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

[Gyrsur]

the UASF node is available here --> https://bitcoinuasf.org/

[1714251920]

1714251920

[1714251920]

1714251920

[1714251920]

1714251920

[1714251920]

1714251920

[1714251920]

1714251920

[Troll Buster]

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

Cuber Krypton is AgentofCoin's new account.

Exact same mannerism, same unique choice of words, same long and lengthy vomit.

He spent years kissing Greg's ass and sucking up to Core, spent a lot of effort smearing big blockers.

Now Core is about to get fired by 90% of the miners, big blockers are going to win, so he've decided to jump ship.

Here he is using a new account, posting things newbies would not know, but pretending to be a complete newbie who doesn't even know how to post a link:

I have digressed off-topic in another thread which sadly I do not know how to link here

You can change the name but you can't change the smell.

https://blog.bitmain.com/en/uahf-contingency-plan-uasf-bip148/

The rough roadmap of the block size increase for the next few years is below.
 
Time    Block size, Byte
Now    1,000,000
2017 Aug    2,000,000
2017 Sept    4,194,304
2018 April    5,931,641
2018 Aug    8,388,608
2019 April    11,863,283
2019 Aug    16,777,216

Multiple new clients are scheduled to be released with SegWit2X, Core is history, they can keep half a seat at the table if they play ball, but they can no longer "shovel shit down your throat and make you to eat it." - Craig Wright.

It's a brilliant move by the miners, the usual trolls can't even find an angle to smear because they picked the name "SegWit2X".

Once Core is out of the picture, the miners only need to find some patent issue with SegWit and the entire Blockstream Core cancer is gone, cut away from the system, sealed in a jar.

[JayJuanGee]

the UASF node is available here --> https://bitcoinuasf.org/

Is this new?  I mean is this just being released, and meaning before this time there was not a way to signal BIP148?

Are we going to start to see this showing up on Coin.dance?

https://coin.dance/blocks

[JayJuanGee]

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

Cuber Krypton is AgentofCoin's new account.

Exact same mannerism, same unique choice of words, same long and lengthy vomit.

He spent years kissing Greg's ass and sucking up to Core, spent a lot of effort smearing big blockers.

Now Core is about to get fired by 90% of the miners, big blockers are going to win, so he've decided to jump ship.

Here he is using a new account, posting things newbies would not know, but pretending to be a complete newbie who doesn't even know how to post a link:

I have digressed off-topic in another thread which sadly I do not know how to link here

You can change the name but you can't change the smell.

https://blog.bitmain.com/en/uahf-contingency-plan-uasf-bip148/

The rough roadmap of the block size increase for the next few years is below.
 
Time    Block size, Byte
Now    1,000,000
2017 Aug    2,000,000
2017 Sept    4,194,304
2018 April    5,931,641
2018 Aug    8,388,608
2019 April    11,863,283
2019 Aug    16,777,216

Multiple new clients are scheduled to be released with SegWit2X, Core is history, they can keep half a seat at the table if they play ball, but they can no longer "shovel shit down your throat and make you to eat it." - Craig Wright.

It's a brilliant move by the miners, the usual trolls can't even find an angle to smear because they picked the name "SegWit2X".

Once Core is out of the picture, the miners only need to find some patent issue with SegWit and the entire Blockstream Core cancer is gone, cut away from the system, sealed in a jar.

Your user name defies the logic of your post (or I mean lack of logic).

Can anyone really believe that Core is going to disappear into the sunset so easily?  We have about 8 years of running various kinds of Core implementations - and sure, even Core has evolved during that time - but isn't there going to be some kind of hesitancy to move away from Core and to run some random untested implementation of segwit2x that even might have various nefarious goals that are not quite lining up with what was considered to be an upcoming consensus angle, and that is to lock in seg wit first, no?

[jbreher]

the UASF node is available here --> https://bitcoinuasf.org/

The 'Core' branding throws me for a loop. In what way is this not deceptive advertising? Or is this an actual product of Core? For all their faults, I never pictured them as a suicide.

[Troll Buster]

Your user name defies the logic of your post (or I mean lack of logic).

Can anyone really believe that Core is going to disappear into the sunset so easily?  We have about 8 years of running various kinds of Core implementations - and sure, even Core has evolved during that time - but isn't there going to be some kind of hesitancy to move away from Core and to run some random untested implementation of segwit2x that even might have various nefarious goals that are not quite lining up with what was considered to be an upcoming consensus angle, and that is to lock in seg wit first, no?

Your logic is if Nokia had over 8 years of market, then when Apple came along with a far better product, people would still stay behind.

And you want to talk to me about logic.

You have no idea just how many people Core pissed off over the years.

Segwit2X support went from 0% to 80% in a day, the code wasn't even available but the miners still wanted to signal the collective "f**k you" to Core.

It happened so fast Core didn't even see it coming, they still don't know how to even react.

Bitcoin market share fell from 86% to 44% in just 3 months, and these Core fan boys still think people will stick with Core.

Core and its fan boys lived inside their bubble for far too long, they can't even see what's happening outside.

Core is just a group of developers, they're not the only ones, Core is still relevant only because of the reputation left behind by Satisho and others, once Core played god with it and pissed everyone off, that reputation is gone.

There is an army of developers out there that is pissed off at Core, they'll spend extra effort to write better code just for spite alone, all they needed was a good opportunity and here it is.

Core and its fan boys thought Core were gods, they were not, 90% hash rate is god.

There is no hesitancy when if you don't run what 90% of the miners are running, you are no longer in business, and businesses are telling their users to upgrade. If you think multi million dollar businesses are going to risk their businesses with a bunch of raspberry pi, you are dreaming.


This is Bitcoin's Apple vs Nokia moment.

[mindrust]

Bla bla bla core is this bla bla bla blockstream is that bla bla bla

Go die under a bridge you fucking troll.

If you want to be taken seriously come back with your main account. (not if it has "jonald" printed somewhere on it of course)

[Troll Buster]

Bla bla bla core is this bla bla bla blockstream is that bla bla bla

Go die under a bridge you fucking troll.

If you want to be taken seriously come back with your main account. (not if it has "jonald" printed somewhere on it of course)

I see we have a big mouth small brain here.

If you want to be taken seriously use your head instead of crying like a baby.

[JayJuanGee]

the UASF node is available here --> https://bitcoinuasf.org/

The 'Core' branding throws me for a loop. In what way is this not deceptive advertising? Or is this an actual product of Core? For all their faults, I never pictured them as a suicide.

Doesn't facilitating BIP148 actually allow for the pushing of the seg wit portion of implementation, and nothing else? 

Or do you think that BIP148 would have a potential to change governance?

[jbreher]

the UASF node is available here --> https://bitcoinuasf.org/

The 'Core' branding throws me for a loop. In what way is this not deceptive advertising? Or is this an actual product of Core? For all their faults, I never pictured them as a suicide.

Doesn't facilitating BIP148 actually allow for the pushing of the seg wit portion of implementation, and nothing else? 

Or do you think that BIP148 would have a potential to change governance?

Perhaps you missed the following: Or is this an actual product of Core?

To my meager understanding*, the UASF is based upon Core. It is a fork of Core. Correct? Well, so were XT, Classic, BitCore, and BU, right? If any of these projects branded themselves in this manner, would you be so dispassionate? Why is this project any different?

*the economics of UASF guarantee its failure, so I never had an interest to look into the implementation.

[JayJuanGee]

Your user name defies the logic of your post (or I mean lack of logic).

Can anyone really believe that Core is going to disappear into the sunset so easily?  We have about 8 years of running various kinds of Core implementations - and sure, even Core has evolved during that time - but isn't there going to be some kind of hesitancy to move away from Core and to run some random untested implementation of segwit2x that even might have various nefarious goals that are not quite lining up with what was considered to be an upcoming consensus angle, and that is to lock in seg wit first, no?

Your logic is if Nokia had over 8 years of market, then when Apple came along with a far better product, people would still stay behind.

I don't know how you are arriving at that conclusion regarding what I am asserting, and you also seem to be assuming, without any evidence that the various segwit2x implementations are in fact better products - which seems to be A BIG ASS ASSUMPTION

And you want to talk to me about logic.

I am just providing my opinion regarding the seemingly contrary dynamics between your name and your actual post...

So instead of being a troll buster, your post is coming off as the opposite.. at least from my perspective - because it seems to be filled with a lot of unprovable assumptions regarding both facts and logic.

You have no idea just how many people Core pissed off over the years.

do I need to know?  Are these supposed pissed off people going to become motivated to run non-core software and risk their businesses?    Sure there are a few BIG ASS WHINERS in the anti-Core space who seem to be caught up on emotions - but are logical and rational businesses going to follow them in sufficient quantity in order for a divorce to become so obvious and inevitable as you seem to be asserting?

Segwit2X support went from 0% to 80% in a day, the code wasn't even available but the miners still wanted to signal the collective "f**k you" to Core.

It happened so fast Core didn't even see it coming, they still don't know how to even react.

You can read that how you will, but I doubt that it rises to the level of "fuck you" that you seem to be asserting.

Furthermore, it seems that the whole bitcoin community is a bit eager for a possible resolution, and segwit2x was seeming to be heading in that direction... or so it seems absent maybe some game theory dynamics that might be going on there.

Core and its fan boys lived in their bubble for far too long, they can't even see what's happening outside.

Core is just a group of developers, they're not the only ones, Core is still relevant only because of the reputation left behind by Satisho and others, once Core played god with it and pissed everyone off, that reputation is gone.

There is an army of developers out there that is pissed off at Core, they'll spend extra effort to write better code just for spite alone.

Lots of assumptions in those three statements.... coming off as talking points.

Core and its fan boys thought Core were gods, they were not, 90% hash rate is god.
There is no hesitancy when if you don't run what 90% of the miners are running, you are no longer in business, and businesses are telling their users to upgrade.

Signaling software and running the software seems to be two different things, and it still seems a bit unclear to me how these matters are going to play out in order to achieve various sufficient consensus levels in order to trigger some of the BIPs.  You are talking a lot of theory and speculation about facts that are still playing out...  And, you are wanting to spin the various facts in some kind of narrow direction regarding a supposed diminishing stature within core.. which seems way more incredible than anything.

This is Bitcoin's Apple vs Nokia moment.

Great picture of an analogy that is not supported by the facts, and this situation seems to be way more complex and dynamic than you are summarizing it to be.

[JayJuanGee]

the UASF node is available here --> https://bitcoinuasf.org/

The 'Core' branding throws me for a loop. In what way is this not deceptive advertising? Or is this an actual product of Core? For all their faults, I never pictured them as a suicide.

Doesn't facilitating BIP148 actually allow for the pushing of the seg wit portion of implementation, and nothing else? 

Or do you think that BIP148 would have a potential to change governance?

Perhaps you missed the following: Or is this an actual product of Core?

To my meager understanding*, the UASF is based upon Core. It is a fork of Core. Correct? Well, so were XT, Classic, BitCore, and BU, right? If any of these projects branded themselves in this manner, would you be so dispassionate? Why is this project any different?

*the economics of UASF guarantee its failure, so I never had an interest to look into the implementation.

I might not understand your point sufficiently enough.  I clicked on the website, and it had LukeDashJr and Peter Wuille as authors, so I figure that it is core authored, and I also figured that these were means to potentially facilitate the implementation of seg wit, which was different from the aspiration of those other forks (such as XT, classic and BU), which seemed inclined towards changing governance and hardforking.... furthermore there is a difference between hardforking and softforking, no?  UASF (BIP148) is a softfork, right?  So sufficiently different from XT, classic and BU, right?

[Troll Buster]

I am just providing my opinion regarding the seemingly contrary dynamics between your name and your actual post...

So instead of being a troll buster, your post is coming off as the opposite.. at least from my perspective - because it seems to be filled with a lot of unprovable assumptions regarding both facts and logic.

<snip, too much irrelevant garbage>

Great picture of an analogy that is not supported by the facts, and this situation seems to be way more compleax and dynamic than you are summarizing it to be.

Coming from the guy who assumed "but isn't there going to be some kind of hesitancy to move away from Core".

When Bitcoin market share already fell from 86% to 44% in just 3 months.

Look it up, that's not an assumption, that's people WALKING AWAY FROM CORE, ok? You got that?

Things are really clear and simple once you stop being a Core fan boy.

[JayJuanGee]

I am just providing my opinion regarding the seemingly contrary dynamics between your name and your actual post...

So instead of being a troll buster, your post is coming off as the opposite.. at least from my perspective - because it seems to be filled with a lot of unprovable assumptions regarding both facts and logic.

<snip, too much irrelevant garbage>

Great picture of an analogy that is not supported by the facts, and this situation seems to be way more compleax and dynamic than you are summarizing it to be.

Coming from the guy who assumed "but isn't there going to be some kind of hesitancy to move away from Core".

When Bitcoin market share already fell from 86% to 44% in just 3 months.

Look it up, that's not an assumption, that's people WALKING AWAY FROM CORE, ok? You got that?

Things are really clear and simple once you stop being a Core fan boy.

Yeah.. goofballs like you devolve into personal attacks when they got nothing but propaganda and spin.

Changes in the market share of bitcoin is not necessarily a reflection on whether core has been abandoned like you misleadingly and erroneously argue, even though such nonsense is frequently spun as such.

regarding your fan boy accusation.. blah blah blah.. i give a ratt's ass about core.. I am just trying to discuss a subject matter, which seems a waste of time with your increasing devoluyion into nonsense.

[Troll Buster]

Yeah.. goofballs like you devolve into personal attacks when they got nothing but propaganda and spin.

Changes in the market share of bitcoin is not necessarily a reflection on whether core has been abandoned like you misleadingly and erroneously argue, even though such nonsense is frequently spun as such.

regarding your fan boy accusation.. blah blah blah.. i give a ratt's ass about core.. I am just trying to discuss a subject matter, which seems a waste of time with your increasing devoluyion into nonsense.

Wait, let me get this straight.

So you began your first reply talking about people's user name and their "lack of logic".

And when it turned out that world history and statistics don't agree with you, you cry?

I like this one: "goofballs like you devolve into personal attacks".
You might as well say "Don't f**king swear".

If you're hungry go eat a book with mindrust or something.

[CuriousInvestor]

Questions for you folks:

1) What is Bitmain's incentive to back Segwit2x? Is there a version of Segwit where Covert ASIC Boost mining still works? Referring to this blog: https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/asicboost-the-reason-why-bitmain-blocked-segwit-901fd346ee9f
"Bitmain wanted to push Segwit either through a hard fork, or in Extension Blocks which would be compatible with their ASICBoost. A soft fork of Segwit, which is by far the safest option, isn’t compatible and they would lose their advantage over other miners."

2) If 80% Signaling is reached and Segwit2x (BIP91) is locked in before August 1, and then UASF fails due to this activation (too little hash power support, subjected to replay attack), will Bitmain be able to pull out still afterwards so there will be no Segwit, which will delay Segwit?

[JayJuanGee]

Yeah.. goofballs like you devolve into personal attacks when they got nothing but propaganda and spin.

Changes in the market share of bitcoin is not necessarily a reflection on whether core has been abandoned like you misleadingly and erroneously argue, even though such nonsense is frequently spun as such.

regarding your fan boy accusation.. blah blah blah.. i give a ratt's ass about core.. I am just trying to discuss a subject matter, which seems a waste of time with your increasing devoluyion into nonsense.

Wait, let me get this straight.

So you began your first reply talking about people's user name and their "lack of logic".

And when it turned out that world history and statistics don't agree with you, you cry?

I like this one: "goofballs like you devolve into personal attacks".
You might as well say "Don't f**king swear".

If you're hungry go eat a book with mindrust or something.

I wonder if you know how to read?

lack of logic applies to the literal meaning of your name.

But you have proven yourself as otherwise unwilling or unable to stick to any topic beyond an ongoing devolution of topics, which certainly is a sign of a troll.. contrary to your nombre.

[Variogam]

1) What is Bitmain's incentive to back Segwit2x? Is there a version of Segwit where Covert ASIC Boost mining still works? Referring to this blog: https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/asicboost-the-reason-why-bitmain-blocked-segwit-901fd346ee9f
"Bitmain wanted to push Segwit either through a hard fork, or in Extension Blocks which would be compatible with their ASICBoost. A soft fork of Segwit, which is by far the safest option, isn’t compatible and they would lose their advantage over other miners."

There is no proof Bitmain uses asicboost on live chain. The structure of their blocks indicate they dont.
But I dont doubt they tested/developed it.

2) If 80% Signaling is reached and Segwit2x (BIP91) is locked in before August 1, and then UASF fails due to this activation (too little hash power support, subjected to replay attack), will Bitmain be able to pull out still afterwards so there will be no Segwit, which will delay Segwit?

In your case SegWit2x is compatible with the UASF BIP148 activation, so your following speculation is moot.

[Troll Buster]

I wonder if you know how to read?

lack of logic applies to the literal meaning of your name.

But you have proven yourself as otherwise unwilling or unable to stick to any topic beyond an ongoing devolution of topics, which certainly is a sign of a troll.. contrary to your nombre.

Exactly, so when you say:
"Yeah.. goofballs like you devolve into personal attacks when they got nothing but propaganda and spin."
You were really talking about yourself.

What is so difficult to understand.

People are pissed at Core and they're walking away from them.

Miners said so, developers said so, users said so.

You said "isn't there going to be some kind of hesitancy to move away from Core"

So I shown you Apple vs Nokia and the Bitcoin market share drop, there is plenty more information available, all you need to do is search.

What has username got to do with it.

Stick to the point or shut up.

[JayJuanGee]

Questions for you folks:

1) What is Bitmain's incentive to back Segwit2x? Is there a version of Segwit where Covert ASIC Boost mining still works? Referring to this blog: https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/asicboost-the-reason-why-bitmain-blocked-segwit-901fd346ee9f
"Bitmain wanted to push Segwit either through a hard fork, or in Extension Blocks which would be compatible with their ASICBoost. A soft fork of Segwit, which is by far the safest option, isn’t compatible and they would lose their advantage over other miners."

2) If 80% Signaling is reached and Segwit2x (BIP91) is locked in before August 1, and then UASF fails due to this activation (too little hash power support, subjected to replay attack), will Bitmain be able to pull out still afterwards so there will be no Segwit, which will delay Segwit?

That seems to be the direction of my thinking too.. .. that Bitmain is engaging in a kind of gamemanship and an attempt to provide various vehicles of confusion, and I think that they want to create such a state of messing things up that bitcoin governance is changed as a result...

So they could give a ratt's ass about various technical matters if they can make some progress towards changing bitcoin's governance.