compromise would be good for everyone, especially thinking a little longer term here.

If the drama keeps going, yet BTC price keeps rising (so far that's worked), I may just sell the bulk of my BTC for gold or platinum, too bad I unloaded some BTC for Pt yesterday at BTC price of some $2220. *

Maybe $2500 - $2600 might be a good sell price point for moar Au or Pt.  I can always re-buy BTC once back in the USA.


* But, Rothschild himself is rumored to have answered a question as to how he got rich: by selling too soon.  

[sturle]

That's quite a far flung theory.  One reason highly its unlikely is because Blockstream and core devs want to scale bitcoin in the exact opposite way that Satoshi recommended.

This is wrong in every way.  Payment channels was Satoshi's idea, and it was implemented in Bitcoin 0.1.  Unfortunately it didn't work as well as designed, and was insecure due to bugs.  Some of the problems were fixed in the previous soft fork (BIP 68), and Segwit resolves the remaining bugs.  In addition to that many developers, both core developers and other people, have extended on Satoshi's ideas for payment channels by connecting them in a network.

Look it up.

Btw, Satoshi warned against miner centralization back in 2010.  He asked people not to mine with GPUs, since he had intended to distribute the mining power.  How do you think he would have responded to ASICs and CVE-2017-9230?  By handing more power over to the miners?

[BTCLuke]

That's quite a far flung theory.  One reason highly its unlikely is because Blockstream and core devs want to scale bitcoin in the exact opposite way that Satoshi recommended. 

By using... SATOSHI'S Payment Channels to create a lightning network?

lulz...

[-ck]

Btw, Satoshi warned against miner centralization back in 2010.  He asked people not to mine with GPUs, since he had intended to distribute the mining power.  How do you think he would have responded to ASICs and CVE-2017-9230?  By handing more power over to the miners?

This is true, he warned against it but also said it was to be expected. He basically asked politely that people hold off doing so for as long as possible, but expected it was inevitable. He also anticipated some degree of centralisation - his comment wasn't clear whether he meant nodes or miners or node miners, it sounded most like he expected full nodes to be miners.

[chek2fire]

imo this proposal is DOA and it clear now that miners not want bitcoin to scale. This kind proposal and the previous BU joke is only an excuse to stall bitcoin and nothing more. I am convince now that this guys especially Jihan Wu is fine with this status quo in bitcoin and he will do anything to keep this.
High fees plus asciboost.
Why anyone with such a huge stake in bitcoin ecosystem will want to change something or better to scale bitcoin and loose them all of it?

[chek2fire]

This is a great post. Has anyone repost it to reddit? do i have a permission to do it with the link of the original post and ofcourse your name credit for it?

[CoinCube]

So scratching each others' eyes out aside, can anyone here point to any further comments from Core or the signees about what happens next?

More drama, but nothing of significance, probably.  Both sides are idiots at this stage.  The stalemate continues until one side gets brave and pulls either the UASF or MAHF trigger.  More drama ensues.

Far better would be to achieve widespread consensus around some compromise that is not perfect but is good enough for now.

Or we can just rip the community apart in a pointless civil war. I believe Bitcoin Core would eventually "win" that war but the resolution could take years. It would be very bullish for alt-coins.

[-ck]

This is a great post. Has anyone repost it to reddit? do i have a permission to do it with the link of the original post and ofcourse your name credit for it?

Sure, go right ahead.

[ComputerGenie]

...Far better would be to achieve widespread consensus around some compromise that is not perfect but is "good enough for now"...

Isn't that the mentality that got us in this 1MB size mess in the 1st place (not perfect but "good enough for now")?  

[chek2fire]

thx and done it

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6d5ock/the_barry_silbert_segwit_agreement_with_80_miner/

[CoinCube]

...Far better would be to achieve widespread consensus around some compromise that is not perfect but is "good enough for now"...

Isn't that the mentality that got us in this 1MB size mess in the 1st place (not perfect but "good enough for now")?  

The 1MB blocks size is not a mess. If it was not the 1MB block size it would be something else later on.

This dispute is the natural result and challenge inherent in government by consensus. There is a reason that no human society has used government by consensus in the past. Its far easier to simply use force to subdue your opponents or get 51% of the voters to vote you power over your opponents.

Personally I would support SegWit + 2Mb block fork provided the code was vetted and tested by the Bitcoin Core team and was supported by 95% of the available hashing power and all the major exchanges.

I believe Bitcoin Core's vision of scaling is ultimately the correct one but no one has convinced me that we cannot afford to throw the big block folks a bone in order to keep things moving along smoothly.

But I am not a technical expert and if someone can present a compelling case why SegWit + 2Mb would significantly damage the network or it becomes clear that it is impossible for SegWit + 2Mb to ever achieve consensus I would change my mind.

[ComputerGenie]

The 1MB blocks size is not a mess..

True, because having 110MB of unconfirmed transactions is just great. 

[TheWallStreetCrew]

This is an important moment in history. If the Devs fuck up there are a lot of others waiting in the wings to pick up where they left off.

[CoinCube]

The 1MB blocks size is not a mess..

True, because having 110MB of unconfirmed transactions is just great. 

Of course it's not great it's a problem that needs to be solved.

[leopard2]

so is this ASICBOOST proof then? if so, why did Bitmain agree?

And why was Core not invited? 

[DooMAD]

...Far better would be to achieve widespread consensus around some compromise that is not perfect but is "good enough for now"...

Isn't that the mentality that got us in this 1MB size mess in the 1st place (not perfect but "good enough for now")?  

The 1MB blocks size is not a mess. If it was not the 1MB block size it would be something else later on.

This dispute is the natural result and challenge inherent in government by consensus. There is a reason that no human society has used government by consensus in the past. Its far easier to simply use force to subdue your opponents or get 51% of the voters to vote you power over your opponents.

Personally I would supports SegWit + 2Mb block fork provided the code was vetted and tested by the Bitcoin Core team and was supported by 95% of the available hashing power and all the major exchanges.

I believe Bitcoin Core's vision of scaling is ultimately the correct one but no one has convinced me that we cannot afford to throw the big block folks a bone in order to keep things moving along smoothly.

But I am not a technical expert and if someone can present a compelling case why SegWit + 2Mb would significantly damage the network or it becomes clear that it is impossible for SegWit + 2Mb to ever achieve consensus I would change my mind.

I still can't reconcile this ridiculous notion that everyone is arguing over 'SegWit with 1MB stab in the dark' or 'SegWit with 2MB stab in the dark' when both options are shortsighted, involve too much rigidity and are guaranteed to require further hardforks in future.  Why not just do one hardfork allowing for a slow and gentle ease of pressure?

Both camps have clearly already decided on central planning to dictate or coerce whether it's going to be on-chain or off-chain scaling and we seemingly have a binary choice between the two stupid extremes.  Neither wants to let the market choose freely and decide for itself how best to grow.  I'd argue that both sides are spineless cowards in this regard.