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

[-ck]

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

You want drama and doomsayers, go and read reddit...

It can't get activated since they won't officially be running it till July 14, for activation at July 21. That doesn't preclude them from running it earlier but nothing will happen till then.

[1715330173]

1715330173

[1715330173]

1715330173

[Netnox]

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

The 89% rate which you are mentioning is just the "intention". They are not implementing it right now. The implementation date is still a few weeks away. I hope that the support levels will remain at this level until the implementation is finished, but yesterday I noticed it dipping below 80% for a few hours.

[CraigWrightBTC]

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

One major criticism toward the Bitcoin Scaling Agreement was the unrealistic deadline proposed by the 57 companies and miners. According to Bitcoin Core developer Greg Maxwell, Segwit as proposed on the Bitcoin Scaling Agreement can’t be activated by September with a changed activation threshold.
I think it will not be activated soon 

[azguard]

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

It still nothing only some more drama to be putted on us. This is still no concluded yet tomorrow will be something else. Think that they test our patience.
Or will this innovation take aggressive actions to ensure a hard fork would enforce a 2 MB upgrade, and if this is true how many mining pools will run this resolution?

[hv_]

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

It still nothing only some more drama to be putted on us. This is still no concluded yet tomorrow will be something else. Think that they test our patience.
Or will this innovation take aggressive actions to ensure a hard fork would enforce a 2 MB upgrade, and if this is true how many mining pools will run this resolution?

Why on earth IS there so much room left for that drama ?    Is it because tech = 'computers don't do that'  or  human ?

[secretservice]

So these companies signed an agreement without really knowing what was in the code? Very disappointing.
Just because they are already rich does not mean they do not need to be cautious, especially when it is the future of Bitcoin that is at stake.

[FiendCoin]

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

You want drama and doomsayers, go and read reddit...

It can't get activated since they won't officially be running it till July 14, for activation at July 21. That doesn't preclude them from running it earlier but nothing will happen till then.

Hopefully Bitmain don't pull the rug out at the last minute killing SegWit but leaving the hard fork. There's been a great surge in anti-SegWit rhetoric lately. Lukejr seems to think SegWit2x is just a ploy to stop 148 and delay SegWit.

[JayJuanGee]

So these companies signed an agreement without really knowing what was in the code? Very disappointing.
Just because they are already rich does not mean they do not need to be cautious, especially when it is the future of Bitcoin that is at stake.

I think that we have to watch this signaling versus running the code fairly closely,  no?    

Does anyone really believe that more than 80% are actually going to run Segwit 2x..  Seems really questionable to achieve that level.

In the past several days we had intention hovering between about 80% and 90% - but when the rubber hits the road, how many are they going to get?  Also, what percentage is needed to get segwit activation?

Currently, there is nearly 40% signaling actual segwit?  would 40% + 40% be enough?  or do we need 40% segwit and 55% segit2x?  And, looking at USAF, I remain unclear how that combines into adding all of the percentages and to see if we get a lock in of segwit at a certain point by putting the combination of percentages together  - sure it is clear about 95%, but if we are short of 95%, then which combination of percentages and from which ones would actually cause the same locking in effect?

[ComputerGenie]

...Lukejr seems to think SegWit2x is just a ploy to stop 148 and delay SegWit.

That theory only holds if one considers Core-sponsored segwit to be "segwit" and any other deployment of segwit to be "notsegwit".  

[d5000]

Does anyone really believe that more than 80% are actually going to run Segwit 2x..  Seems really questionable to achieve that level.

Why not? It's a question of initiative. If these companies stay together supporting Segwit2x, they have the big chance to get influence on the - likely - new reference implementation of Bitcoin. They wouldn't benefit at all if they change their mind just before the deadline.

In the past several days we had intention hovering between about 80% and 90% - but when the rubber hits the road, how many are they going to get?  Also, what percentage is needed to get segwit activation?

80% must signal for BIP91 - if this happens, then Segwit's activation is almost sure, because like in BIP148, all clients running this patch regard non-Segwit signalling blocks as invalid and will orphan them. Segwit at the end will be activated with 95% signalling for it - but if non-Segwit blocks are orphaned by 80% of the miners, it will be almost for sure 100%.

Currently, there is nearly 40% signaling actual segwit?  would 40% + 40% be enough? or do we need 40% segwit and 55% segit2x?

Neither of both "models" would work - because 80% is only sufficient if BIP91 goes through. If BIP91 fails, 95% must signal for BIP141 ("traditional Segwit"). The current "NYA" signalling has no practical effects - the decisive phase will start with BIP91 signalling in mid-July.

[JayJuanGee]

Does anyone really believe that more than 80% are actually going to run Segwit 2x..  Seems really questionable to achieve that level.

Why not? It's a question of initiative. If these companies stay together supporting Segwit2x, they have the big chance to get influence on the - likely - new reference implementation of Bitcoin. They wouldn't benefit at all if they change their mind just before the deadline.

In the past several days we had intention hovering between about 80% and 90% - but when the rubber hits the road, how many are they going to get?  Also, what percentage is needed to get segwit activation?

80% must signal for BIP91 - if this happens, then Segwit's activation is almost sure, because like in BIP148, all clients running this patch regard non-Segwit signalling blocks as invalid and will orphan them. Segwit at the end will be activated with 95% signalling for it - but if non-Segwit blocks are orphaned by 80% of the miners, it will be almost for sure 100%.

Currently, there is nearly 40% signaling actual segwit?  would 40% + 40% be enough? or do we need 40% segwit and 55% segit2x?

Neither of both "models" would work - because 80% is only sufficient if BIP91 goes through. If BIP91 fails, 95% must signal for BIP141 ("traditional Segwit"). The current "NYA" signalling has no practical effects - the decisive phase will start with BIP91 signalling in mid-July.

O.k... then BIP91 signaling has to reach 80% in order for the causing of a lock-in incentive to achieve the 95% + segwit

[Cuber Krypton]

There have been a lot of talks about Centralization. From my point of view, completely unwarranted. The truth is, this was already taken care of. Free Market Forces provide for decentralization. Transparency through Cryptography guarantees it.

Its contrary to efficiency to protect the average Joe in his basement, as I hear a lot. Decentralization is achieved not only from different Mining Pools Market Share, but also from other big participants like Exchanges, Wallets and whatnot. For a 100% Market Share Mining Pool to game the system, it needs the consensus from the rest of these participants who guarantee the money flow. And bear in mind, that in a Global Currency, this is always a lot of participants with different interests and different geographical targets, cultures, needs, and outlooks.

I hear a lot of Gold Rush from users with PoW change to return to CPU and GPU mining. Artificially guaranteeing profitability of inefficient endeavors. Effectively subsidizing it.

Once you do this, you are creating regulation and outside incentives which for the most part, create inefficiency. Bar a lot of speculation or sudden steep increase of utility, Bitcoin price would have to fall. It’s the difference between Mining Gold and Mining Sand. Furthermore, the Higher it costs to Mine, the Higher it costs an attacker, so the higher cost arguably also increases security as far as I get it. It’s up to the miner to increase efficiency so he can maintain his returns. This has been done, in a free market, by specializing equipment, by pooling resources, etc...

Gold value, or anything else for that matter, is the intersection of minimum value the seller is willing to get for it and the maximum value the buyer is willing to pay for it. This sounds easy enough but the conclusions of many a post, point to an unclear understanding about this.

Because the minimum value a seller is willing to get for his good, is correlated to how much work he put into it, or the cost it took him to obtain it, price of goods, bar speculation or sentimentalism (aesthetic value) effectively encompasses Proof of Work. Digitally, this proof is achieved Cryptographically. Physically, although we are subject to falsification, in a credible world it is safe to assume that the existence of a certain good encompasses its Proof of Work.

If we want Gold, which we do, there is no reason to wish that the Gold Miner have no profit. Or otherwise, we wouldn’t get Gold. Anyway, if the Gold Miner has no profit, it effectively means that we don’t want Gold. Or instead, he stops mining it, we still want Gold, the price rises and he mines profitably again. Since this is a Censorship free market, if he profits, so might others, which without barriers to entry would make it very difficult to sustain a monopoly.

The best about this is that people will look for efficiency. Bitcoin is making people think and be creative. Looking for better ways to spend energy in order to get Bitcoins. Let’s also not forget that for the most part, it’s in fact Energy expended that defines the price of something. Or the value of said energy. Gold was backed by energy, by the cost of labor it took to mine. We then decided that Gold had value to back something else, which is not entirely true if demand and supply is volatile. This is however, always true for Energy.

Also, you must take into consideration, that should we not attribute any value to Gold, then no one would mine it. Not even with slave work. As this slave energy could be used for other more valued labor. So, since the beginning of times, all true value is backed by Energy. Energy is the currency of the Universe and Satoshi Nakamoto clearly understood that by implementing his proof of work.

I am no technical expert by any means, so please enlighten me if I am wrong. Let’s postulate that someone gets an absurd Market Share of 100% and gets to decide what and how to mine. What would this mean for Bitcoin?

In my view, one of 3:
a)   The complete bankruptcy of the Miners, because in a censorship free market this market share would mean they are mining at a loss. Difficulty would decrease, Market would readjust.
b)   The spectacular life of Bitcoin, because in a censorship free market, this would mean no one mines more efficiently, and thus it would be better for users and everyone else. The value should also be rising for holders.
c)   A complete fuck up of the system. Which in a censorship free market would mean either a fork from other miners, or a loss of users, thus decreasing the value of Bitcoin, thus decreasing the value of mining, thus reverting to a) or b). 

Centralization is not all bad. Regulation and Censorship is. Barriers to entry are. If someone rises to the top of Market Share in a completely free market, it is only because they are more efficient, thus bring better value. In bringing better value, probably either other actors have monetary incentive to enter the market or the users get more utility from their Bitcoins.

[JayJuanGee]

There have been a lot of talks about Centralization. From my point of view, completely unwarranted. The truth is, this was already taken care of. Free Market Forces provide for decentralization. Transparency through Cryptography guarantees it.

Its contrary to efficiency to protect the average Joe in his basement, as I hear a lot. Decentralization is achieved not only from different Mining Pools Market Share, but also from other big participants like Exchanges, Wallets and whatnot. For a 100% Market Share Mining Pool to game the system, it needs the consensus from the rest of these participants who guarantee the money flow. And bear in mind, that in a Global Currency, this is always a lot of participants with different interests and different geographical targets, cultures, needs, and outlooks.

I hear a lot of Gold Rush from users with PoW change to return to CPU and GPU mining. Artificially guaranteeing profitability of inefficient endeavors. Effectively subsidizing it.

Once you do this, you are creating regulation and outside incentives which for the most part, create inefficiency. Bar a lot of speculation or sudden steep increase of utility, Bitcoin price would have to fall. It’s the difference between Mining Gold and Mining Sand. Furthermore, the Higher it costs to Mine, the Higher it costs an attacker, so the higher cost arguably also increases security as far as I get it. It’s up to the miner to increase efficiency so he can maintain his returns. This has been done, in a free market, by specializing equipment, by pooling resources, etc...

Gold value, or anything else for that matter, is the intersection of minimum value the seller is willing to get for it and the maximum value the buyer is willing to pay for it. This sounds easy enough but the conclusions of many a post, point to an unclear understanding about this.

Because the minimum value a seller is willing to get for his good, is correlated to how much work he put into it, or the cost it took him to obtain it, price of goods, bar speculation or sentimentalism (aesthetic value) effectively encompasses Proof of Work. Digitally, this proof is achieved Cryptographically. Physically, although we are subject to falsification, in a credible world it is safe to assume that the existence of a certain good encompasses its Proof of Work.

If we want Gold, which we do, there is no reason to wish that the Gold Miner have no profit. Or otherwise, we wouldn’t get Gold. Anyway, if the Gold Miner has no profit, it effectively means that we don’t want Gold. Or instead, he stops mining it, we still want Gold, the price rises and he mines profitably again. Since this is a Censorship free market, if he profits, so might others, which without barriers to entry would make it very difficult to sustain a monopoly.

The best about this is that people will look for efficiency. Bitcoin is making people think and be creative. Looking for better ways to spend energy in order to get Bitcoins. Let’s also not forget that for the most part, it’s in fact Energy expended that defines the price of something. Or the value of said energy. Gold was backed by energy, by the cost of labor it took to mine. We then decided that Gold had value to back something else, which is not entirely true if demand and supply is volatile. This is however, always true for Energy.

Also, you must take into consideration, that should we not attribute any value to Gold, then no one would mine it. Not even with slave work. As this slave energy could be used for other more valued labor. So, since the beginning of times, all true value is backed by Energy. Energy is the currency of the Universe and Satoshi Nakamoto clearly understood that by implementing his proof of work.

I am no technical expert by any means, so please enlighten me if I am wrong. Let’s postulate that someone gets an absurd Market Share of 100% and gets to decide what and how to mine. What would this mean for Bitcoin?

In my view, one of 3:
a)   The complete bankruptcy of the Miners, because in a censorship free market this market share would mean they are mining at a loss. Difficulty would decrease, Market would readjust.
b)   The spectacular life of Bitcoin, because in a censorship free market, this would mean no one mines more efficiently, and thus it would be better for users and everyone else. The value should also be rising for holders.
c)   A complete fuck up of the system. Which in a censorship free market would mean either a fork from other miners, or a loss of users, thus decreasing the value of Bitcoin, thus decreasing the value of mining, thus reverting to a) or b). 

Centralization is not all bad. Regulation and Censorship is. Barriers to entry are. If someone rises to the top of Market Share in a completely free market, it is only because they are more efficient, thus bring better value. In bringing better value, probably either other actors have monetary incentive to enter the market or the users get more utility from their Bitcoins.

This is your first post, and you are bringing up all kinds of deep philosophical shit.

Can't you just discuss some of this in terms the more immediate theme of this thread and maybe speculate how some of your ideas might play out in terms of the various BIPs and maybe some of the game theories of the BIPs, including how much support they might need to get in various regards in order to push bitcoin in one direction or another. 

For a while it was seeming like seg wit was going to be a kind of "done deal," but with the passage of time and my reconsideration of how the signaling of intentions and the actual running of the software are two different matters that can end up causing quite a bit less certainty that segwit is going to come through this whole process and within a reasonable time and without first crashing the price.

[allinvain]

There have been a lot of talks about Centralization. From my point of view, completely unwarranted. The truth is, this was already taken care of. Free Market Forces provide for decentralization. Transparency through Cryptography guarantees it.

This viewpoint seems a tad bit too naive. There are big barriers to enter this "free market" and it appears to me that the mega miners have already won the game. They will be the only ones left standing. I also get the feeling that there is battle raging now between the "landed gentry" (what I'd call the mega miners) and the average bitcoin user/small stake holder. These two (or more) groups have obvious diverse interests at heart. The rich and powerful will always seek more power and control. Huge mining conglomerates based out the Far East control the lion's share of the network hashing power. There is no transparency in the way business in conducted in China, so I don't really trust that all the various Chinese mining pools aren't controlled by the same small group of people.

Also, we already have a near monopoly on mining hardware production by the likes of Bitmain (this is in the SHA256 space that is). If this isn't centralization I don't know what is. If there were a group of say 5 to 10 companies producing chips AND selling to the average Joe miner than your point about fears of centralization being "completely unwarranted" would be far more believable. I sincerely worry about the current situation and it sucks big time that we have to be at the mercy of Bitmain's good dispositions. Thankfully they still sell hardware to the general public, but technically they don't have to. I would not seem logical that they would kill the golden goose but they will sure try to keep it busily laying as many golden eggs for themselves as possible.

I hope I don't sound too pessimistic, but I sure hope some of those free market forces would be more active.

The exchanges and wallet providers don't have as much power as you think they do. Mining is the heart of bitcoin. The exchanges and the rest act as the arms and legs of the bitcoin organism.

Anyways, I feel we are derailing this thread. Let's get back to constant back and forth about the scaling challenge

If this problem gets solved without a major btc price crash or loss of confidence I'm going to be drinking a shit ton of beer to celebrate!

[Cuber Krypton]

There have been a lot of talks about Centralization. From my point of view, completely unwarranted. The truth is, this was already taken care of. Free Market Forces provide for decentralization. Transparency through Cryptography guarantees it.

This viewpoint seems a tad bit too naive. There are big barriers to enter this "free market" and it appears to me that the mega miners have already won the game. They will be the only ones left standing. I also get the feeling that there is battle raging now between the "landed gentry" (what I'd call the mega miners) and the average bitcoin user/small stake holder. These two (or more) groups have obvious diverse interests at heart. The rich and powerful will always seek more power and control. Huge mining conglomerates based out the Far East control the lion's share of the network hashing power. There is no transparency in the way business in conducted in China, so I don't really trust that all the various Chinese mining pools aren't controlled by the same small group of people.

There are no barriers to entry. There is a cost to enter profitably, which is gladly rising, and it filters unlegitimate or undercapitalized from entry. If you however have the labor capital to bear the cost and provide an efficient service, noone is stopping you. The rising cost in an unregulated and blind free market from my view increases security for all users. Also, you are free to mine at a loss too.

Also, we already have a near monopoly on mining hardware production by the likes of Bitmain (this is in the SHA256 space that is). If this isn't centralization I don't know what is. If there were a group of say 5 to 10 companies producing chips AND selling to the average Joe miner than your point about fears of centralization being "completely unwarranted" would be far more believable. I sincerely worry about the current situation and it sucks big time that we have to be at the mercy of Bitmain's good dispositions. Thankfully they still sell hardware to the general public, but technically they don't have to. I would not seem logical that they would kill the golden goose but they will sure try to keep it busily laying as many golden eggs for themselves as possible.

I hope I don't sound too pessimistic, but I sure hope some of those free market forces would be more active.

The exchanges and wallet providers don't have as much power as you think they do. Mining is the heart of bitcoin. The exchanges and the rest act as the arms and legs of the bitcoin organism.

You have a monopoly in hardware production because it's the best. This is an unregulated market. Users have a choice. Bitmain competed and is reaping the rewards. It was free for anyone.

As far as obscurity in China. You might argue that Bitmain is being subsidized by some other interests in order to be able to mine efficiently when hardly anyone else can. But you can also argue that they simply made it more effficient than the rest. We simply don't know and we should not care. Bitcoin does not care. It is blind. This would effectively mean someone is mining at a loss which consequently means someone is paying out of their pocket for added value of your Bitcoins.

And actually, as far as Companies are concerned, I reckon selling hardware or hash rate is an important part of hedging their Bitcoin investment and I don't envision Bitmain to stop selling it. If they did, a whole new Market would be created for it anyway. Future Bitcoin mining value is already encompassed in Hardware pricing. So they get today, free of interest, what could or could not be gotten tomorrow, without obsolescence. Essentially passing on the risk at the cost of very few returns. If Bitmain were to stop selling equipment, they would start carrying all the risk of a highly volatile asset. Decentralization is actually in their favor.

For Legitimate Cloud Based Mining is even better. They effectively create a subsidy whereas with rising difficulty or rising electricity price, your contract is unprofitable, but they can keep mining for themselves with your rented hashpower because effectively you subsidized it. It is unprofitable for you, but not for them. It's a question of Risk. You are betting on rising prices to support difficulty, they are hedging on the eventuality of falling prices.

In the end, you have choice, which is what is important in a free market. We do not need to use any of these services. They are only as profitable as we demand them.

Anyways, I feel we are derailing this thread. Let's get back to constant back and forth about the scaling challenge

If this problem gets solved without a major btc price crash or loss of confidence I'm going to be drinking a shit ton of beer to celebrate!

I am sorry. Probably this wasn't the best place to bring up these issue.

As for scalability, I honestly do not think we need to make choices on what Bitcoin can or should be. As I said, I am not a technical expert, so which technology is used for scaling is outside my expertise.

I will say however that Bitcoin can be everything at once. There is really no need to discuss whether we want it as a settlement layer, a store of value, a medium of exchange, a payment processing network, whatever...

It’s simple if you imagine Bitcoin as Gold. And you can easily imagine Bitcoin as Gold on Steroids. I am pretty sure that Satoshi Nakamoto envisioned it like that, because he solved all the problems that Gold had as Sound Money and made it so that we would not need to follow the same path Gold did.

a)   Bitcoin Vs Gold
•   Divisibility
Much better than Gold. Easier to divide, virtually costless to do so.
•   Fungibility
Much better than Gold. All Bitcoins are truly equal. No quality differences.
•   Easy Transport
Goes without Saying
•   Store of Value
Probably on par. Remember, talking about Bitcoin Vs Gold in a non-Fiat world.
•   Ownership
This is where Bitcoin clearly beats Gold. You can exercise and maintain effective ownership. No confiscation risks. Nothing.

I reckon that even the bigger fees and delays should not be dramatized when you are comparing Bitcoin with Gold or any other Money. In a sane world, Bitcoin would do its job Better than Gold. Better yet, it would free Gold to its other relevant uses, rather than being hoarded, which effectively inflates its price, which then gets reflected in the goods where Gold is necessarily present, thus increasing efficiency and bringing value to everything and everyone down the chain.

Forget comparing it to FIAT. FIAT has no value other than being Legal Tender. The reality is, right now, you are better off getting immediate value for your paper money rather than hoarding it and I further postulate it has always been like this since the implementation of FIAT. Money has lost its essential quality as store of value. The better thing to do is receive a paycheck, keep what you need for day to day and just go buy a store of value or get immediate value out of it. My tactic? Just leverage. Get as much debt as you can, buy a store of value, like Real Estate, Gold, Bitcoin, whatever. Pay it back with the same worthless shit money they give you and keep the good.

I postulate that Bitcoin can be an entire Monetary System.

b)   Bitcoin as a Monetary System:
•   Medium of Exchange
We’ve already checked this.
•   Bank
Each participant can be its own Bank and have Ownership of his coins. The capability of offering Bank Services by each person is also there, and is transparent. Furthermore, for true free banking, each person also has the capacity to issue their own notes backed by their public Bitcoin Holdings. Although this would be pointless if everyone used Bitcoin. In the current circumstances, I see it as a bonus. It brings hedging opportunities.
•   Clearing House
If sidechains are implemented, the main chain has this property.
•   Central Bank
Bitcoin, or the main chain, is in fact a Central Bank. Regardless of the decentralization of its participants.

There is no need to choose a path. Bitcoin can have it all and does it more efficiently than anyone.
 
Bitcoin can be a Dollar, a Bar of Gold, a Certificate, a Clearing House, a Bank, a Central Bank. Everything in a Monetary System can be encompassed by Bitcoin. More efficiently, more transparently, more democratically and more secure. And essentially, all at once.

My main point is Proof of Work should not be changed. Ever. Bitcoin needs to be backed by Energy, otherwise it has no value in the real world other than speculative.

The market will work itself out in what regards monopolies, provided Cryptography continues its job as a Guarantor of Democracy and Transparency. The reality is: How worthless would a 100% Chinese Miner Monopoly make Bitcoin, in a free market where we can just fork it or simply use another Cryptocurrency. Unless Bitcoin turns into Legal Tender and all other Currencies are outlawed. Which in itself would require an impossible consensus.

For scaling, it doesn't really matter to me whether unlimited blocksize or not. It matters that usability improves and that transactions are processed efficiently which from my understanding, all proposed solutions guarantee. Gold would not lose its properties as a store of value if we could infinitely divide it and transact it frictionlessly. And Bitcoin will not as well.

As for the average Joe, which constantly keeps being brought up, he has no usefulness. His energy is better expended providing other labour more efficiently. You do not need to impose a Quota that NFL teams play with an Amateur. It is a professionalized business.

Do not tax Bitcoin. This is not a Welfare State.

[allinvain]

There are no barriers to entry. There is a cost to enter profitably, which is gladly rising, and it filters unlegitimate or undercapitalized from entry. If you however have the labor capital to bear the cost and provide an efficient service, noone is stopping you. The rising cost in an unregulated and blind free market from my view increases security for all users. Also, you are free to mine at a loss too.

Perhaps you can explain why rising cost and high barriers to entry (ie to mine NOT at a loss) increases security for all? Wouldn't having diversification in the mining community be a good thing? I do realize that the entire system is NOT designed to be egalitarian at all. Much like the "real world" in the btc sphere the same rule applies - those with money will make money. But extreme concentration of interests/control in any monetary system/store of value detracts from the usage value of the system. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't bitcoin supposed to be an anarcho-capitalist ideal. Perhaps here there is a clash of ideas. Some see bitcoin as just an improved version of gold - digital gold. What I wish it to be is a monetary system and store of value owned by everyone and controlled by no-one.

You have a monopoly in hardware production because it's the best. This is an unregulated market. Users have a choice. Bitmain competed and is reaping the rewards. It was free for anyone.

Nah, it's not the best and it never was. If you're talking from a pure quality point of view Bitmain hardware is not the best. It just happens to be the best priced because they have access to cheap labor and certain other advantages afforded to them by their geographical location. It's just a pure accident of history that Bitmain came out a winner in this game. It was almost pre-destined lol. I'm also sure that Satoshi already knew that the first ASICs will be coming out of China and that eventually China will dominate this industry.

As far as obscurity in China. You might argue that Bitmain is being subsidized by some other interests in order to be able to mine efficiently when hardly anyone else can. But you can also argue that they simply made it more effficient than the rest. We simply don't know and we should not care. Bitcoin does not care. It is blind. This would effectively mean someone is mining at a loss which consequently means someone is paying out of their pocket for added value of your Bitcoins.

Well, that point was pure speculation. We don't know and likely will never know the web of interests and control in the ASIC and mining industry. I would argue that we should care though. Users should care just as much as users of the FIAT monetary system should care who has undue power of the money _they_ use. Most people don't care though and that is the problem. The idea behind a sound monetary system is that it limits this very same centralized meddling and control that someone is bound to attempt to do - because human nature. Nah I don't think Bitmain is mining at a loss. It's not about being subsidized, it's about them using their vast and super cheap hashpower to push the other miners out. The true cost of their chips is dollars. The actual value of their miners is at best a few hundred dollars Don't worry they are not mining at a loss nor are they subsidizing your btc usage. If anything the miners who buy their gear are subsidizing their mining farms and development costs. For them this is the name of the game; roll money from hardware sales into their own massive mining farms. Whatever gear you buy from them is coming out of their live mining farms.

And actually, as far as Companies are concerned, I reckon selling hardware or hash rate is an important part of hedging their Bitcoin investment and I don't envision Bitmain to stop selling it. If they did, a whole new Market would be created for it anyway. Future Bitcoin mining value is already encompassed in Hardware pricing. So they get today, free of interest, what could or could not be gotten tomorrow, without obsolescence. Essentially passing on the risk at the cost of very few returns. If Bitmain were to stop selling equipment, they would start carrying all the risk of a highly volatile asset. Decentralization is actually in their favor.

For Legitimate Cloud Based Mining is even better. They effectively create a subsidy whereas with rising difficulty or rising electricity price, your contract is unprofitable, but they can keep mining for themselves with your rented hashpower because effectively you subsidized it. It is unprofitable for you, but not for them. It's a question of Risk. You are betting on rising prices to support difficulty, they are hedging on the eventuality of falling prices.

Yep! You are absolutely right and it is a very smart way to do business. I don't think they'll stop selling either as long as there are smaller manufacturing processes (ie silicon chips) to invest millions of dollars into. They will use sale of older gen gear to subsidize new gen gear. I bet you that they are already working on 10nm or smaller chips and are using their mining farm profits and sales profits to pay for that.

The dream every "big miner" aspires to is to eventually build their own mining ASICs. I'm kind of sad that today we only have Bitmain and Canaan.

I am sorry. Probably this wasn't the best place to bring up these issue.

Maybe maybe not. Perhaps we should start our own thread to continue this discussion.

As for scalability, I honestly do not think we need to make choices on what Bitcoin can or should be. As I said, I am not a technical expert, so which technology is used for scaling is outside my expertise.

I will say however that Bitcoin can be everything at once. There is really no need to discuss whether we want it as a settlement layer, a store of value, a medium of exchange, a payment processing network, whatever...

It’s simple if you imagine Bitcoin as Gold. And you can easily imagine Bitcoin as Gold on Steroids. I am pretty sure that Satoshi Nakamoto envisioned it like that, because he solved all the problems that Gold had as Sound Money and made it so that we would not need to follow the same path Gold did.

a)   Bitcoin Vs Gold
•   Divisibility
Much better than Gold. Easier to divide, virtually costless to do so.
•   Fungibility
Much better than Gold. All Bitcoins are truly equal. No quality differences.
•   Easy Transport
Goes without Saying
•   Store of Value
Probably on par. Remember, talking about Bitcoin Vs Gold in a non-Fiat world.
•   Ownership
This is where Bitcoin clearly beats Gold. You can exercise and maintain effective ownership. No confiscation risks. Nothing.

I reckon that even the bigger fees and delays should not be dramatized when you are comparing Bitcoin with Gold or any other Money. In a sane world, Bitcoin would do its job Better than Gold. Better yet, it would free Gold to its other relevant uses, rather than being hoarded, which effectively inflates its price, which then gets reflected in the goods where Gold is necessarily present, thus increasing efficiency and bringing value to everything and everyone down the chain.

Forget comparing it to FIAT. FIAT has no value other than being Legal Tender. The reality is, right now, you are better off getting immediate value for your paper money rather than hoarding it and I further postulate it has always been like this since the implementation of FIAT. Money has lost its essential quality as store of value. The better thing to do is receive a paycheck, keep what you need for day to day and just go buy a store of value or get immediate value out of it. My tactic? Just leverage. Get as much debt as you can, buy a store of value, like Real Estate, Gold, Bitcoin, whatever. Pay it back with the same worthless shit money they give you and keep the good.

I postulate that Bitcoin can be an entire Monetary System.

b)   Bitcoin as a Monetary System:
•   Medium of Exchange
We’ve already checked this.
•   Bank
Each participant can be its own Bank and have Ownership of his coins. The capability of offering Bank Services by each person is also there, and is transparent. Furthermore, for true free banking, each person also has the capacity to issue their own notes backed by their public Bitcoin Holdings. Although this would be pointless if everyone used Bitcoin. In the current circumstances, I see it as a bonus. It brings hedging opportunities.
•   Clearing House
If sidechains are implemented, the main chain has this property.
•   Central Bank
Bitcoin, or the main chain, is in fact a Central Bank. Regardless of the decentralization of its participants.

There is no need to choose a path. Bitcoin can have it all and does it more efficiently than anyone.
 
Bitcoin can be a Dollar, a Bar of Gold, a Certificate, a Clearing House, a Bank, a Central Bank. Everything in a Monetary System can be encompassed by Bitcoin. More efficiently, more transparently, more democratically and more secure. And essentially, all at once.

My main point is Proof of Work should not be changed. Ever. Bitcoin needs to be backed by Energy, otherwise it has no value in the real world other than speculative.

The market will work itself out in what regards monopolies, provided Cryptography continues its job as a Guarantor of Democracy and Transparency. The reality is: How worthless would a 100% Chinese Miner Monopoly make Bitcoin, in a free market where we can just fork it or simply use another Cryptocurrency. Unless Bitcoin turns into Legal Tender and all other Currencies are outlawed. Which in itself would require an impossible consensus.

For scaling, it doesn't really matter to me whether unlimited blocksize or not. It matters that usability improves and that transactions are processed efficiently which from my understanding, all proposed solutions guarantee. Gold would not lose its properties as a store of value if we could infinitely divide it and transact it frictionlessly. And Bitcoin will not as well.

As for the average Joe, which constantly keeps being brought up, he has no usefulness. His energy is better expended providing other labour more efficiently. You do not need to impose a Quota that NFL teams play with an Amateur. It is a professionalized business.

Do not tax Bitcoin. This is not a Welfare State.

I would agree that the proof of work should not be changed now because it would affect people's confidence in bitcoin. It would erase a lot of money invested in the mining hardware necessary to secure the network. However that's just a practical argument not a moral or economic one. Perhaps there are better ways to structure the reward mechanism. That's why you have a ton of altcoins out there which attempt to experiment with changing this part of the cryptocurrency secret sauce. For bitcoin it's a bit too late into the game to make such a radical change. I'm not saying that it will not happen nor that it should not but I think it would have some bad consequences at this stage.

I think a lot of btc users would not be happy with a 100% Chinese Miner Monopoly Coin (aka ChinaCoin). I would envision a lot of the current btc user base would move to altcoins. There are a LOT of them out there and one can even argue some may be superior in some ways to bitcoin. BTC does not have the luxury of being the only game in town these days. It needs to COMPETE with the altcoins. There is nothing intrinsically special about bitcoin either. You gotta ask yourself if you're trying to avoid the central bank controlled FIAT monetary system why create a digital version of it where a small kabal of people exercise undue influence and control over the system?

It will be interesting to see how BTC competes with the altcoins and what it will morph into. Some of the purists will argue that if bitcoin gets some of the features now common in other coins it will no longer be "bitcoin". Just wait, the debate hasn't even started! If there is this much slow gear grinding about SegWit wait until other protocol changes are suggested/implemented/etc.

I agree with you. It does not matter per se what scalability tech is used, but ideally I would want it to be the best tech possible and one that does not favor any particular group of people. I actually do care about the technical aspect as well as the social and economic aspect. What I want out of bitcoin is a system that empowers me and others and gives us control over _our_ money. I am an ideologue true enough.

So yeah maybe we should start our own thread. People are going to get pissed when we slam our wall-o-text in their eyeballs lool.

[Searing]

So these companies signed an agreement without really knowing what was in the code? Very disappointing.
Just because they are already rich does not mean they do not need to be cautious, especially when it is the future of Bitcoin that is at stake.

I think that we have to watch this signaling versus running the code fairly closely,  no?    

Does anyone really believe that more than 80% are actually going to run Segwit 2x..  Seems really questionable to achieve that level.

In the past several days we had intention hovering between about 80% and 90% - but when the rubber hits the road, how many are they going to get?  Also, what percentage is needed to get segwit activation?

Currently, there is nearly 40% signaling actual segwit?  would 40% + 40% be enough?  or do we need 40% segwit and 55% segit2x?  And, looking at USAF, I remain unclear how that combines into adding all of the percentages and to see if we get a lock in of segwit at a certain point by putting the combination of percentages together  - sure it is clear about 95%, but if we are short of 95%, then which combination of percentages and from which ones would actually cause the same locking in effect?

this is kinda the risk of what happened for a bit with litecoin. Looked like agreement ..then a miner *cough bitmain cough* decided to get bucky and try to stop
seg witness...they did so..they were like 7% short of I think it was 75%? (I forget) anyway.....they had the IRC roundtable and agreed (if I remember right) to
do seg witness and sometime in the future do a block size increase ...with intent and planning as either a soft fork version or hard fork version to be determined.

Thus, from what I can tell this time for bitcoin..the only consensus is for a hard fork ..which I don't understand with a lot of the main players agreeing on same on
the litecoin network of at least a soft fork option to look at in the future.

But anyway, one or a few of these miners could just pull out enough hash to have some clout ..thus expect to get really close and then
more negotiation (at best) or complete cluster (at worse).if some small miners pull enough as a group to get something tossed their way

Bitmain PULLED all its SOLD equip back on LTC and repaid and used it to stop seg witness on litecoin for a bit.....I still expect to see some ham-fisted hard
ass crap from bitmain on this seg witness procedure for bitcoin (its how bitmain rolls)

anyway if it does pass it will be a 'squeaker' imho

intention is nice...but the ego's involved in all this...unsure about how silly it will all get ....and this is just getting the seg witness part thru..not even considering

the angst of 2mb hard fork block increase (or more)

[JessicaG]

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.

Yes!
And they are already among us...!
Dozens of them, even hundreds...
For years, actually...



We call them 'altcoins'...  

[mindrust]

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.

Yes!
And they are already among us...!
Dozens of them, even hundreds...
For years, actually...



We call them 'altcoins'...  

And which bitcoin fork will be "altcoins"? No altcoin ever claimed that it was the real bitcoin. Would you support it if zcash changed its name into bitcoin? Because that's exactly what is going to happen with bitcoin.

Bitcoin.org and Bitcoin.com will be promoting completely different blockchains. When somebody goes to an exchange to buy some bitcoins he'll be offered bitcoin bip148, bitcoin unlimited, bitcoin classic, bitcoin bip xxx and so on...
And what about the  merchants? How the hell people will be able to spend their coins to buy stuff then? Merchants will say "Fuck this shiet i'm out!"

[JayJuanGee]

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.

Yes!
And they are already among us...!
Dozens of them, even hundreds...
For years, actually...



We call them 'altcoins'...  

And which bitcoin fork will be "altcoins"? No altcoin ever claimed that it was the real bitcoin. Would you support it if zcash changed its name into bitcoin? Because that's exactly what is going to happen with bitcoin.

Bitcoin.org and Bitcoin.com will be promoting completely different blockchains. When somebody goes to an exchange to buy some bitcoins he'll be offered bitcoin bip148, bitcoin unlimited, bitcoin classic, bitcoin bip xxx and so on...
And what about the  merchants? How the hell people will be able to spend their coins to buy stuff then? Merchants will say "Fuck this shiet i'm out!"

Yeah... sure your view of the future is possible, and maybe it even has decent chances of playing out, but stop acting as if your view of the future is a certainty. And, you talk about it with such emotion that it sounds like you are trying to assert that one playing out is preferable to another.

Humans do all kind so things including engaging in game theory to attempt to leverage their side and to bluff.  some of that gamemanship is beyond the control of folks participating in these kinds of threads, so sure mental  and financial preparation would be part of the process  to the extent any outcome might be more probable than other outcomes.

If it hard forks, then so be it, and if it hardforks multiple times, then so be it as well.  Are you proposing that we should do something specifically in our preparations?