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

[allinvain]

Ver should just start his own coin - Vercoin! I have a feeling Roger will signal BU till the very bitter end.

I've been asking the same question myself. The aswer probably is that Ver isn't a good programmer/cryptographer to invent a new coin. The whitepapers of ethereum and zcash for example are way beyond his IQ capacity   Another reason is that if a coin is a fork to bitcoin it will attract more the pump groups in Poloniex.

Well, he's got a lot of money so he can just pay someone to engineer a new coin. I'd imagine though he wouldn't go with SHA256 nor Scrypt but something else as a PoW, or maybe totally PoS. Then he can have all the large blocks! Unlimited large blocks! Larger than his IQ 

[allinvain]

Slight bump in the road. Looks like Bitfury, F2Pool and GBMiners are all signalling SW so they're likely on the sidelines waiting to hear about that bug ck described a few posts back.

[Iranus]

A few are holding out or have reverted while they get clarification on the latest problem with the fork as pointed out to them by gmaxwell here https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/85 . They're waiting to see how bad an issue it might be in the real world before deploying it (+/- again).

Is this why f2pool and bitfury still holding? Yesterday Bitfury was signaling bip 91, today they changed to segwit.

I'm tracking this through xbt.eu

Bitfury have said they are now:
https://twitter.com/BitfuryGeorge/status/887557125437829121

Only f2pool is left of the big pools and there's already enough hashrate so they'll definitely do it knowing that.

I thought I read somewhere here that f2pool actually wanted to signal bip 91 but had ddos attacks preventing them to update their clients. But couldn't find a public announcement about this.

F2Pool are absolute trolls.  When they were going to signal SegWit a while ago, Wang Chun said that SegWit would be a "disaster" then started signalling really soon after under the guise of following the public.

I wouldn't trust that they'll follow through on it until the last minute.  

Christ, these mining pool operators have so much power.

[ComputerGenie]

...When they were going to signal SegWit a while ago, Wang Chun said that SegWit would be a "disaster" then started signalling really soon after under the guise of following the public..

Yeah, what kind of dick reverses his position based on the belief that holding strong to such a position would create a fork in Bitcoin that's not good for Bitcoin? 

[JayJuanGee]

...When they were going to signal SegWit a while ago, Wang Chun said that SegWit would be a "disaster" then started signalling really soon after under the guise of following the public..

Yeah, what kind of dick reverses his position based on the belief that holding strong to such a position would create a fork in Bitcoin that's not good for Bitcoin?  

Yeah, we would not want anyone changing their mind, merely based on having better ideas come along.  That would be dumb.     Better if they just stick with their original dumb position no matter what others think.   

[-ck]

...When they were going to signal SegWit a while ago, Wang Chun said that SegWit would be a "disaster" then started signalling really soon after under the guise of following the public..

Yeah, what kind of dick reverses his position based on the belief that holding strong to such a position would create a fork in Bitcoin that's not good for Bitcoin?  

A real big dick... but no wait, maybe it's a real small dick and this is their way of compensating by feeling like they have power?

[ComputerGenie]

...When they were going to signal SegWit a while ago, Wang Chun said that SegWit would be a "disaster" then started signalling really soon after under the guise of following the public..

Yeah, what kind of dick reverses his position based on the belief that holding strong to such a position would create a fork in Bitcoin that's not good for Bitcoin?  

A real big dick... but no wait, maybe it's a real small dick and this is their way of compensating by feeling like they have power?

Well, I'm not sure how my dick measures up; however, I do have a "favorite" in all of this despite my personal feeling of segwit's uselessness and my personal belief that it's not a "necessary" thing for Bitcoin. So, I can relate to saying it's a disaster, knowing that Core will ensure that segwit will happen (even if no one supported it), and still picking what I feel to be the least of the inevitable evils.

[dinofelis]

Good point. Would you think, that all that drama and meetings werent completely needed if there never ever had been such 1MB limit in the top level consensus rules, but rather every entity hat to limit 'spam' or max size by own definition and duties keeping the Nash equilibrium up and running?

Yes.  (but... - see below)

The big invention of bitcoin is immutability of protocol.  (not of "software", of "protocol", that is "contract").  This is about the brightest thing that Satoshi did, but I think he didn't fully realize it (or for conspirational thinking, he knew it, but had his reasons).  Bitcoin's concept of a shared block chain that allows all users to come to consensus, and those not agreeing with consensus are simply ejected from the system, leads automatically to immutability if the decentralization is wide enough.  It is impossible to make ALL users agree upon an ECONOMIC change, because some will win, and others will lose, so the losers will never agree.  Of course, purely technical issues where everybody is convinced that it is better, is no problem, if there are no alternatives.  If there are technical alternative solutions to a technical problem, you will also get immutability because of "religious wars", people pushing for THEIR pet solution to the contract modification.

In other words, bitcoin's CONTRACT can only be modified if EVERYONE agrees over the single, same, obvious way to solve a difficulty in the advantage of *everybody*.  It is the sole exception to immutability ; in the same way that a normal contract can be modified if all parties agree upon modifying it.

Again, I'm not talking about the *software* that *implements* the contract (the protocol).  That software can evolve, and be as varied as one wants, in the same way that there are different e-mail clients, but they all talk SMTP.

However, in my opinion, Satoshi screwed up in several conceptual aspects of bitcoin, and these touch the very heart of bitcoin's contract.  These derive from the following "axioms":
- fake sound money doctrine: there should be a finite and fixed amount of bitcoins for t -> infinity
- remunerated proof of work will avoid sybilling of the consensus voting process.

If it weren't for these two fundamental mistakes, which are normally seen as the pillars of bitcoin, bitcoin would have been able to turn into a genuine currency generally used.  But because of this, bitcoin is deeply flawed in the long term.

A) the "proof of work" was meant to make it more and more expensive to "pretend to be many" (contrary to "firing up more and more full nodes", which Satoshi considered a danger if they had to vote, because you can easily Sybil it).  But you KILL ENTIRELY this "making pretending to be many" expensive if you REMUNERATE "pretending to be many" (using a lot of hash power).  --> this is the root cause of bitcoin's unavoidable centralization: if you *remunerate* the consensus decision process, and there are economies of scale (unavoidable), then you will have the OPPOSITE effect than decentralization: you will push to a power law distribution of the power to vote the consensus protocol, and hence end up with a few tens of deciders (the pools) at best.

But the problem is that because proof of work is in fact "proof of economic waste", you HAVE to remunerate the consensus decision or nobody is going to make it, leaving the system insecure.

B) and this brings us to the caveat (my "but - see below"): combined with sound money doctrine, you will have to diminish bloc rewards more and more.  In the end, the remuneration of the proof of work will have to come from FEES.  In order for fees to be sufficiently lucrative to allow sufficient proof of work, TRANSACTIONS NEED TO BECOME SCARCE.

So this is the "but".  If you allow unlimited blocs, there's no way to remunerate the centralized deciders of bitcoin in the long run.  Satoshi simply *didn't know how to solve that* and *there is no solution for his problem* in the frame of the axioms he put forward.  Maybe that's why he introduced the 1 MB limit.  Because he didn't know how to solve his unsolvable problem.

[hv_]

Thx for picking this up. I also think we should rather find a clear and simple but strict PROTOCOL (21 Mio ...)

Any tech for clients is of user's behalf....

Decentralization and security comes with that.

[ComputerGenie]

...Satoshi simply *didn't know how to solve that* and *there is no solution for his problem* in the frame of the axioms he put forward.  Maybe that's why he introduced the 1 MB limit.  Because he didn't know how to solve his unsolvable problem.

Yeah, well, he also said:

It's only when you're sending a really huge transaction that the transaction fee ever comes into play...

So, there's that....  

[Meuh6879]

Source : https://www.xbt.eu/ (144 blocks)

[dinofelis]

...Satoshi simply *didn't know how to solve that* and *there is no solution for his problem* in the frame of the axioms he put forward.  Maybe that's why he introduced the 1 MB limit.  Because he didn't know how to solve his unsolvable problem.

Yeah, well, he also said:

It's only when you're sending a really huge transaction that the transaction fee ever comes into play...

So, there's that....  

I don't know if and why he said that, but obviously it is wrong in the long term.  When the bloc reward becomes insignificant, ALL proof of work has to be paid by fees.  That cannot be "insignificant", because if it were, it would be easy to attack the chain with more PoW: it would only cost you more than the "total amount of insignificant contributions".

The principle itself of security by PoW comes from the fact that the total amount of value wasted (in the end, by the users) must be so significant, that nobody has any incentive to spend MORE to attack bitcoin.
This collective bill of bitcoin is paid by all the bitcoin holders, right now mostly due to inflationary pressure (inflation tax), but in the end, by those transacting.  In a certain way, this is *fairer*, because the cost of bitcoin's PoW is a service to those doing *transactions*, while with coin creation, all bitcoin OWNERS pay the bill (some kind of socialist redistribution: owners pay for the service to transactors) ; with fees, the transactors pay for themselves and the non-transacting owners are not affected (no inflationary pressure).

However, that bill is important, and for that bill to be important, transactions have to remain scarce.

So there is essentially NO WAY to make transactions cheap and fluid on a finally PoW protected chain without inflationary remuneration (as has been the case until now and in the decade or so that follows).

EVEN if you take transactions off-chain, they are STILL only secured by Proof of Work, and they will have to pay the bill IN ANY CASE or bitcoin becomes insecure.  No matter what.

This is simply because remunerated Proof of Work for consensus decisions was a BAD IDEA in a sound money coin.  (and sound money itself is an economically bad idea too, but that's another discussion: it turns the asset into a speculative asset falling into a deflationary spiral and makes it non-liquid as a currency).

Satoshi's claimed quote would make sense if the "cost of mining" were related to "the amount of data".  But it isn't.  The resource cost of data and networking is INSIGNIFICANT as compared to the ON PURPOSE wasting of resources in proof of work, which is not related to computing resource usage, but to CHAIN SECURITY.

As such  "the size of the transaction" doesn't matter AT ALL in the security model of bitcoin's proof of work.  It does, if the market squeezer is "block size".  But that's a silly squeezer.  As I said, the problem cannot be solved.

[ComputerGenie]

...Satoshi simply *didn't know how to solve that* and *there is no solution for his problem* in the frame of the axioms he put forward.  Maybe that's why he introduced the 1 MB limit.  Because he didn't know how to solve his unsolvable problem.

Yeah, well, he also said:

It's only when you're sending a really huge transaction that the transaction fee ever comes into play...

So, there's that....  

I don't know if and why he said that...

Well, technically, neither do I; however, as far as this board is concerned...

Does the sending client send more BitCoins to account for the fee (so the recipient gets what he's expecting)?

Yes.

why do we even need fees ? i thougt the no-fees-feature was one of the advantages of bitcoin ?!

Almost all transactions are free.  A transaction is over the maximum size limit if it has to add up more than 500 of the largest payments you've received to make up the amount.  A transaction over the size limit can still be sent if a small fee is added.

The average transaction, and anything up to 500 times bigger than average, is free.

It's only when you're sending a really huge transaction that the transaction fee ever comes into play, and even then it only works out to something like 0.002% of the amount.  It's not money sucked out of the system, it just goes to other nodes.  If you're sad about paying the fee, you could always turn the tables and run a node yourself and maybe someday rake in a 0.44 fee yourself.

*


*Not really relevant to modern Bitcoin, but since you're talking about "originally"

[dinofelis]

...Satoshi simply *didn't know how to solve that* and *there is no solution for his problem* in the frame of the axioms he put forward.  Maybe that's why he introduced the 1 MB limit.  Because he didn't know how to solve his unsolvable problem.

Yeah, well, he also said:

It's only when you're sending a really huge transaction that the transaction fee ever comes into play...

So, there's that....  

I don't know if and why he said that...

Well, technically, neither do I; however, as far as this board is concerned...

Does the sending client send more BitCoins to account for the fee (so the recipient gets what he's expecting)?

Yes.

why do we even need fees ? i thougt the no-fees-feature was one of the advantages of bitcoin ?!

Almost all transactions are free.  A transaction is over the maximum size limit if it has to add up more than 500 of the largest payments you've received to make up the amount.  A transaction over the size limit can still be sent if a small fee is added.

The average transaction, and anything up to 500 times bigger than average, is free.

It's only when you're sending a really huge transaction that the transaction fee ever comes into play, and even then it only works out to something like 0.002% of the amount.  It's not money sucked out of the system, it just goes to other nodes.  If you're sad about paying the fee, you could always turn the tables and run a node yourself and maybe someday rake in a 0.44 fee yourself.

Ok, so he said it, and he got that wrong.  It is not the only thing that he got wrong, but then, it is always easy to criticise with hindsight.  I think he didn't see the whole game-theoretical issue of the thing.  Like he didn't realize that the "hashcash" BRAKE on sybilling was totally reversed and became a STIMULANT once you REMUNERATE PoW.

Mathematically, you take out the LINEAR cost of hash cash with sybilling by proportional compensation, and you are left with higher-order corrections which are actually working the wrong way (economies of scale).

[Paashaas]

As far i know, Coinbase is the first exchange that rejects any potential HF from Jihan.

https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/887703206435758080

[ComputerGenie]

As far i know, Coinbase is the first exchange that rejects any potential HF from Jihan.

There in lies the root of the bigger problem...
People refusing to accept that:
The longest, most secure chain is Bitcoin; because, Bitcoin.

[The One]

...When they were going to signal SegWit a while ago, Wang Chun said that SegWit would be a "disaster" then started signalling really soon after under the guise of following the public..

Yeah, what kind of dick reverses his position based on the belief that holding strong to such a position would create a fork in Bitcoin that's not good for Bitcoin? 

Not so. It really depends on what the miners do after segwit is activated. They could ignore segwit txs and only accept current txs, making segwit pointless.

[mindrust]

As far i know, Coinbase is the first exchange that rejects any potential HF from Jihan.

https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/887703206435758080

I think I started to like coinbase  

Would I trust my precious coins to them? No, not yet. They have a long way to gain my trust but I may stop talking shit about them for a while.   I guess we are about to find out if userbase majority > hashrate majority or vice versa.

[ComputerGenie]

...making segwit pointless.

Isn't that a redundancy in terms? 

[mike4001]

As far i know, Coinbase is the first exchange that rejects any potential HF from Jihan.

https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/887703206435758080

I think I started to like coinbase  

Would I trust my precious coins to them? No, not yet. They have a long way to gain my trust but I may stop talking shit about them for a while.   I guess we are about to find out if userbase majority > hashrate majority or vice versa.

You see that if the forked of coin will be worth something (if only a few $), coinbase users have no way of getting these coins and coinbase basically steals them from their users.