Scaling will happen soon....here's how

[25hashcoin]

UASF is simply a bluff. It's not working. Let's all admit that. 1 of 3 things will happen within the next couple months:

1. Blockstreamcore devs realize they are out of power/influence and agree to Segwit2x

2. Segwit2x is activated despite Blockstreamcore and their echo chambers loud voices

3. Big block fork. Segwit never activated. Blockstreamcore devs continue working on a bank settlement token that ultimately fails.


Either way Bitcoin wins.

[Variogam]

I dont see how 3 could happen. Bitcoin economy is behind SegWit+2MBHF:
https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77

Seriously, it doesnt matter what BlockstreamCore do, Bitcoin is decentralized and do not need permission to move forward from neighter Blockstream or Wladimir.

[XbladeX]

UASF is simply a bluff. It's not working. Let's all admit that. 1 of 3 things will happen within the next couple months:

1. Blockstreamcore devs realize they are out of power/influence and agree to Segwit2x

2. Segwit2x is activated despite Blockstreamcore and their echo chambers loud voices

3. Big block fork. Segwit never activated. Blockstreamcore devs continue working on a bank settlement token that ultimately fails.


Either way Bitcoin wins.

4) I see you are optimistic but same way BTC after HF to 2MB will splitil into BTC and BTC2MB
BTC if will have few miners will have still BTC ticker  no no BTC name for big blockers.

5) UASF will win and over time people will openly discuss how increase blocksize overtime.

6) core have some support and reset diff on main chain in HF/change pow to asic proof to avoid mining centralization in future.

[European Central Bank]

my guess is - 

alts will keep on exploding. uasf will keep on growing as an idea. barry silbert's proposal will be a miserable failure because the time frame is too short and their unity will fall apart, let alone everyone on the outside's opinion.

segwit as originally intended will activate because it's starting to look apocalyptic without it.

[SaShiRaJaVu]

The talks about scaling has began and i am not sure what will change the fortune and future of bitcoin,the network is really slow and the transaction charges are high and you really cannot send micro transactions ,as a normal user i would like to see those functions back and for that we need to upgrade the network and what sort of upgrade is required must be determined by the developers who are over looking the project,as a user i do not have any opinion,let them not destroy bitcoin.

[franky1]

I dont see how 3 could happen. Bitcoin economy is behind SegWit+2MBHF:
https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77

Seriously, it doesnt matter what BlockstreamCore do, Bitcoin is decentralized and do not need permission to move forward from neighter Blockstream or Wladimir.

the DCG is just drama for the same empty promise.
check blockstream in the DCG list
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b

Gmaxwell pretends he opposes UASF yet he helped employ the main UASF advocate
https://blockstream.com/team/samson-mow/

as for barry silbert claiming to have "economic majority".. well yea his portfolio of bribed companies are impressive where he has ownership stakes in each.. his portfolio does not cover the economic majority. there are more than 60 businesses involved in bitcoin. so all these questionaires and declarations by ~60/70 businesses, is just one side of the story

[franky1]

both sides can agree that 4mb of data is safe.. both sides agree that 8mb is safe but 4mb is ultra safe.. so lets just go with 4mb
whereby nodes can edit this at runtime without dev spoon feeding when the time comes to upgrade again
taking away the need of the upstream downstream cludge. and removes the need to kill pools out of pure bias

both sides know that dynamic and segwit alone does not solve native quadratics, only keeping txsigops down will..  so lets just go with never no more than 4k txsigops as a proper rule(not cludgy math)

both sides admit that going soft(pool only) consensus wont work thus soft bilateral split(more dangerous is softs second option) so its time to just get on with a hard(node and pool) consensus(left dangerous than soft bilateral split).

knowing a hard consensus can happen less dangerously. just get on with it

in short..
1merkle block of 4mb - whereby nodes can edit this at runtime without dev spoon feeding when the time comes to upgrade again
4k txsigops never changes
include new features like new keypairs segwit, schnorr, new contract functions(if, else)

that way everyone gets what they want.
native and segwit keys get proper utility of the 4mb area without math cludge
quadratics is not a problem due to the txsigop limit
all the voluntary keypair available so no excuses from either side to develop new features/contracts/side/off chain functionality
that way everyone gets what they want

[jonald_fyookball]

 even though uasf was a bluff, some people took it too seriously and
will try to do it...miners will counterstrike with a HF. just a possibility

[jonald_fyookball]

UASF is simply a bluff. It's not working. Let's all admit that. 1 of 3 things will happen within the next couple months:

1. Blockstreamcore devs realize they are out of power/influence and agree to Segwit2x

2. Segwit2x is activated despite Blockstreamcore and their echo chambers loud voices

3. Big block fork. Segwit never activated. Blockstreamcore devs continue working on a bank settlement token that ultimately fails.


Either way Bitcoin wins.

You are suddenly making sense... 2 weeks ago you were saying crazy shit like asicboost that, jihan this, rah rah segwit.... what changed??

[ebliever]

UASF is simply a bluff. It's not working. Let's all admit that. 1 of 3 things will happen within the next couple months:

1. Blockstreamcore devs realize they are out of power/influence and agree to Segwit2x

2. Segwit2x is activated despite Blockstreamcore and their echo chambers loud voices

3. Big block fork. Segwit never activated. Blockstreamcore devs continue working on a bank settlement token that ultimately fails.


Either way Bitcoin wins.

I'm curious, what measurable or news are you relying on when you say the UASF is not working? Is it the growth in UASF nodes? The endorsements by Eric Lombrozo, the Bearwhale and others of the UASF effort? The growing support among Core devs for it? The continuing flood of posts and threads here and on r/bitcoin for it? The establishment of a mining pool for it? The growth in support at coin.dance/poli for it?

You're clearly living in a different world than I am.

Meanwhile, here in the real world Wu has once again reneged on the deal, making your trumpeting of SW+2MB weirdly outdated. You guys are suckers if you are not actually miners and actually believe he would ever act to scale bitcoin.

[jonald_fyookball]

An endorsement from a lame bozo means nothing... nor does one from a former whale with 0.0049 BTC left in his wallet.

[Viscount]

Ver and Wu is just blaffing BU never was intended to be implemented, it's too buggy and even those mooks realise it. So UASF is the only way

[franky1]

Ver and Wu is just blaffing BU never was intended to be implemented, it's too buggy and even those mooks realise it. So UASF is the only way

dont pretend its a 2 man vs the world thing..

dynamic block proposals are bigger than 2 men. seems ur stuck in the realm of the reddit fud scripter.
what you need to realise is that dynamic block proposals NEVER made threats to nuke the network, never set deadlines and only allowed consensus to decide if people want it.

in short they just plod along doing nothing until consensus is formed to activate it. in which case the network activates it consensually.

UASF is using force, intimidation, FUD, faux-buzz wording, network splitting methods, deadlines.
goodluck with a UASF minority split which puts the network into a cludge of a tier network and giving control to the blockstream/DCG cartel. enjoy your BS coin