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

[FanatMonet]

BTC SegWit is needed as air, at the moment the transaction fee is too high, the transmission timeout is too long. BTC urgently needs to activate SegWit as soon as possible for the sake of the future BTC.

[ComputerGenie]

BTC SegWit is needed as air, at the moment the transaction fee is too high, the transmission timeout is too long. BTC urgently needs to activate SegWit as soon as possible for the sake of the future BTC.

That should read:

BTC block size increase is as needed as air (either through actual increase or SegWit recalculation), at the moment the transaction fee is too high, the transmission timeout is too long. BTC urgently needs to actually increase the maximum block size or activate SegWit as soon as possible for the sake of the future BTC.

Just sayin'....

[Lauda]

1. litcoin pools are not prioritizing segwit transactions. pools are not even using segwit for their blockrewards.

Nonsensical comparison. Litecoin pools do not need to prioritize these transactions as there is enough block space as is.

2. pools have not prioritised 'lean' tx's over the last 8 years to try getting close to the 7tx/s

Prioritizing lean transactions does not accomplish anything when the average transaction size is much higher.

so again there are no fixes, and it is not simple, nor guaranteed. its all if's and maybe's .. just hope

Wrong. Learn how Segwit works.

you debunked nothing, but you will just get people to cencor posts and try shutting me up purely to make it appear our right by not showing my responses

I debunked you so many times that it's starting to become pointless. You need to be banned from this forum.

yep i know my post will get deleted even if it does not contain substance

Ck, I agree. You should delete all his posts on sight.

[The One]

BTC SegWit is needed as air, at the moment the transaction fee is too high, the transmission timeout is too long. BTC urgently needs to activate SegWit as soon as possible for the sake of the future BTC.

The fact that you equated BTC with air is stupid. Without air, we will die. Without segwit, we will NOT die. Your attempt to promote Segwit through fear was laughable.

[ComputerGenie]

BTC SegWit is needed as air, at the moment the transaction fee is too high, the transmission timeout is too long. BTC urgently needs to activate SegWit as soon as possible for the sake of the future BTC.

The fact that you equated BTC with air is stupid...

I believe the implication was that Bitcoin needs segwit as humans need air (equating segwit with air), not that s/he equated BTC with air. Albeit that I agree with the rest of what you said.  

[The One]

1. litcoin pools are not prioritizing segwit transactions. pools are not even using segwit for their blockrewards.

Nonsensical comparison. Litecoin pools do not need to prioritize these transactions as there is enough block space as is.

2. pools have not prioritised 'lean' tx's over the last 8 years to try getting close to the 7tx/s

Prioritizing lean transactions does not accomplish anything when the average transaction size is much higher.

so again there are no fixes, and it is not simple, nor guaranteed. its all if's and maybe's .. just hope

Wrong. Learn how Segwit works.

you debunked nothing, but you will just get people to cencor posts and try shutting me up purely to make it appear our right by not showing my responses

I debunked you so many times that it's starting to become pointless. You need to be banned from this forum.

yep i know my post will get deleted even if it does not contain substance

Ck, I agree. You should delete all his posts on sight.

Oh come on... that doesn't help.

[-ck]

Ck, I agree. You should delete all his posts on sight.

Oh come on... that doesn't help.

Really? Explain how franky1's endless anti-core, anti-segwit, anti-blockstream mindless diatribe that is debunked over and over has anything to do with the miner agreement this thread is about? Don't worry - you can read thousands of his posts on anything to do with the above in thousands of other threads here if you're that way inclined.

@Franky1, your posts are not welcome on this thread and should you continue to post you might qualify yourself for a well overdue ban the global mods seem reluctant to give you that you so rightly deserve.

[ComputerGenie]

Off-topic: When you put someone on ignore, does watchlist still show new post for the ignored user's posts? If not, I think I may have found my 1st person to ignore.  

[-ck]

Off-topic: When you put someone on ignore, does watchlist still show new post for the ignored user's posts? If not, I think I may have found my 1st person to ignore.  

The stupid forum keeps showing you new posts even for ignored users.

[The One]

Ck, I agree. You should delete all his posts on sight.

Oh come on... that doesn't help.

Really? Explain how franky1's endless anti-core, anti-segwit, anti-blockstream mindless diatribe that is debunked over and over has anything to do with the miner agreement this thread is about? Don't worry - you can read thousands of his posts on anything to do with the above in thousands of other threads here if you're that way inclined.

People are allowed to be anti something if they want to. That is what freedom of speech is. Segwit, ideas, opinions isn't objective like 2+2=4 that we all can agree on. Many people have voiced their opinion on segwit and don't like it. That's their right to do so. Making threats to ban someone with opposing views, only serves to reinforce other people that you are potentially covering up something... just like politicians.

[ComputerGenie]

People are allowed to be anti something if they want to. That is what freedom of speech is. Segwit, ideas, opinions isn't objective like 2+2=4 that we all can agree on. Many people have voiced their opinion on segwit and don't like it. That's their right to do so. Making threats to ban someone with opposing views, only serves to reinforce other people that you are potentially covering up something... just like politicians.

IMO ... The issue isn't as much as a differing opinion as much as, literally, pasting a post as a "reply" to a rebuff of the 1st time he posted it. As in:
I say 2 paragraphs about "x"
You say " that's not correct because of ....."
I copy my 2 paragraphs and repost them....

[CoinCube]

Interesting Article on Coindesk regarding this debate

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-core-developers-react/

[classicsucks]

Interesting Article on Coindesk regarding this debate

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-core-developers-react/

Interesting. It's surprising to see Core taking such a hard-line stance, as Bitcoin's market share erodes more daily.  Obviously Shillbert is working fist in glove with Blockstream/Core, so perhaps the goal of this whole "debate" and "agreement" is to shift the center of the debate toward Core more. It's just politics, which won't change the technical and economic realities for anyone who is thinking objectively.

Since UASF is essentially suicide, I don't think Core really has any negotiating leverage. They're just not in the position they think they are in...

[CoinCube]

Interesting. It's surprising to see Core taking such a hard-line stance, as Bitcoin's market share erodes more daily.  Obviously Shillbert is working fist in glove with Blockstream/Core, so perhaps the goal of this whole "debate" and "agreement" is to shift the center of the debate toward Core more. It's just politics, which won't change the technical and economic realities for anyone who is thinking objectively.

Since UASF is essentially suicide, I don't think Core really has any negotiating leverage. They're just not in the position they think they are in...

Bitcoin Core is just being conservative. They don't like radical change and they believe everyone should just activate SegWit.

They also appear to favor off-chain scaling and are very concerned about the centralization risk of on-chain scaling as well as the risk of community fracture that comes with any hard fork.

We need to remember to be patient here. Consensus is very hard and takes time as does testing and vetting of code. Bitcoin itself has no inherent value. Its value comes from the consensus network of individuals that transact in and use it. Fracture that network into pieces and the value of the parts will not add up to the whole as scope of possible economic interactions will narrow.

Think of the internet. If the early internet had fractured into a western hemisphere internet and a competing eastern hemisphere internet that used incompatible protocols the overall value and usefulness of the internet as a global communications medium would be reduced.

A fractured bitcoin would damage the core of what bitcoin is. Bitcoin is an overarching consensus system organized around the concept of sound money. Those voluntarily participating in this consensus are required to behave transparently and do work with the ultimate aim of ensuring all network participants abide by the greater consensus. Nodes who choose not to follow the protocol, miners who submit invalid proof of work, and users who try to spend bitcoins without verified private keys, are simply ignored by the greater consensus.

Bitcoin is a form of group selection and group selection entails that group behavior be referenced to something outside the group. This something outside is the concept groups cohere and organize around. It is what they cooperate to promote. In the case of bitcoin the referenced object is the conceptual idea of a sound and ideal money.

The external concept of bitcoin as a sound and ideal money would be significantly damaged by a contentious hard fork that caused a network split. Damaged in such a way the two broken pieces of bitcoin would be worth less then the original as their fundamental essence would now be called into question.
 

[classicsucks]

Interesting. It's surprising to see Core taking such a hard-line stance, as Bitcoin's market share erodes more daily.  Obviously Shillbert is working fist in glove with Blockstream/Core, so perhaps the goal of this whole "debate" and "agreement" is to shift the center of the debate toward Core more. It's just politics, which won't change the technical and economic realities for anyone who is thinking objectively.

Since UASF is essentially suicide, I don't think Core really has any negotiating leverage. They're just not in the position they think they are in...

Bitcoin Core is just being conservative. They don't like radical change and they believe everyone should just activate SegWit.

They also appear to favor off-chain scaling and are very concerned about the centralization risk of on-chain scaling as well as the risk of community fracture that comes with any hard fork.

Those two statements don't really connect logically. Segwit is definitely not conservative - it's a re-org of the entire block structure, support software, and the underlying bitcoin protocol. It's a major deviation from Satoshi's vision.

Also, I see forcing people to second-tier/off-chain solutions as radical. Second-tier and Lightning are an unproven concepts and they're unnecessary at this time.

The conservative approach would've been a 2MB hard fork two years ago, before we got into this high-fees and unconfirmed transaction mess.

[Alvin RS6]

Obviously they will reach agreement, they do anything to keep price higher cause they get more $$$

[Searing]

Obviously they will reach agreement, they do anything to keep price higher cause they get more $$$

Again, imho anything that has 2mb or whatever hardfork, bitcoin core will not do. Claiming it is not
backward compatible like a soft fork. The other side will take nothing less than a hardfork
block size increase.

Both sides are too chicken to fork a split. Thus stalemate. Thus 2 years from now
we will likely be in the same conversation/mess imho.

Each side can stop the other from consensus at any time.

Stalemate.

[CoinCube]

Those two statements don't really connect logically. Segwit is definitely not conservative - it's a re-org of the entire block structure, support software, and the underlying bitcoin protocol. It's a major deviation from Satoshi's vision.

Also, I see forcing people to second-tier/off-chain solutions as radical. Second-tier and Lightning are an unproven concepts and they're unnecessary at this time.

The conservative approach would've been a 2MB hard fork two years ago, before we got into this high-fees and unconfirmed transaction mess.

This is currently in dispute. There is genuine disagreement within the larger community regarding on-chain vs off-chain scaling.

Given this disagreement I favor the halfway measure of allowing both to be tried in parallel in a safe manner without committing us to either. Thus I like this compromise proposal but only if we can build a broad if reluctant consensus around it.

If we can't build a broad consensus I favor the status quo. Better to stalemate with the high fees and the status quo and lose market share then to rush try to force things and fracture bitcoin into pieces.

[2112]

We need to remember to be patient here. Consensus is very hard and takes time as does testing and vetting of code. Bitcoin itself has no inherent value. Its value comes from the consensus network of individuals that transact in and use it. Fracture that network into pieces and the value of the parts will not add up to the whole as scope of possible economic interactions will narrow.

Think of the internet. If the early internet had fractured into a western hemisphere internet and a competing eastern hemisphere internet that used incompatible protocols the overall value and usefulness of the internet as a global communications medium would be reduced.

A fractured bitcoin would damage the core of what bitcoin is. Bitcoin is an overarching consensus system organized around the concept of sound money. Those voluntarily participating in this consensus are required to behave transparently and do work with the ultimate aim of ensuring all network participants abide by the greater consensus. Nodes who choose not to follow the protocol, miners who submit invalid proof of work, and users who try to spend bitcoins without verified private keys, are simply ignored by the greater consensus.

Another attempt at rewriting the history of the Internet.

Consensus was and is quite easy to achieve within the framework of cooperation. Internet didn't split into incompatible islands because from the start the architects intended to cooperate. To debunk comparisons between the Internet and Bitcoin it is sufficient to quote the legacy RFC 1025 "TCP and IP Bake Off":

Procedure

   This is the procedure for the TCP and IP Bake Off.  Each implementor
   of a TCP and IP is to perform the following tests and to report the
   results.  In general, this is done by using a test program or user
   Telnet program to open connections to your own or other TCP
   implementations.

   Some test are made more interesting by the use of a "flakeway".  A
   flakeway is a purposely flakey gateway.  It should have control
   parameters that can be adjusted while it is running to specify a
   percentage of datagrams to be dropped, a percentage of datagrams to
   be corrupted and passed on, and a percentage of datagrams to be
   reordered so that they arrive in a different order than sent.

   Many of the following apply for each distinct TCP contacted (for
   example, in the Middleweight Division there is a possibility of 20
   points for each other TCP in the Bake Off).

   Note Bene: Checksums must be enforced.  No points will be awarded if
   the checksum test is disabled.

      Featherweight Division

         1 point for talking to yourself (opening a connection).

         1 point for saying something to yourself (sending and receiving
         data).

         1 point for gracefully ending the conversation (closing the
         connection without crashing).

         2 points for repeating the above without reinitializing the
         TCP.

         5 points for a complete conversation via the testing gateway.

      Middleweight Division

         2 points for talking to someone else (opening a connection).

         2 points for saying something to someone else (sending and
         receiving data).

         2 points for gracefully ending the conversation (closing the
         connection without crashing).

         4 points for repeating the above without reinitializing the
         TCP.

         10 points for a complete conversation via the testing gateway.

      Heavyweight Division

         10 points for being able to talk to more than one other TCP at
         the same time (multiple connections open and active
         simultaneously with different TCPs).

         10 points for correctly handling urgent data.

         10 points for correctly handling sequence number wraparound.

         10 points for correctly being able to process a "Kamikaze"
         packet (AKA nastygram, christmas tree packet, lamp test
         segment, et al.).  That is, correctly handle a segment with the
         maximum combination of features at once (e.g., a SYN URG PUSH
         FIN segment with options and data).

         30 points for KOing your opponent with legal blows.  (That is,
         operate a connection until one TCP or the other crashes, the
         surviving TCP has KOed the other.  Legal blows are segments
         that meet the requirements of the specification.)

         20 points for KOing your opponent with dirty blows.  (Dirty
         blows are segments that violate the requirements of the
         specification.)

         10 points for showing your opponents checksum test is faulty or
         disabled.

Whereas very early shifted from cooperation to aggression and competition. I don't even really know how the fights started. i first observed it in the intensive and extensive efforts to derail any clone/alt-coins. It then shifted more intensely into internal infighting by derailing any possibility of alternative implementations or even relatively trivial and not externally visible changes like supporting alternate database engines.

Bitcoin is a fine example of "live by the sword, die by the sword".

[CoinCube]

Another attempt at rewriting the history of the Internet.

I have very limited knowledge of the early history of the internet. It was was before my time.
The example was a hypothetical to highlight the importance and value of network effects.
Any relation or lack thereof to actual history was accidental.