Bitcoin Forum
December 16, 2017, 03:37:53 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Why the Bitcoin UASF has already won in case of a hard fork  (Read 999 times)
BillyBobZorton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
May 29, 2017, 05:13:38 PM
 #1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Rwd1YGR7w

Segwit chain: Scales, gets lightning instantly, mainstream adoption ready, no more centralization due covert ASICBOOST scam, no risk of reorg

Legacy chain. Doesn't scale, no lightning network, NYC agreement already failed, ASICBOOST will continue even with NYC agreement due segwit not going in as a softfork, the agreement was never going to happen anyway, also it would require that you trust and install non-Core approved software which is a recipe for disaster, risk of reorg aka losing everything when snowball effect begins.

UASF is coming, either segwit gets activated before august 1 or nukes will be deployed.

..C..
.....................
........What is C?.........
..............
...........ICO            Dec 1st – Dec 30th............
       ............Open            Dec 1st- Dec 30th............
...................ANN thread      Bounty....................

1513395473
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513395473

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513395473
Reply with quote  #2

1513395473
Report to moderator
1513395473
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513395473

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513395473
Reply with quote  #2

1513395473
Report to moderator
1513395473
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513395473

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513395473
Reply with quote  #2

1513395473
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513395473
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513395473

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513395473
Reply with quote  #2

1513395473
Report to moderator
1513395473
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513395473

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513395473
Reply with quote  #2

1513395473
Report to moderator
thejaytiesto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
May 29, 2017, 05:17:18 PM
 #2

I used to be on the fence about UASF, but not anymore since it's happening anyway, and since it's happening anyway, it might as well work. I wouldn't like to see a tie, but that's pretty hard in this situation, the balance will eventually go one way or another, and im getting sick of the bullshit. I would still like to see this getting explored:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014445.html

But I suspect Jihan will keep delaying anything that makes the fees go low, so if you ever want to see bitcoin scale, UASF must be it.

franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile
May 29, 2017, 05:30:47 PM
 #3

first: you cant resegit a segwit. so segwit doesnt "scale"

if core are now wanting to hard fork, atleast do it without the cludgy code.

billy and pereira4 repeat the same crap without understanding it. use the same graphics use the same rhetoric. im guessing its the same person double spamming posts for sig campaign income

the only reason they feel asicboost is bad is because it stops going soft.. going 2 merkle cludge was to avoid going hard. so if going hard you dont need two merkle cludge.. so if core now wanna go hard it makes it a non issue

meaning just make it a mandatory 1 merkle block of 4mb where native and segwit keys can all work in the same area where everyone benefits
include all the other features the community want but only able to happen in a hard consensus.. and just pull the trigger

pretending they can do a hard consensus in 3 months by naming it something else(UASF MASF) but then pretend another hard consensus taked 18 months is stupid misdirecting bullcrap of the core team.


just make a non cludgy upgrade, release it and make it mandatory. yep a 1 merkle block, proper scaling available version that includes all the keypair types everyone wants, native, segwit, schnorr.

stop with all of these half gesture cludgy crap
"51%-80% attack" just to force a cludgy temporary 2 merkle crap is not the best plan. and makes no logical sense

if the trigger is to be pulled. atleast do a f*cking proper job

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
Itty Bitty
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 85


View Profile
May 29, 2017, 05:40:39 PM
 #4

There's going to be a lot of bitcoins flowing into Electrum, Mycelium, Trezor, Green wallets the next few weeks (these wallets have committed early to enforce BIP 148)....would be crazy risk (of potential legacy chain re-org) to leave them anywhere that isn't wholeheartedly committing to BIP 148 early on.
25hashcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574


View Profile
May 29, 2017, 05:53:03 PM
 #5

UASF is already a failure. NY deal has all the backing. It's going to be either SW+2mb or just 4mb or 8mb blocks and nonsegwit on the real bitcoin.

Bitcoin - Peer to Peer Electronic CASH
Itty Bitty
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 85


View Profile
May 29, 2017, 06:09:30 PM
 #6

Bro, you can't just be 90% right, you have to be 100% right, because if you're wrong and transact on legacy chain after Aug. 1, and legacy chain re-orgs into segwit chain ANYTIME after, your transaction history on legacy chain gets erased, and your coins are gone.

Still feeling that Segwit + 2MB hubris?
BreathOfZen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
May 29, 2017, 06:14:33 PM
 #7

How would UASF or a hard fork affect normal merchants who don't know all the technical details but just want to keep accepting bitcoin as payment?

Aoeui Artifacts
Itty Bitty
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 85


View Profile
May 29, 2017, 06:19:22 PM
 #8

How would UASF or a hard fork affect normal merchants who don't know all the technical details but just want to keep accepting bitcoin as payment?

Pretty sure bitcoin doesn't differentiate between merchants who are aware of the new rules, and merchants who aren't. There's no customer service to complain to if you choose wrong, whatever the reason was. But I am also sure as the time gets closer to Aug. 1, you would have to be living under a rock to be unaware of what will be going on with UASF.
thejaytiesto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
May 30, 2017, 02:46:10 PM
 #9

Bro, you can't just be 90% right, you have to be 100% right, because if you're wrong and transact on legacy chain after Aug. 1, and legacy chain re-orgs into segwit chain ANYTIME after, your transaction history on legacy chain gets erased, and your coins are gone.

Still feeling that Segwit + 2MB hubris?

NY agreement is a meme. This is what the bitcoin hyperwhales (richer than Ver, Bitmain etc) think about the agreement:

http://qntra.net/2017/05/still-no-consensus-supporting-bitcoin-hardfork-barry-silbert-pretends-otherwise-to-his-peril/


Quote
Barry Silbert's (WOT:nonperson) "Digital Currency Group" announced in a medium post that yet another delusion of consensus arrived in the Bitcoin scaling debate with "A conference sponsored by the Ethereum,1 Dash,2 and Ripple3 scams produces an agreement on how to scale Bitcoin". The post outlined the reasons the conference attendees believe they get to make decisions in Bitcoin, with claims of support for the proposals by:

    56 "companies" located in 21 countries4
    83.28% of hashing power5
    5.1 billion US dollars of monthly on chain transaction volume6
    20.5 million Bitcoin wallets 7

A selection of scam artists doing business as "companies" while lacking the charm necessary to fleece the elderly allege they will "provide technical and engineering support to test and support the upgrade software, as well as to assist companies with preparing for the upgrades". Noted names incapable of providing meaningful testing or support such as: the MLM BitClub Network, Ryan X. Charles' paywalled spam reader, and Gavin Assassinsen were offered as options for the forkcurious to seek support from.

Not to mention they can't even agree on what the agreement is




mindrust
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


Vegeta, What does the scouter say!?


View Profile
May 30, 2017, 02:50:31 PM
 #10

Jihan Wu doesn't want BU, he doesn't want Segwit, he doesn't want HF, he doesn't want bigblocks.

He is full of shit and a liar.

What he wants is to keep the current state of bitcoin.

He was supposed to be against the high fees. Anybody believes his lies look at this shit: https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/868896110760181760

All he cares about his cheated software ASICBOOST, his monopoly business and collecting overpriced fees from the users.

He is against bitcoin's development and he needs to be eliminated.

#UASF
bartolo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672



View Profile
May 30, 2017, 03:11:52 PM
 #11

How would UASF or a hard fork affect normal merchants who don't know all the technical details but just want to keep accepting bitcoin as payment?

Most of the merchants don´t have to worry themselves because they accept payments in bitcoin but don´t receive the coins, they have partners like Gocoin who are responsible for converting the bitcoins that users pay in fiat money. That is, the user pays with bitcoin, Gocoin or another partner makes the exchange and the merchant receives fiat money. Therefore those who would have to worry are these intermediate companies. In the case of merchants who receive bitcoins directly they have two options, or take risks or not accept payments until the situation is cleared.

RajaJudi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 379


View Profile
May 30, 2017, 03:34:14 PM
 #12

Jihan Wu doesn't want BU, he doesn't want Segwit, he doesn't want HF, he doesn't want bigblocks.

He is full of shit and a liar.

What he wants is to keep the current state of bitcoin.

He was supposed to be against the high fees. Anybody believes his lies look at this shit: https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/868896110760181760

All he cares about his cheated software ASICBOOST, his monopoly business and collecting overpriced fees from the users.

He is against bitcoin's development and he needs to be eliminated.

#UASF
Well, the Chinese are full of stupid who only care about the profit and money. They do not care about the future or what the people want

▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
██████  ██████████████
██████  ██████████████
██████  ██████████████
██████  ██      ██████
██████  █  ████  █████
██████   ██████  █████
██████  ███████  █████
██████  ███████  █████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
HERO.        The Future of Banking in Southeast Asia
  ■ Website   ■ Whitepaper   ■ Bounties   ■ Join our Slack
.    PRE-SALE
   starting soon
Kprawn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
May 30, 2017, 03:37:35 PM
 #13

first: you cant resegit a segwit. so segwit doesnt "scale"

if core are now wanting to hard fork, atleast do it without the cludgy code.

billy and pereira4 repeat the same crap without understanding it. use the same graphics use the same rhetoric. im guessing its the same person double spamming posts for sig campaign income

the only reason they feel asicboost is bad is because it stops going soft.. going 2 merkle cludge was to avoid going hard. so if going hard you dont need two merkle cludge.. so if core now wanna go hard it makes it a non issue

meaning just make it a mandatory 1 merkle block of 4mb where native and segwit keys can all work in the same area where everyone benefits
include all the other features the community want but only able to happen in a hard consensus.. and just pull the trigger

pretending they can do a hard consensus in 3 months by naming it something else(UASF MASF) but then pretend another hard consensus taked 18 months is stupid misdirecting bullcrap of the core team.


just make a non cludgy upgrade, release it and make it mandatory. yep a 1 merkle block, proper scaling available version that includes all the keypair types everyone wants, native, segwit, schnorr.

stop with all of these half gesture cludgy crap
"51%-80% attack" just to force a cludgy temporary 2 merkle crap is not the best plan. and makes no logical sense

if the trigger is to be pulled. atleast do a f*cking proper job

Butthurt much Franky?  Grin .... The strategy to push for SegWit/ UASF / MASF might not be the best solution... but it is better than the "kick the

can down the road" strategy that was suggested by the BU team. We need to scale and this chest bumping delays are stopping progress. We

could have been at the Moon already. { or this is what they wanted... to delay progress and to divide the Bitcoin community }  

Variogam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 321


View Profile
May 30, 2017, 05:34:32 PM
 #14

If UASF chain wont get longest POW, then I dont see how could the whole Bitcoin economy claim the smaller POW chain to be Bitcoin.

The 2017 NY scalling agreement has much more support, but hard to say whether SegWit going to be activated before 1st Aug with it, given the code is not ready yet.
25hashcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574


View Profile
May 30, 2017, 05:35:55 PM
 #15

OP you sound like you have no clue what you're talking about and are just spewing BlockstreamCore propaganda.

Bitcoin - Peer to Peer Electronic CASH
andron8383
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
May 30, 2017, 05:49:38 PM
 #16

***
But I suspect Jihan will keep delaying anything that makes the fees go low, so if you ever want to see bitcoin scale, UASF must be it.

I se that too we need 2nd layer solutions working and moveing off chain to keep decentralized factor of network.
With so many users nodes nubers are not rissing with high BTC usage so having higher blocks will fuck up future of BTC.
We need 2nd layer to make BTC more decenrtalizd and neautralized asicboost.

SPECTRE                ▄▄███▄▄
            ▄▄███▀▀▀▀▀███▄▄
▄▄      ▄▄███▀▀ ▄▄███▄▄ ▀▀███▄▄      ▄▄
████▄▄  ▀▀▀ ▄▄███████████▄▄ ▀▀▀  ▄▄████
  ▀▀████▄    ▀▀█████████▀▀    ▄████▀▀
 ██▄▄ ▀██ █▄▄    ▀▀▀▀▀    ▄▄█ ██▀ ▄▄██
 ▀▀███ ██ █████▄       ▄█████ ██ ███▀▀
     ██ ███████▄   ▄███████ ██
       ██ ████████   ████████ ██
       ██▄▄ ▀▀████   ████▀▀ ▄▄██
        ▀▀███▄▄ ▀▀   ▀▀ ▄▄███▀▀
            ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄███▀▀
                ▀▀███▀▀
             │
     │      ███
     │      ███
    │     ███
███  │     ███
███ ███ ███ ███
███ ███ ███ ███
███ ███ ███ ███
███ ███ ███ ███
███ ███     │
███ ███     │
    │
 
▬▬     WHITEPAPER    ▬▬
FACEBOOK     TELEGRAM
TWITTER     SLACK     MEDIUM
.
PRE-SALE.
PUBLIC SALE.
European Central Bank
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812



View Profile
May 30, 2017, 06:19:12 PM
 #17

one way or another this will stop the endless arguing. the pressure will build over the next couple months. let's see who buckles.

       ▀
   ▄▄▄   ▄▀
   ███ ▄▄▄▄  ██
       ████
    ▄  ▀▀▀▀
▄▄
      ██    ▀▀
██▄█▄▄▄████████
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀███▀▀▀
██████████████████
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███▀▀▀▀▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███ ▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀████████
▀█████████████████
]
,CoinPayments,
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile
May 30, 2017, 06:45:04 PM
 #18

Butthurt much Franky?  Grin .... The strategy to push for SegWit/ UASF / MASF might not be the best solution... but it is better than the "kick the

can down the road" strategy that was suggested by the BU team. We need to scale and this chest bumping delays are stopping progress. We

could have been at the Moon already. { or this is what they wanted... to delay progress and to divide the Bitcoin community }  

seriously?
core gave only pools the vote not a node+pool proper consensus = nodes blame pools = dividing the network (should blame devs that gave only pools vote)

core removed the fee structure and trned it into a fee war = users blaming each other = dividing the network (should blame devs that removed fee code)

core used cludgy code and manipulating maths of empty promises and half gestures = dividing the network (should blame devs that avoided 1merkle version)

core are avoiding hard(node+pool) consensus. and going for nasty soft bilateral split = dividing the network (should blame devs that avoided hard consensus)

i think core took the 'go to the moon' request too literally.. throw the network into an uninhabitable area where nothing can breath and grow aka the moon

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
ebliever
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


View Profile
May 30, 2017, 07:05:27 PM
 #19

If UASF chain wont get longest POW, then I dont see how could the whole Bitcoin economy claim the smaller POW chain to be Bitcoin.

The 2017 NY scalling agreement has much more support, but hard to say whether SegWit going to be activated before 1st Aug with it, given the code is not ready yet.

The non-UASF chain gets reorganized out of existence once the UASF chain takes the lead in POW. In the interim the bitcoin economy will presumably favor the segwit-enabled bitcoin as the "real" bitcoin and uphold its price while Jihan Wu's legacy bitcoin gets dumped into oblivion. At some point miners will decide not to declare bankruptcy mining worthless coins and, instead, mine the profitable chain with coins that can actually be sold. Once that starts (and I don't think it will take all that long when it comes to it), things will snowball quickly.

Some folks have pointed out that the miners could save the old chain by checkpointing. True, but that doesn't change the economic reality: Who is going to favor the unscaled old chain when we  - finally - have new improved bitcoin with Segwit and the Lightning Network come August 1?

Luke 12:15-21

Ephesians 2:8-9
European Central Bank
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812



View Profile
May 30, 2017, 07:07:39 PM
 #20

True, but that doesn't change the economic reality: Who is going to favor the unscaled old chain when we  - finally - have new improved bitcoin with Segwit and the Lightning Network come August 1?

there'll be some seriously rich people, or a certain person, willing to prop it up for as long as possible. it would be fun to see how long he lasts.

the next couple of months are gonna be so fud and psyops heavy i think i might turn off my internet. it hasn't even started yet.

       ▀
   ▄▄▄   ▄▀
   ███ ▄▄▄▄  ██
       ████
    ▄  ▀▀▀▀
▄▄
      ██    ▀▀
██▄█▄▄▄████████
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀███▀▀▀
██████████████████
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███▀▀▀▀▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███ ▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀████████
▀█████████████████
]
,CoinPayments,
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!