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

[hv_]

I m really getting pissed how much bs comes up i.o. to achieve personal agendas.

Define: Users, miners, coders, economic majority, spam,... FIRST and without doubt before you try to split bitcoin community into fractions and start fighting 'the other side' with what s just 'wrong' compared to your own wakyshaky undefined standpoint.

We really need to come back to think about satoshis consensus and working auto correction of 'wrong'  (who knows in front in that complex env?) implementations through the game theo aproach / Nash equilibrium.

Example: If majority of all will come to conclusion, that entire bitcoin IS too much centralized ( attack might come up), adoption and price will drop -> correction needed ( last option split chain  or go altcoin ). consensus will auto follow best and highest adoption.

Relax and stop stupid splitting and FUD spreading.


Edit.

You might ask me to define FUD:

To me, FUD is:
Fear, that anyone could change the 21 Mio, if we allow two much flexibility ?
- no, its Definition of bitcoin and socially enfocred by all players. Attackers are minority

HF fear, feature fear, spam fear, centralization fear
- go away, bitcoin is STRONG it can take lot of things and Yes we need to do lots of mistakes and correct, but that s normal evolution. i have no fear bitcoin will go bust here. Lots of people will fix and get it work again.

[Lauda]

https://medium.com/@lukedashjr/the-segwit-2x-beta-review-and-thoughts-ca480694a8c7

Important tl;dr:

Now for my thoughts: 4–8 MB block sizes are not sane

Additionally, rushing a HF in 90 days when there is zero support from the users is also nonsensical. It should have been at least 180 days after Segwit activated.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-March/013923.html

Quite old review considering the ever changing specification of this client.

I m really getting pissed how much bs comes up i.o. to achieve personal agendas.
-snip-

Who exactly are you referring to?

[cellard]

https://medium.com/@lukedashjr/the-segwit-2x-beta-review-and-thoughts-ca480694a8c7

Important tl;dr:

Now for my thoughts: 4–8 MB block sizes are not sane

Additionally, rushing a HF in 90 days when there is zero support from the users is also nonsensical. It should have been at least 180 days after Segwit activated.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-March/013923.html

Quite old review considering the ever changing specification of this client.

I m really getting pissed how much bs comes up i.o. to achieve personal agendas.
-snip-

Who exactly are you referring to?

But how do we exactly measure user support? Is it just node count? but node count can be easily faked.

Is it twitter polls? I don't think that counts.

I just don't see a proper way to measure how many users want Core and how many want to hardfork into Garzik's coin.

My fear is that the bulk of the bitcoin users are so dumb technologically that they will just use whatever Coinbase and the other big websites are using. Then you have all those sites and 80% of the hashrate (according to NYC agreement) approving Garzik's coin code... isn't that a problem?

[mindrust]

My fear is that the bulk of the bitcoin users are so dumb technologically that they will just use whatever Coinbase and the other big websites are using. Then you have all those sites and 80% of the hashrate (according to NYC agreement) approving Garzik's coin code... isn't that a problem?

Decentralization will be the end of bitcoin it seems.

Everybody is free to propose anything. If 80% of the miners decide to fork off, they'll have bitcoin. If %10 of the miners go UASF, they'll have bitcoin either. If %10 the miners do nothing, they'll also have bitcoin.

Bitcoin.com will say theirs is the real bitcoin,
Bitcoin.org will promote their code,
And so on...

The end is near. Abandon ship.

[Iranus]

My fear is that the bulk of the bitcoin users are so dumb technologically that they will just use whatever Coinbase and the other big websites are using. Then you have all those sites and 80% of the hashrate (according to NYC agreement) approving Garzik's coin code... isn't that a problem?

Decentralization will be the end of bitcoin it seems.

Everybody is free to propose anything. If 80% of the miners decide to fork off, they'll have bitcoin. If %10 of the miners go UASF, they'll have bitcoin either. If %10 the miners do nothing, they'll also have bitcoin.

Bitcoin.com will say theirs is the real bitcoin,
Bitcoin.org will promote their code,
And so on...

The end is near. Abandon ship.

I disagree.  All those people would have Bitcoin, but the majority chain would end up having the merchants and economic support.  There is a kind of herd movement, and that majority chain would still be decentralised just like the original Bitcoin has been for the past nine years.

Every time a bear market is looming (like it could be now), you'll see plenty of people creating reasons for why this, in particular, is dead or not worth as much as it is now.  Personally, I think that it's mostly wrong and that in a few years we'll be on a new problem that doesn't matter either.

The funny thing is that all those people who "called" the bear market will say "I told you so" when it starts going down... but they'll act mysteriously silent when it starts going way up again.

The bottom line is that the end is not going to come for a very long time, and that these are early days.  We're all waiting for something to happen, and something will either happen or it won't but either way, most of us will end up following along with whatever happens instead of confining ourselves to some little chain with 10% hash rate.

[mindrust]

I disagree.  All those people would have Bitcoin, but the majority chain would end up having the merchants and economic support.  There is a kind of herd movement, and that majority chain would still be decentralised just like the original Bitcoin has been for the past nine years.

Every time a bear market is looming (like it could be now), you'll see plenty of people creating reasons for why this, in particular, is dead or not worth as much as it is now.  Personally, I think that it's mostly wrong and that in a few years we'll be on a new problem that doesn't matter either.

The funny thing is that all those people who "called" the bear market will say "I told you so" when it starts going down... but they'll act mysteriously silent when it starts going way up again.

The bottom line is that the end is not going to come for a very long time, and that these are early days.  We're all waiting for something to happen, and something will either happen or it won't but either way, most of us will end up following along with whatever happens instead of confining ourselves to some little chain with 10% hash rate.

It will be a disaster.

The merchants and the community will have different opinions too. Merchant A will say "I only accept bitcoin bipXXX" and Merchant B will say "I only accept 8mb Bitcoin" There will be countless versions of bitcoins. The majority chain won't always get the 100% support. Once we get into the Hard Fork business there will be no end to it.

Come to think of it, I am actually surprised we made this far without getting forked.

R.I.P. Immutability.

[Carlton Banks]

There will be countless versions of bitcoins. The majority chain won't always get the 100% support. Once we get into the Hard Fork business there will be no end to it.

Disagree

The more the effect you're describing escalates, the more incentive there is for the Core developers to take the nuclear option and hard fork to a new proof of work. That would be the definitive move, as users would be very enticed by the CPU mining goldrush that ensued.


It doesn't matter what way you slice or dice it, the expertise behind development is what makes Bitcoin what it is. The smart money will always follow the coding talent, and the coding talent will always follow the smart money. The suits can wail and gnash their teeth as loud and hard as they like they cannot stop decentralised cryptocurrency, it is a fait accomplis. We want it, and we will get it

[mindrust]

There will be countless versions of bitcoins. The majority chain won't always get the 100% support. Once we get into the Hard Fork business there will be no end to it.

Disagree

The more the effect you're describing escalates, the more incentive there is for the Core developers to take the nuclear option and hard fork to a new proof of work. That would be the definitive move, as users would be very enticed by the CPU mining goldrush that ensued.


It doesn't matter what way you slice or dice it, the expertise behind development is what makes Bitcoin what it is. The smart money will always follow the coding talent, and the coding talent will always follow the smart money. The suits can wail and gnash their teeth as loud and hard as they like they cannot stop decentralised cryptocurrency, it is a fait accomplis. We want it, and we will get it

I already mentioned in my older messages that PoW change is inevitable and will take place but PoW change has its own disadvantages. If the PoW algo changes, nobody will ever make huge investments into mining hardware. Bitcoin will be a joke either way.

The thing is, dev team were too slow to act.

1-They should have changed the PoW algo just after it got hacked. They failed this.
2-They had another chance when ASICBOOST was revealed.

They missed the first chance and I can forgive them for it because they may have thought, "there will be many competing ASIC manufacturers, it will be ok" But it didn't go like that. Bitmain came with a patented software and they became the only ASIC manufacturer. The one and the only hashpower provider.

Now letting that happen was a mistake. Huge one.

[alucard23]

https://medium.com/@lukedashjr/the-segwit-2x-beta-review-and-thoughts-ca480694a8c7

Either these guys are incompetent, or they don't really like the decentralized nature of Bitcoin. Core is right on that one.

[TheKingInYellow]

This is almost scary enough to make me consider going into FIAT until 148 is buyable.

[franky1]

https://medium.com/@lukedashjr/the-segwit-2x-beta-review-and-thoughts-ca480694a8c7

Either these guys are incompetent, or they don't really like the decentralized nature of Bitcoin. Core is right on that one.

luke JR is grasping onto straws
arguing about version numbers of 1.14.3 vs 0.14.1 is meaningless social drama. there was a 1.14.1 which was 'like-for-like' but then it had some alterations and now its 1.14.3 naturally. you cant change code but stay with 1.14.1. but to be honest due to a baseblock HF it should actually be x.15.x
maybe if core added in some segwit2x code to core's 0.14.3 (not released yet) and then.. (drum roll) make a 0.14.4 that has everything and more, core can then regain leadership of the minor version number then he cant cry and cause the social drama of version numbers because core is ahead.

as for testnet5 hmmm he needs to explain to himself why last year segNET first then established testnet second... instead of straight to testnet last year and why he prefers other implementations to start their own separate testnet first to prove its not a testnet killer before joining a established testnet. (arguing with himself will give himself the answer)
(hence im laughing that btc1 is doing exactly what he wanted last year)

i have to agree the sigop limit is stupid to increase. .. yes increase the blocksize but dont increase the txsigops
that said a raspberry Pi could handle more than that but dev's went anal by going ultra safe
devs now argue about using raspberry pi as the 'min specs' goal but fail to keep legacy txsigops and maxtxbytes low to make it workable.
its as if they want to cause quadratic sigop issues again just to cause drama. so strangely i see luke JR doing the right thing for once and asking to keep txsigops low.

then he rants about the 80% block activation.. yet its him that decided only pools should vote.. yep his idea back in late 2015 with his pool only shortcut(going soft) to avoid a full network of symbiotic pool and node consensus... only going for pool consensus was his own fault and why 95% would not have worked. due to his, at the time mindset that he was creating a shortcut which backfired.. yet he was ok with 95% but now strangely against 80%... (facepalm)

as for the bit4, well he was arguing for it as it helped dns seeds/nodes to identify different versions, aswell as arguing for different servicebits too..
but now grasping at straws...

strange that he thinks segwit2x will stall segwit.. lol actually it will cause segwit to activate sooner. but atleast luke is now admitting that segwit is cludgy
"As for the hardfork itself, it includes an 8 MB max block size limit (with the code obfuscated to make it look like 2 MB), a 160k max block sigop limit (obfuscated to look like 20k), and an 8M max block weight limit (ie, typical block size around 4 MB). To address the sighash scaling issue, a new 1 MB limit is imposed on each transaction’s non-witness data"

oh well luke does love his drama.
segwit2x and the NYA has nothing to do with bitmain. infact barry silbert pays lukes wage not bitmains.

[-ck]

This is almost scary enough to make me consider going into FIAT until 148 is buyable.

148 will be 141 which will be 91 which will be bit 4 which will be bit 1 which is NYA.

In other words, there will be no 148 as a separate coin.

[TheKingInYellow]

This is almost scary enough to make me consider going into FIAT until 148 is buyable.

148 will be 141 which will be 91 which will be bit 4 which will be bit 1 which is NYA.

In other words, there will be no 148 as a separate coin.

So if I hold BTC on Bittrex and Poloniex I can be sure they'll be the same BTC a year from now? The BTC we see now will be 148 by default and the fork Bitcoin will be nuBitcoin?

[franky1]

This is almost scary enough to make me consider going into FIAT until 148 is buyable.

148 will be 141 which will be 91 which will be bit 4 which will be bit 1 which is NYA.

In other words, there will be no 148 as a separate coin.

So if I hold BTC on Bittrex and Poloniex I can be sure they'll be the same BTC a year from now? The BTC we see now will be 148 by default and the fork Bitcoin will be nuBitcoin?

nope
best to store funds your worried about losing on private keys you control.
even if there is no network splitting altcoin creation, your still at risk of the "we been hacked" retirement plan which many exchanges have

[-ck]

This is almost scary enough to make me consider going into FIAT until 148 is buyable.

148 will be 141 which will be 91 which will be bit 4 which will be bit 1 which is NYA.

In other words, there will be no 148 as a separate coin.

So if I hold BTC on Bittrex and Poloniex I can be sure they'll be the same BTC a year from now? The BTC we see now will be 148 by default and the fork Bitcoin will be nuBitcoin?

No. 148 will become irrelevant once segwit is activated by segwit2x. After that there is the segwit2x hard fork component and then there may be a different split that has nothing to do with BIP148. Hopefully some kind of compromise position happens before that hard fork component preventing a split but at this stage there is none on the horizon.

[krishnapramod]

This is almost scary enough to make me consider going into FIAT until 148 is buyable.

148 will be 141 which will be 91 which will be bit 4 which will be bit 1 which is NYA.

In other words, there will be no 148 as a separate coin.

So if I hold BTC on Bittrex and Poloniex I can be sure they'll be the same BTC a year from now? The BTC we see now will be 148 by default and the fork Bitcoin will be nuBitcoin?

No. 148 will become irrelevant once segwit is activated by segwit2x. After that there is the segwit2x hard fork component and then there may be a different split that has nothing to do with BIP148. Hopefully some kind of compromise position happens before that hard fork component preventing a split but at this stage there is none on the horizon.

Segwit2x with more than 80% majority has already shown the intent to start signalling Segwit2x by July 21, with the current situation it is  obvious that Segwit would get activated through Segwit2x before August 1 so would BIP148 still be deployed on August 1with a low majority?

Secondly if Segwit activates either through Segwit2x or BIP148, I guess still there would be a hard fork three months down the lane, right? According to NYA Segwit needs to be activated to do a hard forking.

Yeah either a compromise or some big miners backing out of NYA.

[classicsucks]

Do people really think the miners are dumb enough to trust this "Segwit, then hard fork in 3 months agreement with no Core support"?

The miners will signal for Segwit2x until UASF loses all of its steam, then they'll go back to status quo 0.12.1 or whatever. Or maybe BU or a new 2MB hard fork proposal...

I've thought about this kind of outcome. But I now consider it unlikely.

I think the main goal of the miners is that users accept them to have influence over the development of the reference client. As they have identified the Core team as hostile to them, their desire would be an own implementation - what now begun as Segwit2x - to slowly become the reference software.

A "turning back" just before the Segwit activation would be counter-productive to this goal. In this case, they would give Core and the surrounding "small blocker" fraction the opportunity to accuse them to behave in an unstable and untrustworthy way, breaking their own agreement. In this case they would never have chances to convince enough users to download and use their implementation.

Instead, if they move forward with Segwit2x, they can present themselves as "the guys that ended the scaling war and the blockchain congestion" and offer an implementation (the 2MB hard fork) that assures that there won't be congestion again for a couple of years.

Valid points. I think the miners primarily want to remain invisible and make money quietly.  I don't see that miners have a public face (other than Wu), and many don't speak English. The blocksize nonsense has reached epic proportions, and is strangling their profits (inb4 "but high feez", fees are 10% of mining revenue, so don't bother).  So I don't think that maintaining credibility is important factor when weighing these decisions. After all, look at how much Core's reputation has suffered over the past few years of their hardline "small blocks or die" stance.

Blocks being full right now is not a huge problem because the mempool spamming has subsided. Not too many unconfirmed transactions and fees are dropping. Whoever was doing the spamming stopped.

[CoinCube]

The more the effect you're describing escalates, the more incentive there is for the Core developers to take the nuclear option and hard fork to a new proof of work. That would be the definitive move, as users would be very enticed by the CPU mining goldrush that ensued.


It doesn't matter what way you slice or dice it, the expertise behind development is what makes Bitcoin what it is. The smart money will always follow the coding talent, and the coding talent will always follow the smart money. The suits can wail and gnash their teeth as loud and hard as they like they cannot stop decentralised cryptocurrency, it is a fait accomplis. We want it, and we will get it

I agree with your description a proof-of-work change as a nuclear option. Similar to the deployment of nuclear weapons in war it will hopefully be something that functions only as a deterrent. Should we reach a point where the "nuclear" option is deployed we all lose big time.

Consensus is very hard and takes time. Bitcoin itself has no inherent value. Its value comes from the 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 the scope of possible economic interactions narrows but that's not the worst of it.

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.

Bitcoin as an generalized economic entity is subject to group selection. With group selection the group behavior be referenced to something outside the group. This something outside is the general goal and idea 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 ideal of bitcoin as a sound money would be significantly damaged by a contentious hard fork. Damaged in such a way the two broken pieces of bitcoin would be worth less then the original as their fundamental essence would be called into question. There would be no winners in such a scenario only losers.

For some interesting info on the general topic of Group Selection see:
General properties of Group Selection
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.com/2015/11/general-properties-of-group-selection.html?m=1

[-ck]

Segwit2x with more than 80% majority has already shown the intent to start signalling Segwit2x by July 21, with the current situation it is  obvious that Segwit would get activated through Segwit2x before August 1 so would BIP148 still be deployed on August 1with a low majority?

Again, once segwit2x activates segwit then BIP148 has nothing to do and becomes irrelevant. There is nothing to activate or deploy from BIP148 if segwit has been activated since the BIP148 endpoint is segwit activation.

[allinvain]

SegWit2x intention peaked at 89% today. I hope it gets activated soon. This drama is reaching diva proportions.