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

[ComputerGenie]

...Note the naming similarities and that they are similarly radical concepts of UASF and UAHF..

Yeah, who would have thunk that acronyms discussing two concepts in user activated forking of a protocol would be similar, with the exception of the one dissimilar word they have in concept/function?  

[1714848215]

1714848215

[1714848215]

1714848215

[1714848215]

1714848215

[1714848215]

1714848215

[-ck]

From my perspective (no need to correct me on this), it seems that the well-funded actors in this drama are sticking to their guns. Core/Blockstream is stuck on "waiting forever for Segwit, which will likely never come", Bitmain is advocating for "increase blocksize or else", and the Lukejr army is opting for "we willz force Segwit through no matter what". Unlimited is quietly chugging along with 40%+ support, with no recent major drama.

There is plenty of need to correct you on this since you're completely wrong.

You're really missing the significance of segwit2x. There is no doubt that the main players advertising segwit2x will adopt it. The code already does exist and is complete and they're calling it alpha simply because it hasn't undergone full testing yet. There is at least one pool that has activated its segwit enabling component from the code and is signalling bit4. There is no reason to believe they will back out now barring a major bug showing up. The reason for the rushed schedule for the segwit component is that they're determined to undermine BIP148 from functioning which is why they all start signalling one diff period before BIP148's activation date. Lukejr's army is a mixture of people who actually believe in BIP148 being a workable mechanism and people who just know they must keep pressure on to not let the miners back out of the segwit component of segwit2x.

Core is going to get its BIP141 original segwit activation through a fucked up convoluted secondary and tertiary messaging approach invented by the mining consortium so saying "waiting forever for segwit which will likely never come" is completely missing the point of segwit2x since it definitely WILL come and almost certainly hopeful thinking from a BU supporter. The fact you're reproducing my words for what the significance of BU is in light of the current situation and applying them to segwit says it all. Thinking otherwise now is nothing short of faith against all logic and reason. Either way if you keep believing otherwise you can see for yourself come mid-July.

As I said before, what core IS facing that goes against its plans that they have no contingency for is the 2MB hard fork after segwit activation months later. I have no idea how that's going to play out. A fixed 2MB hard fork in the segwit2x code however goes against EC as well so if you still think EC is relevant based on the 40% coinbase signatures at present then you're saying they will adopt the emergent approach to block size after 2MB is locked in to allow even larger blocks, or maybe switch back to smaller ones. Not sure why they'd bother with a hard fork to 2MB if they planned to switch to a flexible block size hard fork as well... Furthermore once segwit is locked in, the code is completely incompatible with BU.

[classicsucks]

From my perspective (no need to correct me on this), it seems that the well-funded actors in this drama are sticking to their guns. Core/Blockstream is stuck on "waiting forever for Segwit, which will likely never come", Bitmain is advocating for "increase blocksize or else", and the Lukejr army is opting for "we willz force Segwit through no matter what". Unlimited is quietly chugging along with 40%+ support, with no recent major drama.

There is plenty of need to correct you on this since you're completely wrong.

You're really missing the significance of segwit2x. There is no doubt that the main players advertising segwit2x will adopt it. The code already does exist and is complete and they're calling it alpha simply because it hasn't undergone full testing yet. There is at least one pool that has activated its segwit enabling component from the code and is signalling bit4. There is no reason to believe they will back out now barring a major bug showing up. The reason for the rushed schedule for the segwit component is that they're determined to undermine BIP148 from functioning which is why they all start signalling one diff period before BIP148's activation date. Lukejr's army is a mixture of people who actually believe in BIP148 being a workable mechanism and people who just know they must keep pressure on to not let the miners back out of the segwit component of segwit2x.

Core is going to get its BIP141 original segwit activation through a fucked up convoluted secondary and tertiary messaging approach invented by the mining consortium so saying "waiting forever for segwit which will likely never come" is completely missing the point of segwit2x since it definitely WILL come and almost certainly hopeful thinking from a BU supporter. The fact you're reproducing my words for what the significance of BU is in light of the current situation and applying them to segwit says it all. Thinking otherwise now is nothing short of faith against all logic and reason. Either way if you keep believing otherwise you can see for yourself come mid-July.

As I said before, what core IS facing that goes against its plans that they have no contingency for is the 2MB hard fork after segwit activation months later. I have no idea how that's going to play out. A fixed 2MB hard fork in the segwit2x code however goes against EC as well so if you still think EC is relevant based on the 40% coinbase signatures at present then you're saying they will adopt the emergent approach to block size after 2MB is locked in to allow even larger blocks, or maybe switch back to smaller ones. Not sure why they'd bother with a hard fork to 2MB if they planned to switch to a flexible block size hard fork as well... Furthermore once segwit is locked in, the code is completely incompatible with BU.

OK well then maybe you can explain to me how Segwit2x will be adopted with 40% BU/EC miner support?  And 37.5% of the blocks supporting EC? And no outreach to the public whatsoever? With complete silence from Core devs?

Next, what's to prevent Core fanbois from convincing everyone to run the hastily prepared Segwit2x, then after Segwit is adopted, drop another release that doesn't hard fork to 2MB? Do you think the miners will fall for the "bait and switch" tactic used in Hong Kong again? Finally, what makes you think that the miners won't just flag this Segwit 2x support in their headers (it took 10 seconds of work) until the UASF guys lose all of their steam?

I'm starting to think this forum is just an echo chamber for bickering... there must be a better source of information elsewhere.

[classicsucks]

...Note the naming similarities and that they are similarly radical concepts of UASF and UAHF..

Yeah, who would have thunk that acronyms discussing two concepts in user activated forking of a protocol would be similar, with the exception of the one dissimilar word they have in concept/function?  

Yeah, which have virtually no similarities in implementation or outcome?

Who else activates anything besides users? It's a euphemism pretending to support Core's holy grail - "decentralization".

[Sadlife]

Mining pools are not idiots to agree to sonething that will compromise the crypto currency that their making profit with the planned implementation of segwit im sure they're also thinking for bitcoin's some part of our decentralization might be sacrifice but it is worth the risk to forward from the scaling solution and this one will benefit us in all long term. Some mining pool have already activated it with no reported bugs or flaws, i forgot the name i think it's bit4 or something and this has been implemented also in an altcoin called altcoin but it wont be implemented unless all options has been exhausted let's wait and see.

[-ck]

OK well then maybe you can explain to me how Segwit2x will be adopted with 40% BU/EC miner support?  And 37.5% of the blocks supporting EC? And no outreach to the public whatsoever? With complete silence from Core devs?

Next, what's to prevent Core fanbois from convincing everyone to run the hastily prepared Segwit2x, then after Segwit is adopted, drop another release that doesn't hard fork to 2MB? Do you think the miners will fall for the "bait and switch" tactic used in Hong Kong again? Finally, what makes you think that the miners won't just flag this Segwit 2x support in their headers (it took 10 seconds of work) until the UASF guys lose all of their steam?

I'm starting to think this forum is just an echo chamber for bickering... there must be a better source of information elsewhere.

I tried. You seem incapable or not interested in understanding so I'll just add you to my list of "faith" people incapable of understanding basic logic worth putting on ignore (done).  You don't like this forum? Great! Go elsewhere and find the wisdom you seek which will support your faith. I suggest r/btc .

[bitcoinchaser]

Bitcoin users will know more once SegWit2x signaling moves a step further.
In the meantime, the network reached the 80% signaling threshold. If signaling moves forward,
BIP148 might become redundant as well, but this is not yet certain. Users must keep on monitoring the situation,
consulting reliable sources.

[JessicaG]

OK well then maybe you can explain to me how Segwit2x will be adopted with 40% BU/EC miner support?  And 37.5% of the blocks supporting EC? And no outreach to the public whatsoever? With complete silence from Core devs?

Next, what's to prevent Core fanbois from convincing everyone to run the hastily prepared Segwit2x, then after Segwit is adopted, drop another release that doesn't hard fork to 2MB? Do you think the miners will fall for the "bait and switch" tactic used in Hong Kong again? Finally, what makes you think that the miners won't just flag this Segwit 2x support in their headers (it took 10 seconds of work) until the UASF guys lose all of their steam?

I'm starting to think this forum is just an echo chamber for bickering... there must be a better source of information elsewhere.

I tried. You seem incapable or not interested in understanding so I'll just add you to my list of "faith" people incapable of understanding basic logic worth putting on ignore (done).  You don't like this forum? Great! Go elsewhere and find the wisdom you seek which will support your faith. I suggest r/btc .

Why? I think the guy has a point... For instance, if- when- and after SegWit gets locked in (and thus would make BU incompatible with it), there is no guarantee that the whole thing, to some degree, is 'settled'... We have seen many ideas addressing the scaling issue, yet we have also seen neither sides playing it nice. SegWit, Segwit2x, BU, UASF or whatever other proposal which can be labeled as a (temporary) 'answer', is addressing scaling; yet what they all lack, is addressing the emotions that have came along with them... Logic, basic or not, isn't applicable in that case, as logic simply cannot reason with emotions, the same as emotions cannot reason with logic, as in a way they're complete opposites of each other...

I know it's a bit off topic, but I think emotions play a major (if not the biggest) part in this whole scaling issue, and thus should be reckoned with; logic or not... 

[Carlton Banks]

I know it's a bit off topic, but I think emotions play a major (if not the biggest) part in this whole scaling issue, and thus should be reckoned with; logic or not...  

It's the most relevant point in this thread for a while

When lies, deceit or manipulation are used to prosecute a certain developmental direction in Bitcoin, people get pissed. That's where the emotion comes from.

And this Segwit2x thing started as a deceit and is going to continue as one also. The idea is to change the total blocksize to 8MB (not 2MB, as it was rhetorically mislabeled at first), then to move that size to 16MB only 1 year later, then more doubling the next year to 32MB (and so "2x" is a good description of this plan, in fairness). Until Bitcoin is under the centralised control of the miners.


So, don't allow the miners to do this, that's my recommendation. Your money will be turned into centralised fiat, the opposite of what Bitcoin was conceived as.

[-ck]

Why? I think the guy has a point... For instance, if- when- and after SegWit gets locked in (and thus would make BU incompatible with it), there is no guarantee that the whole thing, to some degree, is 'settled'... We have seen many ideas addressing the scaling issue, yet we have also seen neither sides playing it nice. SegWit, Segwit2x, BU, UASF or whatever other proposal which can be labeled as a (temporary) 'answer', is addressing scaling; yet what they all lack, is addressing the emotions that have came along with them... Logic, basic or not, isn't applicable in that case, as logic simply cannot reason with emotions, the same as emotions cannot reason with logic, as in a way they're complete opposites of each other...

You've misunderstood what I'm flabbergasted by. I never said the whole thing was settled; not even remotely. How many times have I reiterated that what remains a complete mystery is what happens after segwit gets activated when we're staring down the barrel of the 2MB base blocksize (an 8MB overall block weight hence why I add the word base in there). The guy I just put on ignore seems to think this coinbase intention to signal of 85%+ is no guarantee that segwit will get activated and that the BU coinbase signatures used by Jihan and his minions are relevant to that.

[ComputerGenie]

IMO, no matter what your personal belief is on the subject, anyone that hasn't already accepted that segwit is a 100% certainty is either in denial or delusional. It's been quite a while since the only questions that remained were "when?", "what comes after?", and "...and what else?". 

[Carlton Banks]

How many times have I reiterated that what remains a complete mystery is what happens after segwit gets activated when we're staring down the barrel of the 2MB base blocksize (an 8MB overall block weight hence why I add the word base in there)

If that's what you really think, why do you keep feeding the publicity drive for this 2x proposal? You've been doing nothing but talk up it's relevance since it appeared, and yet you're conceding here that there are withheld details that will be imposed (or at least expected) once Segwit 4MB (i.e. BIP141) is activated.

You should make your position clearer: do you think mystery clauses in contractual agreements a good idea or not?

[-ck]

How many times have I reiterated that what remains a complete mystery is what happens after segwit gets activated when we're staring down the barrel of the 2MB base blocksize (an 8MB overall block weight hence why I add the word base in there)

If that's what you really think, why do you keep feeding the publicity drive for this 2x proposal? You've been doing nothing but talk up it's relevance since it appeared, and yet you're conceding here that there are withheld details that will be imposed (or at least expected) once Segwit 4MB (i.e. BIP141) is activated.

You should make your position clearer: do you think mystery clauses in contractual agreements a good idea or not?

No, I think this agreement is the most fucked up thing in the history of bitcoin. I'm just glad we're getting segwit, but not remotely pleased about how it's happening, nor what they've planned for the future. Clearer?

And if it's not clear, the whole point of this thread is to try and figure out what it means for all of us, I don't want to hype this fucking PoS. I've been trying to be relatively neutral with my reporting and shoot down the occasional trolls who've derailed the discussion. The fact is it's here and it's a tidal wave and we need to learn how to best ride the tidal wave rather than pretend it's not happening and be wiped out in the process ignoring it or trying to swim in another direction.

[JayJuanGee]

IMO, no matter what your personal belief is on the subject, anyone that hasn't already accepted that segwit is a 100% certainty is either in denial or delusional. It's been quite a while since the only questions that remained were "when?", "what comes after?", and "...and what else?". 

When we are talking about the future, nothing is 100% certainty until after it happened.. but then that is no longer the future.

Again, if we are talking about segwit being implemented within 2months, maybe we are talking a decent 90% chance or more, so it seems. 

[Calangaman]

A good and witty summary


https://www.quora.com/Why-is-everyone-talking-about-how-something-significant-will-happen-to-Bitcoin-on-1-August-2017-What-is-it-that-will-happen-to-Bitcoin-then

[AngryDwarf]

A good and witty summary


https://www.quora.com/Why-is-everyone-talking-about-how-something-significant-will-happen-to-Bitcoin-on-1-August-2017-What-is-it-that-will-happen-to-Bitcoin-then

I disagree. It is a very biased Utopian vs Evil article.
A summary of nothing useful and I should have switched off as soon as the 'hard brexit' reference comparison was made.

[Vishnu.Reang]

IMO, no matter what your personal belief is on the subject, anyone that hasn't already accepted that segwit is a 100% certainty is either in denial or delusional. It's been quite a while since the only questions that remained were "when?", "what comes after?", and "...and what else?".  

It is still not a 100% certainty. More like 90% right now. I checked Coin Dance, and they are still showing 86.8% support for SegWit2X. But this is just "intention" or "support". We don't know whether this support level will remain at the time of implementation. Also, there is a chance that some bug may be found with the SegWit2X code.

[classicsucks]

Why? I think the guy has a point... For instance, if- when- and after SegWit gets locked in (and thus would make BU incompatible with it), there is no guarantee that the whole thing, to some degree, is 'settled'... We have seen many ideas addressing the scaling issue, yet we have also seen neither sides playing it nice. SegWit, Segwit2x, BU, UASF or whatever other proposal which can be labeled as a (temporary) 'answer', is addressing scaling; yet what they all lack, is addressing the emotions that have came along with them... Logic, basic or not, isn't applicable in that case, as logic simply cannot reason with emotions, the same as emotions cannot reason with logic, as in a way they're complete opposites of each other...

Thank you for supporting my suggestions. I think the emotions are merely used to persuade - every actor in this drama has a fairly clear-cut economic interest.  The person screaming the loudest usually just has the worst technical justifications for their solution...

You've misunderstood what I'm flabbergasted by. I never said the whole thing was settled; not even remotely. How many times have I reiterated that what remains a complete mystery is what happens after segwit gets activated when we're staring down the barrel of the 2MB base blocksize (an 8MB overall block weight hence why I add the word base in there). The guy I just put on ignore seems to think this coinbase intention to signal of 85%+ is no guarantee that segwit will get activated and that the BU coinbase signatures used by Jihan and his minions are relevant to that.

Speaking of emotions, I think mister ck is scared... He doesn't want to hear that Segwit might not get done and he's really triggered about "Jihan". A bit of apprehension is understandable: this flight might get bumpy over the next few months... Personally, I am hedging and compiling a bunch of this crap in case I do need to run it... Nonetheless I will believe Segwit2x when I see it. I have seen very little crypto media covering this fork that is supposed to happen in such a short period of time. It's not clear to me at all that this proposal is sound and the code is functional. Core's silence on the matter is downright creepy. 

Honestly I am starting to suspect that Segwit2x is an attempt to leverage the FUD over UASF and UAHF to quickly soft fork to a bastardized Segwit, and then renege on the blocksize increase AGAIN...  If and when Segwit does activate, I've read that Core has to release again to switch everyone to the Segwit coinbase anyway.

[Variogam]

You're really missing the significance of segwit2x. There is no doubt that the main players advertising segwit2x will adopt it. The code already does exist and is complete and they're calling it alpha simply because it hasn't undergone full testing yet.

I dont think it is certain the SegWit2x code is complete now. Jeff Garzik openned issue week ago about the first possible block to be over 1M as mandatory. Requested by Bitmain and BU to implement an anti-wipeout feature. So there is still possibility for the code change, thats why its better to wait for the final code before speculating what happens.

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/29

[Iranus]

Speaking of emotions, I think mister ck is scared... He doesn't want to hear that Segwit might not get done and he's really triggered about "Jihan".

SegWit is happening.  I really don't see why you would think otherwise.

I mean what are the pools going to do?  Look at the code and say "I don't like that line, let's pull out"?  Your logic here doesn't really make any sense here.  It's UASF which has pushed all these sudden solutions through, and I see it as extremely likely that at least one of them, involving SegWit, happens at this point.