Here we go for UASF on 08/01/2017 --> www.uasfguide.com

[European Central Bank]

look at the percentage of nodes which are signaling for UASF! WOW!!

just as fake as the bitcoin unlimited nodes, hundreds of which would crash and then come back online at the same time. they're not achieving anything other than looking a bit silly.

[1714842359]

1714842359

[1714842359]

1714842359

[1714842359]

1714842359

[1714842359]

1714842359

[1714842359]

1714842359

[1714842359]

1714842359

[dinofelis]

the code tells: only pick the segwit signalling blocks (non-consecutive) in the actual chain. and then apply the segwit activation logic on it which has 100% consensus.

Ah, it is then different that what I thought it did.  

So it accepts a mixed segwit signalling/non segwit signalling block chain in the same way that a normal node does, but only considers transactions (?) in those blocks that have segwit signalling ? In other words, it pretends not to see the non-segwit blocks, except for the fact that they have block headers in between segwit signalling blocks ?  In doing so, it tricks itself in believing that segwit has 100% signalling, will lock in soon and will trigger segwit on the 15th of November.  In the mean time, you don't consider any transaction that is not in a non-segwit signalling block, is that it ?

So it is only on the 15th of November that this node will stop, if the mixed segwit/non-segwit chain continues ? I thought that segwit was by default already activated from the 1st of August ; what I thought was going to happen on the 1st of august, will only happen then on the 15th of November.

Your node will hence run, between the 1st of August, and the 15th of November, but only show you those transactions that happen to be in segwit-signalling blocks ?  I guess that from a certain point on, none of these transactions will start making sense, because some of the UTXO are in non-segwit signalling blocks ?

Or do I also misunderstand this ?

Suppose Joe pays Alice, and his transaction gets included in a segwit-signalling block.  Alice spends those coins to Jack, and her transaction gets included in a non-segwit signalling block.  Now Jack wants to pay to you, but he can't because his transaction, whether included in a segwit signalling or non-segwit signalling block will have an UTXO that you don't want to consider, so his transaction is considered invalid ?

Or do you also accept those transactions, in the same way you accept blocks that don't have accepted predecessors but are OK because they signal segwit ?

In other words, can Jack pay you ?  But you will only see his transaction if it happens to get included in a segwit signalling block ?  And if not, then you don't consider that Jack paid you (but he did send his coins, only, his transaction is in an intermediate non-segwit signalling block and you don't consider those) ?   Or can't Jack pay you, because Alice's transaction was already in a non-segwit signalling block ?

[classicsucks]

http://www.uasfguide.com (https://www.weusecoins.com/uasf-guide/)

let's ask SlushPool and BitFury to support the UASF chain and some others will follow.

So you're admitting that UASF is really just an altcoin, and a sh*tty one at that?

EDIT: the UASF hat --> https://denarium.com/product/uasf-hat

I love the hats - they will probably be collectible after the User Activated Soft Fail.

But seriously, nice job on the website and the suspicious-looking GNUplot graphs. I like the link to the vulnerability you added, nothing to do with Segwit, nice FUD touch.

So, where is the CODE?

[Gyrsur]

voting option now available on SLUSHPOOL for UASF/BIP148:

https://slushpool.com/news/new-voting-option-bip148-has-been-deployed-feel-free-to-vote/

[Gyrsur]

So, where is the CODE?

Reference implementation of BIP148 --> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:bip-segwit-flagday

Code:

// Check if Segregated Witness is Locked In
bool IsWitnessLockedIn(const CBlockIndex* pindexPrev, const Consensus::Params& params)
{
    LOCK(cs_main);
    return (VersionBitsState(pindexPrev, params, Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT, versionbitscache) == THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN);
}

// BIP148 mandatory segwit signalling.
int64_t nMedianTimePast = pindex->GetMedianTimePast();
if ( (nMedianTimePast >= 1501545600) &&  // Tue 01 Aug 2017 00:00:00 UTC
     (nMedianTimePast <= 1510704000) &&  // Wed 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 UTC
     (!IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) &&  // Segwit is not locked in
      !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus())) )   // and is not active.
{
    bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) == VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
    bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion & VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(), Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0;
    if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) {
        return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
    }
}

[greenuser]

Count me in!
I currently have a BIP148 Full Node up and running in South West UK and miners pointed at Slushpool with a 148 vote. Some of my miners are old kit and are not efficient so, they remain on stand-by and can be used "as and when needed". I also intend to rent hashpower to point at either, my own node or to point at Slushpool. Can anyone recommend a fair cloud mining service?

Currently 25% of Slushpool users are happy to let the pool decide how work is allocated to miners. We need to get Slushpool to favor the BIP148, also Core voters are potential conscripts.

Anyhow, I have experience in contentious hard fork environments, I typed

Code:

appose-doa-fork

at Block 1920000 and mined the old Ethereum chain when Vitalik rolled back and forked off.  We only had 6% of network at that point but it grew to 10% within 48hours. Even with a small percentage of the hashpower we evaded 51% Attack.

Communication will be key in the first 48hours so i am just touching base to find out where those coms will be realized.

We are in a good position to have a positive outcome if the cards are played correctly.

[Gyrsur]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/op-ed-heres-why-all-rational-miners-will-activate-segwit-though-bip148/

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

[Gyrsur]

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