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

[ComputerGenie]

So I heard code was being worked on for this proposal. Great news.

I hear that the Pope was going to run for President of North Korea. 

[1715393767]

1715393767

[1715393767]

1715393767

[ComputerGenie]

No son, it is you who does not understand. When the PoW algo changes, those of us [ * ] using Bitcoin won't even notice your insignificant blockchain fork.

*still
^ Since Bitcoin isn't the changing one.  

[Wind_FURY]

A question for all of you. If Segwit was not "marketed" as a solution to scaling, would it have been activated by the miners? There other upgrades in there that does make the protocol better.

[-ck]

BU ... It's totally irrelevant to this next round of clashes.

As the data shows, it has the largest signaling support. Ergo, it is quite central to the ongoing debates.

Fine, believe what you want and I'll chalk it up to faith and put you back on ignore.

[ComputerGenie]

A question for all of you. If Segwit was not "marketed" as a solution to scaling, would it have been activated by the miners? There other upgrades in there that does make the protocol better.

I wasn't activated, nor would it ever be with a 95% clause; that's the reason for trying to rewrite history and/or do end-arounds to get it in at "80%" (which is still ridiculous).
99% of the FUD and paranoia is sown to herd sheep into joining the "well, everyone else is going to do it so I should too" mentality (kinda like back when you asked new signups on MySpace why they joined and their answer was "because everyone is on MySpace").

[dinofelis]

What makes you think that people are going to dump their *original bitcoins* to buy the new altcoin, and they didn't do that with the existing litecoin ?

The very same thing which makes Ver&WU to think that people gonna name their alt as "bitcoin".

That's for people to decide and we will never know unless it happens and trust me it will happen. There will be many forms of bitcoin and only one of them will bear the "bitcoin" name.

In fact, Ver and Wu's coin have more chance to ever be called "bitcoin", because the *actual bitcoin miners might decide to give up on the original, and switch to the new one, abandoning the original one and lowering its hash rate*.  However, with a PoW changing HF, all the current bitcoin miners will continue to mine bitcoin, with the same hash rate.  Because that's all they can do with their hardware !

It would BTW be funny to see the new bitcoin and the amount of PoW that goes with it.  Bitcoin has been marketeered as super more valuable because it had the most PoW and was the safest chain (this is somewhat bullshit, but it is part of the bitcoin dogma's and one of the reasons why bitcoiners think bitcoin is for ever superior to any other crypto currency).   If you invent a totally new PoW scheme, of course, in the beginning, there won't be much proof of work as compared to the original one !  If it is a GPU based algorithm, chances are that it will be largely inferior in cryptographic security than the original chain.  How to convince people to leave  behind "the  most secure chain ever", to jump to some totally new thing that could be 51% attacked at any moment (for instance, by ETH miners).  What if someone (bitmain) has actually an army of ASICS that haven't seen the market and takes over all the hash rate ?

When Asics took over from GPU and FPGA in bitcoin's history, the chain wasn't worth as much as today, and code was centralized on Core.  Can you imagine the impact if there's essentially a hardware monopolist that fully takes over the new chain ?

In fact, you could do such a fork, and "true bitcoin" might not even be aware of it !  There's strictly no reason to suddenly start naming the original bitcoin, which happily continues to function, something else, because someone forked off an alt coin.  Ethereum was different, because the Ethereum Foundation has its name in a way, and because ethereum didn't change PoW, the original ethereum miners that were mining the original chain (ETC) abandoned largely the original ethereum (ETC) to go to the new one.  Nobody thought that the original ETC would continue to exist, but it did.
With bitcoin, that will not be the case, because *all* bitcoin miners will continue mining bitcoin like before.  The chain will not stop because someone decided to make a different coin.

But all this is theory.  I would like to see the UASF with a change in PoW pulled off and watch what will happen.  I think I know what will happen, but it is always better to do the experimental test.

[hv_]

UnApplicable Satoshi Fork (UASF) will lead to anti Satoshi PoW and unsecure hash power / ranting chain split.

I fear that s not Satoshi bitcoin...

[ComputerGenie]

What will the new, ASIC-free, non-Bitcoin altcoin that they're wanting to turn Bitcoin into be called and what symbol will it have (since Bitcoin and BTC are already taken)? 

[Decoded]

Whatever. So should we expect 300,000 TX backlog next time?

A large backlog will be the least of our problems if we end up with two evenly split chains. It'll be Ethereum all over again, but even worse. Imagine the effects. Huge price fluctuations, many bitcoin sites glitching out, older applications breaking, incompatible with the two forks, and the struggle of bitcoin to gain recognition as a single entity, rather than two.

[gentlemand]

A large backlog will be the least of our problems if we end up with two evenly split chains. It'll be Ethereum all over again, but even worse. Imagine the effects. Huge price fluctuations, many bitcoin sites glitching out, older applications breaking, incompatible with the two forks, and the struggle of bitcoin to gain recognition as a single entity, rather than two.

For starters I don't think it would be anywhere near an even split. Positions will clarified if it looks like it's actually going to happen. That's what squishalised Unlimited in the end.

They can wander off and do their own thing by all means. Everyone else will carry on trucking. It's no longer contentious, it's a weird little offshoot.

[The One]

People talking about UASF POW change and the BTC price plummets... coincidence or not?

[BillyBobZorton]

But this is already the case. ... and some thick useless wall o' text.

We know that.

That's why we propose not UASF only but UASF + PoW change, what did you think... Current situation with the miners is problematic. Their power levels need to be re-adjusted.

Changing the POW.... at your own peril. You do not understand. You think there are 10 to 20 miners. Nope. A pool may have 1k to 30k workers (also miners) and do you think all these workers are going to support dippy twats from making their mining equipment useless.

No son, it is you who don't understand. When the PoW algo changes, their support will become meaningless, because they will be out of business and the whole game will be restarting from the ground zero. (except for the lucky gpu rig owners)

he will be out of bissuness and someone else in the future will take his place. Changing the pow only to remove one miner is like a socialist government action and has no place to ancap, anarchist bitcoin system.
Bitcoin system must balance itself even with malicious miners. It has the utilities to do it. price drops etc.

Bitmain owns the patents of ASICBOOST and they will do whatever it takes to protect their investments, even if leads to miner centralization. Changing the PoW algo will simply prevent that happening and home mining will be available to everyone again. It is that simple.

Check this out: https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/868157561488367616

Pathetic.

We just need segwit via softfork to kill covert ASICBOOST, which is why Jihad Wu is doing everything he can to not activate segwit by softfork. He tried BU, failed, he tried segwit+2MB all in one HF mess, failed.

Now he will either accept defeat and activate segwit via SF or he will go bankrupt via UASF.

[ComputerGenie]

People talking about UASF POW change and the BTC price plummets... coincidence or not?

Like I told someone on a different thread, with all this bullshit, I'm not sure how it ever got over $1,200 to begin with.  

[ComputerGenie]

We just need segwit via softfork to kill covert ASICBOOST...

Or we could just have the tinfoil-hat brigade stop spreading FUD of imaginary conspiracies about things they can't prove....

The real irony is that 99.999999% of the people spreading imaginary tales of anti-ASICBOOST woe don't even know how ASICBOOST works (because they've never seen it in action) or what it is (because they didn't even read the public whitepaper).  

[Nagadota]

People talking about UASF POW change and the BTC price plummets... coincidence or not?

The Bitcoin price right now is almost completely unrelated to anything.  It's mostly just long-term speculation and, in some cases, failure to do long-term speculation.  It hasn't even fell in the past week or two, it just rose so much that it had to correct itself.

[dinofelis]

For starters I don't think it would be anywhere near an even split. Positions will clarified if it looks like it's actually going to happen. That's what squishalised Unlimited in the end.

There's a world of difference between a HF that keeps the same hardware for PoW, and hence has two coins that compete for the same miner resources ; and a HF that changes PoW, and hence, leaves the full original PoW to the original coin and needs to install *new* miners on the *new* PoW.  

A HF can kill the original by siphoning its miners and by overwhelming it in the market if they keep the same PoW.
However, I have to say that I do not see the difference between:

case A)  make a HF from bitcoin that is litecoin-bis, hope that bitcoin owners are going to dump all their bitcoin to buy litecoin-bis.

case B) consider that litecoin exists, and hope that bitcoin owners are going to dump all their bitcoin to buy litecoin.

What's the difference ?

There are a few differences between scenario A and B:
1) the moral authority of Core, that is now calling to dump bitcoin and buy litecoin-bis (but why don't they do this for litecoin-original then ?)
2) linked to (1): the belief that if Core is behind it, it will be the valuable thing
3) the fact of organizing this "all together" to make a major dump of bitcoin, and a major pump of litecoin-bis (but then, why not do this with the original litecoin ?)

[dinofelis]

People talking about UASF POW change and the BTC price plummets... coincidence or not?

The Bitcoin price right now is almost completely unrelated to anything.  It's mostly just long-term speculation and, in some cases, failure to do long-term speculation.  It hasn't even fell in the past week or two, it just rose so much that it had to correct itself.

Bitcoin's price is, from the very beginning, completely unrelated to anything.  Bitcoin's price has almost NEVER been driven by 'demand for usage'.  It has always been long-term speculation ("moon when all people will buy their coffee with bitcoin, and I'm an early adopter").

[cellard]

Remember that VIAcoin didn't look at what segwit actually does months later after FUDding it. The miners are complete idiots when it comes to technology, all they can do is keep staking fees and keep monopolizing the mining game.

They have been given the option to end the possible clusterfuck of UASF, but they have refused to do so.

Well then brace for impact because UASF is coming. Segwit is getting in like it or not.

[Gyrsur]

Remember that VIAcoin didn't look at what segwit actually does months later after FUDding it. The miners are complete idiots when it comes to technology, all they can do is keep staking fees and keep monopolizing the mining game.

They have been given the option to end the possible clusterfuck of UASF, but they have refused to do so.

Well then brace for impact because UASF is coming. Segwit is getting in like it or not.

here we go --> www.uasfguide.com

[dinofelis]

Remember that VIAcoin didn't look at what segwit actually does months later after FUDding it. The miners are complete idiots when it comes to technology, all they can do is keep staking fees and keep monopolizing the mining game.

They have been given the option to end the possible clusterfuck of UASF, but they have refused to do so.

Well then brace for impact because UASF is coming. Segwit is getting in like it or not.

here we go --> www.uasfguide.com

This is going to be very funny to watch if they pull the trigger.   I surely hope they do, because I like this kind of experiments !  BTW, I think the quoted text is very misleading because it doesn't consider many probable scenarios. 
The text is thinking that the only economically motivated entities are miners, that are subject to the  severity of users and exchanges, but that exchanges are oblivious to making profit from listing both bitcoins, and that users are oblivious to risking their transactions not being valid after a re-arrangement of chains.  They believe that no users are going to be willing to buy somewhat cheaper legacy bitcoins from miners, starving non-segwit miners to death ; while segwit-forked users won't be scared to lose their funds if their chain is abandoned.

This is why I really would like this thing to happen: surprises almost guaranteed.