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

[dinofelis]

The only thing worse than me finding out I was wrong about 1st vs successive blocks is reading the dumb shit people write whilst trying to justify what I was wrong about.  

Well, once it is out of the bottle, whether somewhere implemented in one or other toy version of bitcoin doesn't matter: the idea of MINIMUM block size to impose a clean bilateral hard fork over block size is a very smart idea.  Whether it is done by segwit2x or not, doesn't really matter now.  They SHOULD do it.

(however, if gmaxwell tells us that it "rejects its own blocks" because they are smaller than 1 MB, one would think that it DOES implement a lower block size limit).

In any case, the thing with block size limits is a fundamental design problem in bitcoin, due to its badly designed economic model, and its centralizing compensated PoW game theory.  All these discussions are just small fixes on what cannot be fixed fundamentally.

[BillyBobZorton]

What growth? Look at the mempool, most of the time it's far from full. Transactions are cheap. It's only when the mempool gets spammed out of nowhere that people cry about bitcoin. Ver and co spam the network to get the big block narrative going and confuse noobs into thinking increase the blocksize is a must now or else we'll die. Bollocks.

Still not a bad thing to go the 2 MB blocks even if currently 1 MB would be sufficient.

In a couple of years it will not be and then we have double the headroom.

In a couple of years we will have lightning network, and if we REALLY need 2MB, we will do it without less risk AND with a lot of other cool things that could be implemented with a hardfork. You are supposed to get maximum consensus in a hardfork and you are supposed to get as much interesting stuff as possible to avoid needing further hardforks.

Hardforking in a matter of a couple of months with software that is clearly not up to bitcoin standards is suicidal and not logical by any means.

[ComputerGenie]

In a couple of years we will have lightning network....

* ComputerGenie hopes that in a couple of years everyone will finally understand that LN isn't part of Bitcoin, that LN doesn't serve the needs or uses of the vast majority of Bitcoin users, and that LN isn't part of Bitcoin.  

[hv_]

In a couple of years we will have lightning network....

* ComputerGenie hopes that in a couple of years everyone will finally understand that LN isn't part of Bitcoin, that LN doesn't serve the needs or uses of the vast majority of Bitcoin users, and that LN isn't part of Bitcoin.  

In a couple of years lot of LN fan boys will hate LN because they've lost a lot of money and will say we were not properly warnded that on-chain is by millions more safe than off-chain...

[mindrust]

If you are ready to accept the hard truth about big blocks and why they aren't the solution; If you want to know why miners are such losers and they always make the wrong choices, why segwit2x is not the way to go, watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ

Watch especially the guy who's lying on a sofa. He actually has a common sense! (which is actually not that common nowadays)

[ComputerGenie]

In a couple of years lot of LN fan boys will hate LN because they've lost a lot of money and will say we were not properly warnded that on-chain is by millions more safe than off-chain...

Don't get me wrong, I am pro-LN (in the use-cases that it's actually designed for); I'm just also in favor of people understanding that LN is "part of" Bitcoin the the exact say way that their pretty pink piggy-bank is "part of" the US Treasury Dept.

[jbreher]

Obviously there will be attackers when Segwit2x is deployed.

While that seems likely, how likely is it that the attackers will be able to throw sufficient hashpower at the entire Bitcoin network in order to successfully mine 6000 blocks in 24 hours - including the intervening difficulty adjustments?

If this is in any way remotely possible, then Bitcoin is already irreparably hosed.

[hv_]

In a couple of years lot of LN fan boys will hate LN because they've lost a lot of money and will say we were not properly warnded that on-chain is by millions more safe than off-chain...

Don't get me wrong, I am pro-LN (in the use-cases that it's actually designed for); I'm just also in favor of people understanding that LN is "part of" Bitcoin the the exact say way that their pretty pink piggy-bank is "part of" the US Treasury Dept.

Don't get me wrong either - I'm just very very worried of comparing these two solutions at all because security is by factor of some petahashes and multimillon$ investments different -

[ComputerGenie]

LN is not a solution, or even part of a solution; LN is a companion service, period. 

[jbreher]

But Roger told me Garzik has code in billions of devices

True story. Every contemporary Linux install that employs ATA (maybe 95+% of all currently running Linux systems) is absolutely dependent on his code.

[Variogam]

The mempool has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter how many transactions there are, the current segwit2x code has a default block size limit of 750kB and there are no plans to change it. Miners using the default settings will (and did) refuse to mine the required >1MB block, causing the fork chain to freeze completely.

Default block size limit of 750kB is the default Core setting. Obviously miners on live chain do not use such default Core setting. There are not plans to change it because all miners on live chain are familiar with setting it to mine blocks larger than 750kB already 

[jbreher]

Or are you saying that exchanges and users simply won't use segwit transactions?

^^^ pretty much this.

Note that segwit transactions, for all their 'benefits', also implement a different security model than Bitcoin transactions. A weaker one. I'll not be accepting segwit transactions. At least not if I can help it.

[notbatman]

If Core forks to Daggerhashimoto on the 1st the mining consortium will just go away. There's enough hashing power to secure the network ready and waiting...

[BillyBobZorton]

In a couple of years we will have lightning network....

* ComputerGenie hopes that in a couple of years everyone will finally understand that LN isn't part of Bitcoin, that LN doesn't serve the needs or uses of the vast majority of Bitcoin users, and that LN isn't part of Bitcoin.  

How do you know what the vast majority of bitcoin users want? Speak for yourself.

What the majority of bitcoiners sure don't want is piece of shit software rushed in a couple of months to hardfork bitcoin into two coins collapsing the price, that is what they don't want.

People that have a lot of money invested in bitcoin and therefore got the most skin in the game, do NOT want this stupid hardfork nonsense.

I couldn't care less about segwit, LN or anything else, bitcoin must not fork into two bitcoins, and big holders will not allow this.

Nobody holding big amounts wants a centralized network with big blocks. Bitcoin as store of value > Bitcoin as Paypal 2.0. In order for Bitcoin to stay a store of value, it must have a decentralized network, not a network run by a couple corporations.

No amount of fake spam and FUD will fork Bitcoin, the sooner you understand this reality the better.

[jbreher]

however, if gmaxwell tells us that it "rejects its own blocks" because they are smaller than 1 MB, one would think that it DOES implement a lower block size limit).

Well, yes. But gmaxwell has a way of speaking whereby he says one thing, while building the impression in the reader's mind that he is saying something different altogether.

[Lauda]

In a couple of years lot of LN fan boys will hate LN because they've lost a lot of money and will say we were not properly warnded that on-chain is by millions more safe than off-chain...

Which is an absolutely bullshit claim that is not surprising from BU/EC/Segwit2x supporters (all of which are dangerous cancer).

....  

I was wrong, that's the dumbest thing I've read in 60 pages.  

Dinofelis often posted garbage that is out of touch with reality, i.e. a view of Bitcoin that fits his own agenda. I have previously suspected him to be a government/agency/corporation shill (which would make sense considering he's unwanted yet persists by continually posting his nonsense).

But Roger told me Garzik has code in billions of devices

True story. Every contemporary Linux install that employs ATA (maybe 95+% of all currently running Linux systems) is absolutely dependent on his code.

You didn't understand my post. Roger posted that as if it actually gave credibility for the quality of someone's Bitcoin Code. Hint: It isn't.

[ComputerGenie]

* ComputerGenie hopes that in a couple of years everyone will finally understand that LN isn't part of Bitcoin, that LN doesn't serve the needs or uses of the vast majority of Bitcoin users, and that LN isn't part of Bitcoin. 

How do you know what the vast majority of bitcoin users want?...

Because, unlike you, I understand what LN is.

...What the majority of bitcoiners sure don't want is piece of shit software rushed in a couple of months to hardfork bitcoin into two coins collapsing the price, that is what they don't want.

People that have a lot of money invested in bitcoin and therefore got the most skin in the game, do NOT want this stupid hardfork nonsense...

And that has what to do with anything I said?

...I couldn't care less about segwit, LN or anything else....

Then why are you here?

[ComputerGenie]

Well, yes. But gmaxwell has a way of speaking whereby he says one thing, while building the impression in the reader's mind that he is saying something different altogether.

If I didn't know better, I'd swear that was a requirement for being a paid Core dev (another dev saying that people pushing for early adoption of segwit are only doing so in order to delay segwit, comes to mind). 

[DooMAD]

I'm saying that in the ideal event of a consensual fork, there's no shift in the balance of power or the consensus mechanism.  

Yeah of course, if there is consensus (at what ever level that is deemed non controversial), then that seems to be just a reinforcing of the current rules - and even a confirmation of an agreement that the rules are working for that particular application.

I'm also saying that in the event of a contentious fork, that could cause an imbalance and you might actually have a valid point (yay for you).  

Of course, I have a point.  This is the crux of the argument to determine at what point (or what consensus) threshold a hardfork would be imposed and still be considered to be safe to write off the minority - 95% seems pretty good for those kinds of scenarios, but of course, it could still work out at a lower consensus threshold, even if it would be more risky. 

(...)

I doubt that we are done yet, and sure, I am o.k. with agreeing to disagree at some point - even if I might not be clear about which parts we are agreeing to disagree about. 

As long as it's clear that a change in consensus is something entirely different to a change in governance, I'm satisfied.  If a fork does occur, then we can argue some more about which category it falls into.

For the record, by the way, it only needs to be one block to big enough to break the deadlock but it's still a stupid mechanism to secure the hardfork.

It's tricky, because there has to be a method of preventing replay attacks.  Obviously people would be critical of their efforts if they didn't ensure a clean fork.  It's almost as though they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.  And because the blocksize cap itself was rather a crude cludge to begin with, undoing it probably won't be any more graceful.  

[jbreher]

It's almost as though they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

It's exactly as though they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.