Miners are obviously scared of UASF setting a precedent

[infer]

I do not think so. miners do not have any fault in this situation. ONly the pool developers, especially those Chinese. Everything they want is to refuse the segwit because they will lose the chance to control Bitcoin if SEGWIT activates

[1714898818]

1714898818

[1714898818]

1714898818

[1714898818]

1714898818

[deisik]

Oh, that is a easy one to answer. While Bitcoin is struggling with scaling issues, people have to pay higher fees to these Minerfkrs to get their transactions confirmed. They will stall this process into infinity, because they profit from it. We cannot rely on them to make decisions on this, because their decision is clouded by greed. ^grrrrrr^

Satoshi would have kicked their ass a long time ago, if he saw what they were doing now.

My line of thinking is that if transactions get too clogged to the point where users begin navigating to shitcoins, then the miners will have to smarten up. Though if they're just looking for a quick 6-12 month profit and then they move on to the next new thing then yeah I see your point. But I think the more civilized/professional miners will succeed in the long run, and in the process they'll help raise the standards of the industry. If you don't like bitmain then maybe try to help support bitfury

Miners are already smart enough

They want to preserve their profits, and right now it means stalling any further Bitcoin development. People will bite the bullet but keep on using bitcoins as long as Bitcoin continues to grow (which it does). Shitcoins are irrelevant as long as they can't show consistent profits like Bitcoin does. The bottom line is that miners are reluctant to change anything as of now, and this is perfectly understandable (from an economic viewpoint)

[ClaraLuV]

The miners are heavily invested in bitcoin. Why wouldn't they support whatever is needed for bitcoin to grow and succeed?

Yes miners have invested a huge amount of money but what matters is holding the technology together and building it for the future rather than looking for the incentives you get in the short term,you really need to understand the long term implications when you are doing any upgrades rather than the short term goals.

[classicsucks]

Miners are scared of UASF actually being a success since it would set a precedent: If they don't follow economic majority, they will get weeded out.

This is why they are coming up with stuff like the closed door agreement with the software node by amateur developers.

I don't think you even need to be a developer to change one line of code, LOL. They just need a team of people to help manage the fork process, helping people upgrade and warding off FUD/hack attempts.

The only way to get a reasonable hard fork, is if it's not rushed (4 months is rushed) and if it includes more technological innovations than a mere 2MB increase. There are lots of cool things we could add in a proper hard fork.

How about the 3 years' time that sane people have already waited?

I notice now that miners are getting blamed for high fees - ironic, because they're the ones that have been screaming for a blocksize increase for years, which would reduce fees but increase transaction capacity.

[The One]

Are you trying to say that SegWit + 2Mb increase will lead to a significant decline in nodes.

yes

If so I am interested your argument as to why.

more data needed for full node = less people running full nodes

No, yes, maybe....so many possibilities.

Actually 10mb download average every 10 minutes is nothing. I and millions others have DL 10mb in under 5 seconds.

[deisik]

I notice now that miners are getting blamed for high fees - ironic, because they're the ones that have been screaming for a blocksize increase for years, which would reduce fees but increase transaction capacity

You fail to catch the full irony of that

While they might in fact have been screaming for a blocksize increase during all these years (I don't really know), but their screams should have been very hypocritical, insincere and hollow since they are the ones who could have actually increased the blocksize if they ever chose so. As I said in my previous post, we should hear what is said between the words and read what is written between the lines

[classicsucks]

I notice now that miners are getting blamed for high fees - ironic, because they're the ones that have been screaming for a blocksize increase for years, which would reduce fees but increase transaction capacity

You fail to catch the full irony of that

While they might in fact have been screaming for a blocksize increase during all these years (I don't really know), but their screams should have been very hypocritical, insincere and hollow since they are the ones who could have actually increased the blocksize if they ever chose so. As I said in my previous post, we should hear what is said between the words and read what is written between the lines

Ohhh, you again, with your theories that miners don't want to increase the blocksize?  When essentially every miner has been screaming through every possible channel to increase it for 3 years now? The same miners that signed the Hong Kong agreement to increase the blocksize, which never happened?  You just have to do some basic reading to understand that CORE is the only camp against increasing the blocksize. Every other sane individual that understands bitcoin has been waiting patiently (or impatiently) for this to happen. It's just a fact.

So please just try to read up a little on the subject you're posting about. Putting you on ignore. No offense.

[dinofelis]

UASF have empowered the bitcoin holders so that the miners will have no choice but to comply with the request and wants of the holders and players of bitcoin.

Just for the fun of it, I really would like to see the dynamics of a UASF against the miners to force them.  So in a way, just for sake of experiment, I'd like to see that happening, because I think it would be a major fiasco, it simply doesn't make sense.

Of course, if the miners decide to HF before, you could always say that they did so because they were scared in the same way the Japanese could claim that the US was so terribly scared of their superior army that they threw them a few nukes on their head in 1945, proving the superiority of the Japanese army.  Yeah....

I'd like to see the experiment done with a UASF, honestly, to see how it turns out, so in a way, I hope the miners don't HF before, and spoil the experimental setup.

[franky1]

I notice now that miners are getting blamed for high fees - ironic, because they're the ones that have been screaming for a blocksize increase for years, which would reduce fees but increase transaction capacity

You fail to catch the full irony of that

While they might in fact have been screaming for a blocksize increase during all these years (I don't really know), but their screams should have been very hypocritical, insincere and hollow since they are the ones who could have actually increased the blocksize if they ever chose so. As I said in my previous post, we should hear what is said between the words and read what is written between the lines

1. pools cannot just increase the block size with a click of their fingers... NODE consensus matters!!
as proven by

Code:

2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)

drama over in 3 seconds.

2. pools did not remove the fee priority formulae or the reactive fee when demand drops. pools didnt add the average fee to keep prices up when demand drops. all of this was CORE, mainly gmaxwell playing with the fee code.

3. segwit is not stopped due to pools. its stopped due to 67% of who CORE chose as the only voters saying nay/abstaining. and when you ask why.. those voters say cludgy code. pools didnt nominate themselves to be the only voters/deciders. again all of this was core, mainly gmaxwell and luke playing with soft exploits

4. as for my harping on about the cludge of the tier network. and also issues about activating segwit early here is gmaxwell talking about it
https://0bin.net/paste/catFu7J9BqL7zsFq#xByDHjK6HYhzmcXXMVgeBX8tYUB6+-9pb14RBxEJVF0

<gmaxwell> murchandamus: they'd all end up banning each other.
<gmaxwell> murchandamus: because segwit nodes would hand witnesses to 0.14 nodes, and then get punted because things aren't supposted to have wittnesses yet.
<gmaxwell> Segwit is more than the consensus rule, it's also a set of P2P changes.[the tier network]
<gmaxwell> And the p2p parts are already in effect.
<gmaxwell> Because we didn't want to have the p2p behavior suddenly change and light up a lot of new codepaths when segwit enforcement started.
<gmaxwell> (as that sounded like a receipy for disaster! )
<gmaxwell> Segwit has the bip9 activiation, and a network service type which is used to make sure the graph of segwit capable nodes is not partitioned, and new p2p messages for transfering messages (tx, blocks, compact blocks) with witnesses if they have them.

[BillyBobZorton]

UASF have empowered the bitcoin holders so that the miners will have no choice but to comply with the request and wants of the holders and players of bitcoin.

Just for the fun of it, I really would like to see the dynamics of a UASF against the miners to force them.  So in a way, just for sake of experiment, I'd like to see that happening, because I think it would be a major fiasco, it simply doesn't make sense.

Of course, if the miners decide to HF before, you could always say that they did so because they were scared in the same way the Japanese could claim that the US was so terribly scared of their superior army that they threw them a few nukes on their head in 1945, proving the superiority of the Japanese army.  Yeah....

I'd like to see the experiment done with a UASF, honestly, to see how it turns out, so in a way, I hope the miners don't HF before, and spoil the experimental setup.

It does make sense, it work as a snowball effect, if it gets like 20% hashrate, some miners will start getting nervous, then once the snowball effect beggins its pretty much game over for everyone that isn't on board.

Having said that, I don't want to have to resort to UASF, if we can make the 2MB HF compromise, developed by Core so we don't have to ask the 95% of the network to stop trusting Core software which they will not. Also the segwit must be activated SF to stop the covert ASICBOOST scam. The HF, must be deployed 1 year from now at least and not the rushed time proposed by Barry Shillbert.

If we can reach that then it's going to be OK, all other paths lead to UASF.

But the fact the narrative has shifted from if we need to get segwit or not, to how do we get segwit, proves UASF is working. We, the people armed with full validating nodes, are creating pressure to get things moving in the right direction.
Notice how BU is dead at this point.

[25hashcoin]

BlockstreamCore needs removed from bitcoin.

[deisik]

I notice now that miners are getting blamed for high fees - ironic, because they're the ones that have been screaming for a blocksize increase for years, which would reduce fees but increase transaction capacity

You fail to catch the full irony of that

While they might in fact have been screaming for a blocksize increase during all these years (I don't really know), but their screams should have been very hypocritical, insincere and hollow since they are the ones who could have actually increased the blocksize if they ever chose so. As I said in my previous post, we should hear what is said between the words and read what is written between the lines

Ohhh, you again, with your theories that miners don't want to increase the blocksize?  When essentially every miner has been screaming through every possible channel to increase it for 3 years now? The same miners that signed the Hong Kong agreement to increase the blocksize, which never happened?  You just have to do some basic reading to understand that CORE is the only camp against increasing the blocksize. Every other sane individual that understands bitcoin has been waiting patiently (or impatiently) for this to happen. It's just a fact.

So please just try to read up a little on the subject you're posting about. Putting you on ignore. No offense

You arrogantly seem to be confusing me with someone else. I made it pretty clear that I don't know if the miners were actually "screaming through every possible channel to increase it". So leave your "theories that miners don't want to increase the blocksize" for someone else, for I never claimed anything to that tune in the first place. That said, I still repeat that if miners have all the hashing power (which is what miners are supposed to have by definition), they can effectively do anything with Bitcoin. Other than that, you are not ignoring me, you are ostensibly ignoring your own arrogance and vanity (no surprise that we are seeing all that confrontation heating up now), but more power to you then. It ain't my business anyway

I just hope that you will be consistent with your ignore list

You fail to catch the full irony of that

While they might in fact have been screaming for a blocksize increase during all these years (I don't really know), but their screams should have been very hypocritical, insincere and hollow since they are the ones who could have actually increased the blocksize if they ever chose so. As I said in my previous post, we should hear what is said between the words and read what is written between the lines

1. pools cannot just increase the block size with a click of their fingers... NODE consensus matters!!
as proven by

Code:

2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)

drama over in 3 seconds

And what will happen if all miners continue to force their new blocks down the line? Wouldn't that be called a hard fork?

[Pettuh4]

I do not think so. miners do not have any fault in this situation. ONly the pool developers, especially those Chinese. Everything they want is to refuse the segwit because they will lose the chance to control Bitcoin if SEGWIT activates

As for me, I'm tired of the internal politics and fight for the control of Bitcoin, why can't the community unite to find an amicable solution rather than set ourselves at odds by presenting contrary views and methods.

[Kprawn]

The miners are heavily invested in bitcoin. Why wouldn't they support whatever is needed for bitcoin to grow and succeed?

Miners like Jihan are not interested in ANY scaling solution. They do not want Bitcoin to scale, because they are profiting from the high fees people

are paying. They will stall the process as long as possible, because they are making tons of money while users are forced to pay high miners fees.

UASF might not be the best solution, but it is better than what we have been doing up to now.