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

[ComputerGenie]

"hijacked in a bait-and-switch."
Much like the bait-and-switch idea that we have any choice through any actual consensus "vote" about segwit other than when it's implemented. 

[1714879414]

1714879414

[1714879414]

1714879414

[-ck]

"hijacked in a bait-and-switch."
Much like the bait-and-switch idea that we have any choice through any actual consensus "vote" about segwit other than when it's implemented. 

Not sure why you bring that up, core's position is segwit first before anything and everything else; I don't see why you expect them to offer anything else, it shouldn't even be a discussion point by now (at least not on this thread.)

[mindrust]

And now I have to retract my comments about the segwit2x COOP options being proposed as not being rejected. Many of the core developers are starting to weigh in on the debate with a formal opinion on it and so far no one has agreed to it:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

Comments like this explain why they're not agreeing to it:
https://twitter.com/eric_lombrozo/status/873482749755088896
"Specifically, I believe the project got hijacked in a bait-and-switch."

Which means we do not have a consensus of any kind on any solution on the table yet that has both core and minerJihan support.

I don't think BIP148 will get any meaningful support in time for Aug1 so I'm guessing they're still hoping miners will buckle before November for the original segwit activation...?

https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/873697372425072640

The solution is very clear.

Lucky Luke will change the PoW algo after we get Segwit with UASF and we are going to get rid of the cancer miners forever. He has my and many other's full support on this roadmap.

[ComputerGenie]

They going to call it "LDashCoin" or "LiteCoinLight"? 

[CoinCube]

And now I have to retract my comments about the segwit2x COOP options being proposed as not being rejected. Many of the core developers are starting to weigh in on the debate with a formal opinion on it and so far no one has agreed to it:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

Comments like this explain why they're not agreeing to it:
https://twitter.com/eric_lombrozo/status/873482749755088896
"Specifically, I believe the project got hijacked in a bait-and-switch."

Which means we do not have a consensus of any kind on any solution on the table yet that has both core and minerJihan support.

I don't think BIP148 will get any meaningful support in time for Aug1 so I'm guessing they're still hoping miners will buckle before November for the original segwit activation...?

Well that's disappointing but not entirely surprising.
There are too many people in the community on both sides of this dispute who still feel this issue can be resolved by force instead of the painful process of building a broad consensus for change.

After BIP148 fails just like the hostile miner forks failed and once it becomes clear to all that November is going to come and go without activation of the existing implementation maybe the declining BTC market dominance will spur  people to soften their positions and we can get something more promising in the next implementation?

[-ck]

And now I have to retract my comments about the segwit2x COOP options being proposed as not being rejected. Many of the core developers are starting to weigh in on the debate with a formal opinion on it and so far no one has agreed to it:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

Comments like this explain why they're not agreeing to it:
https://twitter.com/eric_lombrozo/status/873482749755088896
"Specifically, I believe the project got hijacked in a bait-and-switch."

Which means we do not have a consensus of any kind on any solution on the table yet that has both core and minerJihan support.

I don't think BIP148 will get any meaningful support in time for Aug1 so I'm guessing they're still hoping miners will buckle before November for the original segwit activation...?

https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/873697372425072640

The solution is very clear.

Lucky Luke will change the PoW algo after we get Segwit with UASF and we are going to get rid of the cancer miners forever. He has my and many other's full support on this roadmap.

As I've said multiple times before, no it is not remotely clear based on existing support. Everyone is reading too much reddit which is making things look simple through feedback loops of people convincing each other without looking at the big picture. Don't believe the "it doesn't matter how little support it has, it can't fail by design" bullshit. Sure a forked chain with no one supporting it that can't ever reconnect with the existing chain can't ever be killed off with UASF, but then it can also simply remain as a zombie chain forever with <1% hashrate. If it got support of say 25% of the hashrate it would be a far more meaningful alternative. If you think that changing PoW as a way of increasing its relevance is the solution, then I think you need to seriously take a long hard think about how we got to where we are in terms of current bitcoin acceptance, value, perceived stability and future prospects. If you're willing to sacrifice all that on some overarching principle, then you should also accept that bitcoin's relevance as by far the most relevant cryptocurrency will never again be achieved.　Following Luke-jr standing alone of all people would be madness...

[-ck]

After BIP148 fails just like the hostile miner forks failed and once it becomes clear to all that November is going to come and go without activation of the existing implementation maybe the declining BTC market dominance will spur  people to soften their positions and we can get something more promising in the next implementation

Not sure, but there still is a bit of a scramble to push for a lower threshold activation of 80% before August 1, though I have no idea how they're going to get support for it that quickly even if it is ready. Some of the miners allege to be against the current segwit activation because the threshold is too high but then none of that matters without Jihan and his combined slave/cronies/faked personas agreeing to it. I've tried to point this out to some of the people in the discussions but they don't see it the way I do, and that is: some core devs are currently working hard to circumvent a change from activating from other core devs...

[mindrust]

This is madness...

No...



How we get here was itself problematic. How can a group of miners use a patented software on their hardware in an open source project while the other miners cannot?

Isn't this unfair to the other miners?

[-ck]

How we get here was itself problematic. How can a group of miners use a patented software on their hardware in an open source project while the other miners cannot?

Isn't this unfair to the other miners?

It's been discussed to death and the results of meaningful statistics largely ignored. This is again the reddit effect I'm afraid. Miners have never used the overt feature which leaves a trail and there is no evidence of them having used the covert feature though it theoretically could be possible to hide it well enough for it to not be spotted. Since I know the quality of code from bitmain, I can guarantee you they're not smart enough to be doing the latter. Additionally, and this is the one thing most people neglect, is that the profits from trying to build in use of the covert feature would be pitifully small compared to the overall profits of mining in the first place making using covert asicboost not worth the effort required to do so. An unfair advantage? Yes I agree it is inappropriate IF USED, which it isn't, and if it led to some massive profits, which it doesn't. The emphasis on it as though it's the reason bitmain is blocking segwit is marketing in my opinion. This is coming from me, a segwit advocate, but I also happen to be informed about the mining world.

[mindrust]

How we get here was itself problematic. How can a group of miners use a patented software on their hardware in an open source project while the other miners cannot?

Isn't this unfair to the other miners?

It's been discussed to death and the results of meaningful statistics largely ignored. This is again the reddit effect I'm afraid. Miners have never used the overt feature which leaves a trail and there is no evidence of them having used the covert feature though it theoretically could be possible to hide it well enough for it to not be spotted. Since I know the quality of code from bitmain, I can guarantee you they're not smart enough to be doing the latter. Additionally, and this is the one thing most people neglect, is that the profits from trying to build in use of the covert feature would be pitifully small compared to the overall profits of mining in the first place making using covert asicboost not worth the effort required to do so. An unfair advantage? Yes I agree it is inappropriate IF USED, which it isn't, and if it led to some massive profits, which it doesn't. The emphasis on it as though it's the reason bitmain is blocking segwit is marketing in my opinion. This is coming from me, a segwit advocate, but I also happen to be informed about the mining world.

How can you ignore the fact that it is that patented software creates the miner monopoly. There isn't a single company other than bitmain which sells their products to home miners! Because Bitmain will crush them instantly with their ASICBOOST!

Those who produce miners for themselves are also melting away with every day! For ex. Bitfury.

This PoW algo is pure garbage and we need to get rid of it. I believe that, many believe that. You don't? Well you can.

Yes i read reddit a lot and i'm proud of it.

[-ck]

How we get here was itself problematic. How can a group of miners use a patented software on their hardware in an open source project while the other miners cannot?

Isn't this unfair to the other miners?

It's been discussed to death and the results of meaningful statistics largely ignored. This is again the reddit effect I'm afraid. Miners have never used the overt feature which leaves a trail and there is no evidence of them having used the covert feature though it theoretically could be possible to hide it well enough for it to not be spotted. Since I know the quality of code from bitmain, I can guarantee you they're not smart enough to be doing the latter. Additionally, and this is the one thing most people neglect, is that the profits from trying to build in use of the covert feature would be pitifully small compared to the overall profits of mining in the first place making using covert asicboost not worth the effort required to do so. An unfair advantage? Yes I agree it is inappropriate IF USED, which it isn't, and if it led to some massive profits, which it doesn't. The emphasis on it as though it's the reason bitmain is blocking segwit is marketing in my opinion. This is coming from me, a segwit advocate, but I also happen to be informed about the mining world.

How can you ignore the fact that it is that patented software creates the miner monopoly. There isn't a single company other than bitmain which sells their products to home miners! Because Bitmain will crush them instantly with their ASICBOOST!


Yes i read reddit a lot and i'm proud of it.

Well it appears you didn't even read my post then. I assume you're proud of that too?

[mindrust]

Well it appears you didn't even read my post then. I assume you're proud of that too?

Nope, I REDDIT. 

You basically said that you don't believe they are using ASICBOOST and if they did, you would know it.

Great.

Now we have to take your word for Jihan is not cheating. Meh. Not convinced a bit.

[-ck]

Well it appears you didn't even read my post then. I assume you're proud of that too?

Nope, I REDDIT. 

You basically said that you don't believe they are using ASICBOOST and if they did, you would know it.

Great.

Now we have to take your word for Jihan is not cheating. Meh. Not convinced a bit.

Okay let's look at this the other way then. Let's say Jihan the cunt IS using asicboost. Okay? Still with me?

Now if you do an analysis of the power savings provided by asicboost (it does not increase hashrate, it saves power) then if we assume bitmain owns 500PH of current generation S9 mining hardware, then the yearly savings in power amounts to approximately $2M USD (credit to Guy Corem for doing maths). This is the 500PH that is producing say 180 BTC per day, or ~$500,000 USD per day.
Great, so asicboost is "crushing" the opposition by gaining them a rip roaring 1% in profits! Woohoo, kill the bastards!!!

[mindrust]

so asicboost is "crushing" the opposition by gaining them a rip roaring 1% in profits! Woohoo, kill the bastards!!!

Wth man... You made the math yourself and found out that %1 of the total hashpower MAY be being stolen and you are actually fine with it.

There is no small thieves or big thieves. Thievery is thievery.

[-ck]

so asicboost is "crushing" the opposition by gaining them a rip roaring 1% in profits! Woohoo, kill the bastards!!!

Wth man... You made the math yourself and found out that %1 of the total hashpower MAY be being stolen and you are actually fine with it.

There is no small thieves or big thieves. Thievery is thievery.

Wow, just wow. Pools fluctuate by up to 20% per day regularly and you're making 1% a big deal? The reddittors have been claiming 30% hashrate improvement and I've been telling you that's bupkiss. And I said no, I DON'T believe they're doing it anyway, but that's fine. If your mindset is so fixed that you can't see how absurd your logic is getting then I'm wasting my breath.

[CoinCube]

This is madness...

No...



How we get here was itself problematic. How can a group of miners use a patented software on their hardware in an open source project while the other miners cannot?

Isn't this unfair to the other miners?

The photo of the Spartan at war dying while deploying superior violence shouting for UASF is quite telling mindrust.

Regarding demonization of the miners it is a common human failing to try to dehumanize your political opponents as a pretext and attempted justification for employing force against them.

[Rakete4]

Regarding demonization of the miners it is a common human failing to try to dehumanize your political opponents as a pretext and attempted justification for employing force against them.

Demonization of Core-devs happened first. Cool down man, #UASF is just the reaction.

[gmaxwell]

As I've said multiple times before, no it is not remotely clear based on existing support. Everyone is reading too much reddit which is making things look simple through feedback loops of people convincing each other without looking at the big picture. Don't believe the "it doesn't matter how little support it has, it can't fail by design" bullshit. Sure a forked chain with no one supporting it that can't ever reconnect with the existing chain can't ever be killed off with UASF, but then it can also simply remain as a zombie chain forever with <1% hashrate. If it got support of say 25% of the hashrate it would be a far more meaningful alternative. If you think that changing PoW as a way of increasing its relevance is the solution, then I think you need to seriously take a long hard think about how we got to where we are in terms of current bitcoin acceptance, value, perceived stability and future prospects. If you're willing to sacrifice all that on some overarching principle, then you should also accept that bitcoin's relevance as by far the most relevant cryptocurrency will never again be achieved.　Following Luke-jr standing alone of all people would be madness...

I agree.

The only argument that the USAF can't fail by design is just that it's "failure" is to become an altcoin...  but it's fairly dumb way to construct an altcoin.

For 99% of developers if we wanted to construct an altcoin that isn't how we'd go about it, and for 99% of users if you want to use an altcoin there are already many choices.

[Last of the V8s]

As I've said multiple times before, no it is not remotely clear based on existing support. Everyone is reading too much reddit which is making things look simple through feedback loops of people convincing each other without looking at the big picture. Don't believe the "it doesn't matter how little support it has, it can't fail by design" bullshit. Sure a forked chain with no one supporting it that can't ever reconnect with the existing chain can't ever be killed off with UASF, but then it can also simply remain as a zombie chain forever with <1% hashrate. If it got support of say 25% of the hashrate it would be a far more meaningful alternative. If you think that changing PoW as a way of increasing its relevance is the solution, then I think you need to seriously take a long hard think about how we got to where we are in terms of current bitcoin acceptance, value, perceived stability and future prospects. If you're willing to sacrifice all that on some overarching principle, then you should also accept that bitcoin's relevance as by far the most relevant cryptocurrency will never again be achieved.　Following Luke-jr standing alone of all people would be madness...

I agree.

The only argument that the USAF can't fail by design is just that it's "failure" is to become an altcoin...  but it's fairly dumb way to construct an altcoin.

For 99% of developers if we wanted to construct an altcoin that isn't how we'd go about it, and for 99% of users if you want to use an altcoin there are already many choices.

Thanks, you two.

When uasf fails, poor old Luke-jr will get the blame yet again, but for me Barry's actions in all this have been reprehensible and very telling, and Jihan's unaccountable - i don't get his stance (is it Ver's influence?).

fwiw many of the bitcoin twitterati and reddit influencers wear UASF hats less because they support it than to threaten it to frighten miners into signalling differently before August.

which seems unlikely. so we get this:

.. so I'm guessing they're [core devs] still hoping miners will buckle before November for the original segwit activation...?

Hmm, We need core to communicate with Jihan much more than they seem to do.

Send a diplomatic mission over there to explain the facts of life and find a way for him to come out of this with a seeming win to show his fans and backers. He hasn't got that long after November until Intel and AMD wake up. That could be core's stick, and as for the carrot, well maybe leave Luke with him.

[-ck]

When uasf fails, poor old Luke-jr will get the blame yet again, but for me Barry's actions in all this have been reprehensible and very telling, and Jihan's unaccountable - i don't get his stance (is it Ver's influence?).

To be fair, Barry's a capitalist and not an engineer. He was well meaning but I have absolutely no doubts that he had no idea at the time that what the miners agreed to was completely impossible and in fact an aggressive anti-compromise stance. He almost certainly thought he had become the messiah for the bitcoin world in finding a middle ground between core and miners. All the talk of bits and activation and shit would have blown his mind. Additionally, I'm pretty sure some of the mining entities that agreed to it were equally ignorant. The twitter feeds from various sources made it clear they didn't all agree to what they thought they agreed to. Luke didn't start the BIP148 movement but he's become its biggest champion. His motives rarely make any sense to any objective observation of the world so I feel for the people who got caught up in his latest cult.

The only argument that the USAF can't fail by design is just that it's "failure" is to become an altcoin...  but it's fairly dumb way to construct an altcoin.

For 99% of developers if we wanted to construct an altcoin that isn't how we'd go about it, and for 99% of users if you want to use an altcoin there are already many choices.

Pretty much. Thanks for chiming in.