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

[Kashim]

well in my opinion when bitcoin forks, its done. no one will trust bitcoin anymore.

[ComputerGenie]

well in my opinion when bitcoin forks, its done. no one will trust bitcoin anymore.

Bitcoin is a protocol; it's never "done". Even if everyone in the world left Bitcoin tomorrow, the protocol lives on through infinity (because that's how protocols work).

[mindrust]

In the next week or two I will have my node up and running. Not it makes much difference but I will be using that node to oppose whichever party is first to try to "force" this issue. If that is BIP148 I will be running a non UASF node. If it is a contentions miner hardfork then I will support of whatever proof-of-work change or other countermeasures are deployed in response.

One thing about the bitcoin network is its resilience against being forced to change. The consensus system has proven itself time and time again. It's my opinion that you need not worry as any group trying to force change will fail as has been demonstrated in the past. UASF via BIP148 will be a spectacular failure and consequently the enthusiasm for UASF will likely dwindle along with it. I'm pretty sure that if support stays at <1% hashrate on August1, and pools running UASF will frantically pull out to avoid mining on a dead end chain. Additionally the miners won't be forcing a hardfork as they haven't even begun doing any code, nor have coders, for their Silbert fork. At this stage I'm willing to bet segwit2X will be the way out. There doesn't seem any significant opposition to it any more.

How can you be so sure? Bitcoin is doomed with Bitmain and the current PoW method. Bitmain is the only ASIC producer company which sells miners to home users. I check the pool numbers from time to time and BU supporting pools gain power with everyday!

https://blockchain.info/pools

AntPool: %17.5
BTC.TOP: %11.9
BTC.com: %8.1
Bitcoin.com: %0.9
ViaBtc: %4.2

Total: %42.6

And you say this is perfectly fine and safe?

[ComputerGenie]

...[FUD FUD and more FUD]...

Don't you ever get tired of spreading delusional lies and myths? 

[pokapeski]

well in my opinion when bitcoin forks, its done. no one will trust bitcoin anymore.

I agree with you.

I do some modest mining, but before you guys start insulting at me...
Current transactions are crazy, miners should be able to make the better chunk out transactions when we get closer to the end of the coinbase system in 100 years not now. Something must be done to avoid the Tx-feest we saw in May. It was bad and damaging for bitcoin despite the opened champagne bottles that some miners might have uncorked during that frenzy week.

a hardfork is absolutely tragic for every one. it´s very hard to build confidence out of ignorance about this magic geek money among the general public that doesn´t need to know anything else than it's a good asset tool. Building confidence in bitcoin after a hardfork and a much announced devaluation it would be close to impossible, it would give the perfect excuse for monetary authorities all over the world to legislate against bitcoin based on the money lost by millions that started to flock in this scheme as it will be declared. the tulip metaphore will come back to refer to bitcoin. in the best case scenario it would take decades to build up interest to recover the price as we have it today.
No one will profit from this.

I do hope some compromise is found.

Let me also add something, to my own embarrasement even, I was voting in my pool for Core version - do nothing about anything. The reason for it was that me, as many others, especially the biggest part of those starting in the last year attracted by the good rates, we know about mining, a bit, but anytime I try to read a BIP stuff, with barely no pictures in it, I get dizzy. It might be that, other than the big players, many new miners do not quite get the full consecuences of going for BIP148 or BOP33. The importance is relative maybe based on the voting power of plebeian miners but I also think that the big miners are not the only problem in the mining community stubornness. I think that many many miners lack the information to make a sensible decision on this matter. Anyhow, this last piece is just an impression of mine.

[-ck]

In the next week or two I will have my node up and running. Not it makes much difference but I will be using that node to oppose whichever party is first to try to "force" this issue. If that is BIP148 I will be running a non UASF node. If it is a contentions miner hardfork then I will support of whatever proof-of-work change or other countermeasures are deployed in response.

One thing about the bitcoin network is its resilience against being forced to change. The consensus system has proven itself time and time again. It's my opinion that you need not worry as any group trying to force change will fail as has been demonstrated in the past. UASF via BIP148 will be a spectacular failure and consequently the enthusiasm for UASF will likely dwindle along with it. I'm pretty sure that if support stays at <1% hashrate on August1, and pools running UASF will frantically pull out to avoid mining on a dead end chain. Additionally the miners won't be forcing a hardfork as they haven't even begun doing any code, nor have coders, for their Silbert fork. At this stage I'm willing to bet segwit2X will be the way out. There doesn't seem any significant opposition to it any more.

How can you be so sure? Bitcoin is doomed with Bitmain and the current PoW method. Bitmain is the only ASIC producer company which sells miners to home users. I check the pool numbers from time to time and BU supporting pools gain power with everyday!

https://blockchain.info/pools

AntPool: %17.5
BTC.TOP: %11.9
BTC.com: %8.1
Bitcoin.com: %0.9
ViaBtc: %4.2

Total: %42.6

And you say this is perfectly fine and safe?

You're describing the current state paying no deference to intent. BU has not been "gaining power" for months - the hashrate has remained the same based on pool support all that time and variance is the only reason % changes. It's been dead in the water since this "miner agreement"; the pools just haven't changed from what they're currently signalling since they have nothing new to signal yet and every time they change their mind and signal something else they're effectively going back on their previous allegiance.  PoW is here to stay, yes bitmain makes all the hardware but changing PoW would actually be the death knell for bitcoin. Bitmain doesn't have as much power as they think they have - the response to Jihan's call to arms was proof of this, even if they make all the hardware. Except for Roger Ver, whose motives might be related to raising the value of altcoins in preference to bitcoin, the miners aren't willing to destroy their own industry just to spite the users. That they came to an agreement of segwit+2MB is evidence of that fact already. Core is basically working on giving them what they want now which also suits users, core, exchanges and businesses so what disaster do you actually perceive here should PoW remain and bitmain continue making most of the hardware and we don't get a user forced minority MASF (which is what BIP148 is doing)?

[ComputerGenie]

Poor Canaan, so forgotten and unloved. 

[-ck]

Poor Canaan, so forgotten and unloved.  

Love them, but they're tiny. I have a few Canaan contacts and I asked them for an official position too and they seem to have decided to not have a position at all...

[CoinCube]

One thing about the bitcoin network is its resilience against being forced to change. The consensus system has proven itself time and time again. It's my opinion that you need not worry as any group trying to force change will fail as has been demonstrated in the past. UASF via BIP148 will be a spectacular failure and consequently the enthusiasm for UASF will likely dwindle along with it. I'm pretty sure that if support stays at <1% hashrate on August1, and pools running UASF will frantically pull out to avoid mining on a dead end chain. Additionally the miners won't be forcing a hardfork as they haven't even begun doing any code, nor have coders, for their Silbert fork. At this stage I'm willing to bet segwit2X will be the way out. There doesn't seem any significant opposition to it any more.

Very good news. 

[dinofelis]

In the next week or two I will have my node up and running. Not it makes much difference but I will be using that node to oppose whichever party is first to try to "force" this issue. If that is BIP148 I will be running a non UASF node. If it is a contentions miner hardfork then I will support of whatever proof-of-work change or other countermeasures are deployed in response.

One thing about the bitcoin network is its resilience against being forced to change. The consensus system has proven itself time and time again. It's my opinion that you need not worry as any group trying to force change will fail as has been demonstrated in the past. UASF via BIP148 will be a spectacular failure and consequently the enthusiasm for UASF will likely dwindle along with it. I'm pretty sure that if support stays at <1% hashrate on August1, and pools running UASF will frantically pull out to avoid mining on a dead end chain. Additionally the miners won't be forcing a hardfork as they haven't even begun doing any code, nor have coders, for their Silbert fork. At this stage I'm willing to bet segwit2X will be the way out. There doesn't seem any significant opposition to it any more.

There's indeed not much "user" in UASF.  This is why I would like it to get pulled.  It would finally demonstrate that.

[classicsucks]

In the next week or two I will have my node up and running. Not it makes much difference but I will be using that node to oppose whichever party is first to try to "force" this issue. If that is BIP148 I will be running a non UASF node. If it is a contentions miner hardfork then I will support of whatever proof-of-work change or other countermeasures are deployed in response.

One thing about the bitcoin network is its resilience against being forced to change. The consensus system has proven itself time and time again. It's my opinion that you need not worry as any group trying to force change will fail as has been demonstrated in the past. UASF via BIP148 will be a spectacular failure and consequently the enthusiasm for UASF will likely dwindle along with it. I'm pretty sure that if support stays at <1% hashrate on August1, and pools running UASF will frantically pull out to avoid mining on a dead end chain. Additionally the miners won't be forcing a hardfork as they haven't even begun doing any code, nor have coders, for their Silbert fork. At this stage I'm willing to bet segwit2X will be the way out. There doesn't seem any significant opposition to it any more.

I doubt they'll even mine a single UASF block. UASF is a smoke screen for the people who want to ram Core's agenda home via a "compromise". It's just an idea to make the Core roadmap seem less radical - all technical people know it can't actually work.

[25hashcoin]

Barry tweet on segwit2x progress: https://mobile.twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/873167754685292544

[Gyrsur]

In the next week or two I will have my node up and running. Not it makes much difference but I will be using that node to oppose whichever party is first to try to "force" this issue. If that is BIP148 I will be running a non UASF node. If it is a contentions miner hardfork then I will support of whatever proof-of-work change or other countermeasures are deployed in response.

One thing about the bitcoin network is its resilience against being forced to change. The consensus system has proven itself time and time again. It's my opinion that you need not worry as any group trying to force change will fail as has been demonstrated in the past. UASF via BIP148 will be a spectacular failure and consequently the enthusiasm for UASF will likely dwindle along with it. I'm pretty sure that if support stays at <1% hashrate on August1, and pools running UASF will frantically pull out to avoid mining on a dead end chain. Additionally the miners won't be forcing a hardfork as they haven't even begun doing any code, nor have coders, for their Silbert fork. At this stage I'm willing to bet segwit2X will be the way out. There doesn't seem any significant opposition to it any more.

I doubt they'll even mine a single UASF block. UASF is a smoke screen for the people who want to ram Core's agenda home via a "compromise". It's just an idea to make the Core roadmap seem less radical - all technical people know it can't actually work.

there are BIP148 blocks already. the difference is that they are part of the main blockchain until 08/01/2017.

https://slushpool.com/stats/?c=btc

[ComputerGenie]

...there are BIP148 blocks already....

There are? Care to link to one?

[Gyrsur]

...there are BIP148 blocks already....

There are? Care to link to one?

all blocks which are signal for BIP141 (SegWit) are 100% BIP148 blocks already because BIP148 full nodes will only accept these blocks on their Bitcoin blockchain after 08/01/2017.

they are among us.

[ComputerGenie]

...all blocks which are signal for BIP141 (SegWit) are 100% BIP148 blocks...

Nice hijack concept and a great way to render consensus invalid. 

[Gyrsur]

...all blocks which are signal for BIP141 (SegWit) are 100% BIP148 blocks...

Nice hijack concept and a great way to render consensus invalid.  

which consensus you have in mind? --> https://coin.dance/poli

[ComputerGenie]

...which consensus you have in mind?...

The one where if you can't get enough consensus by the original concept date, you accept it and move on? 

[Gyrsur]

...which consensus you have in mind?...

The one where if you can't get enough consensus by the original concept date, you accept it and move on? 

move on in the way of the last two years with scaling? 

[-ck]

...there are BIP148 blocks already....

There are? Care to link to one?

all blocks which are signal for BIP141 (SegWit) are 100% BIP148 blocks already because BIP148 full nodes will only accept these blocks on their Bitcoin blockchain after 08/01/2017.

they are among us.

Nonsense. After another non-segwit block is built on any BIP141 blocks, the segwit pools will still mine on top of those and even when they find new segwit blocks, they'll be built on top of non-segwit blocks so only the very first short chain of segwit blocks will be considered by BIP148 and then it will be left in the cold while any remaining BIP148 pools try to build on those first blocks. BIP148 doesn't need a miner majority to build a chain, but it needs a decent sized miner minority which it still doesn't have.