BIP148 has been deployed by slushpool

[krishnapramod]

Slushpool has added BIP148 voting option for its miners + the option to mine on BIP148 chain if and if there is a chain split after August 1.

They have 4.3% hashrate and I think this move would give more support to Segwit activated BIP148.

Guess Antpool would never be able to grasp the philosophical notion of pool neutrality.

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

Update: Slushpool mines first BIP148 block, https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/000000000000000000f288b3ff879d0ef11d3197f88dcdc1e29c3933b9c0e5af

[BillyBobZorton]

Slushpool has added BIP148 voting option for its miners + the option to mine on BIP148 chain if and if there is a chain split after August 1.

They have 4.3% hashrate and I think this move would give more support to Segwit activated BIP148.

Guess Antpool would never be able to grasp the philosophical notion of pool neutrality.

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

4.3% hashrate is a good start, but if we add a Bitfury, thats another 7.9%. But the condition as far as I remember was that the Core devs must add the UASF code officially within the next Core release.

If we manage to get Bitfury on board then things get really serious because we enter the 10%+ zone.

Anything beyond 10% is interesting to see because snowball effect beggins.

[Variogam]

4.3% hashrate is a good start

You have to actively switch to BIP148, so only a fraction of Slush hashrate counts toward BIP148.

I think the BIP148 movement is already almost dead, no business behind it, even most Core devs opose it. Compare it to SegWit2x, which seems very promising, business behind it and the discussion with Core devs is constructive so far.

[Kprawn]

At least they are entertaining the option and seeing that choice is the route to follow. People like Jihan seem to think that they can bulldoze

people into doing what they want and this was tolerated for too long. The whole Bitcoin community cannot be held hostage by a single entity.

BIP148 is the best way forward for now and we should push for that to happen.  

[Nagadota]

Guess Antpool would never be able to grasp the philosophical notion of pool neutrality.

If the miners supported BIP148 and they were actually principled enough, they would switch to a pool which supports BIP148 or allows them the option of mining on that chain.

Individual miners will act based on their own economic incentives - pools will act based on their broader/long-term economic incentive.

If pools believe that they have no broader economic incentive to support a specific solution, that's the only situation in which they'll be neutral.  This applies to other pools, including SegWit supporting pools, not just AntPool.

[audaciousbeing]

Even though I am still trying to understand the reason behind this argument and counter argument in this crypto space all I know is the implementation should better be for the best and harness more potentials of bitcoin to make it more user friendly as well as less stress that is being witnessed today. Then we go back to the good old days of bitcoin.

[Scorpion]

That's the thing about this deployment. It is a VOTE - all of these other pools need to follow suit.

[krishnapramod]

Guess Antpool would never be able to grasp the philosophical notion of pool neutrality.

If the miners supported BIP148 and they were actually principled enough, they would switch to a pool which supports BIP148 or allows them the option of mining on that chain.

Individual miners will act based on their own economic incentives - pools will act based on their broader/long-term economic incentive.

If pools believe that they have no broader economic incentive to support a specific solution, that's the only situation in which they'll be neutral.  This applies to other pools, including SegWit supporting pools, not just AntPool.

As far as my understanding goes activating Segwit/BIP148 would be one of the best possible solution for the scaling issue. Jihan Wu is openely against Segwit, he owns the biggest mining pool, but as far as miners are concerned their long-term economic incentive lies in activating Segwit, that's the big picture, those miners who can't see this are just cashing on the current situation without giving a second thought.

This comment was posted by Reddit user, Lejitz in response to, everyone should remove hashpower from Antpool:

Surely you realize that much of their hashpower is their own. And also that much of the hashpower of the BU pools is actually controlled by Jihan Wu, who controls Bitmain.

I know you are in the loop on these things. Not only can we not remove the hashpower of this guy, but he has a practical monopoly on ASIC manufacturing and is using his influence from that position to also stop other miners from implementing SegWit. (i.e., "I will not sell you hardware if you support SegWit.")

If Segwit gets activated this guy can't do anything, BIP148 gets enough support, miners would switch. Even if all these alternatives fail, there is BIP149 which I believe core developers are in favour of would be deployed.

Jihan Wu is just halting the inevitable.

[BillyBobZorton]

4.3% hashrate is a good start

You have to actively switch to BIP148, so only a fraction of Slush hashrate counts toward BIP148.

I think the BIP148 movement is already almost dead, no business behind it, even most Core devs opose it. Compare it to SegWit2x, which seems very promising, business behind it and the discussion with Core devs is constructive so far.

I WOULD like to see an agreement to avoid UASF, the problem is, there's no way to do a proper hard fork in 6 months, I think 1 year would be better, oh and forget about anything that isn't Bitcoin Core approved. No one on their right mind is running software for a hard fork that isn't Core approved.

If we want to do this right, miners should follow the soft fork segwit activation then a hard fork later on, anything that isn't segwit via soft fork is a mess and a scam, since it doesnt end covert asicboost.

[25hashcoin]

oh and forget about anything that isn't Bitcoin Core approved. No one on their right mind is running software for a hard fork that isn't Core approved.

You're really not a good shill. Anyway, looking forward to miners running big block code. Fuck your Core shitcoin settlement system.

[Itty Bitty]

That's the thing about this deployment. It is a VOTE - all of these other pools need to follow suit.

I think you can think of UASF as sort of like US governance (if you're familiar with it)

Segwit was offered as legislation in Nov. 2016
The miners have continuously vetoed the Segwit Bill
Eight months later, the users are checking to see if there's enough interest/enthusiasm/anger to override the miners veto via UASF.

It's just governance in action.

USA#1

[cellard]

oh and forget about anything that isn't Bitcoin Core approved. No one on their right mind is running software for a hard fork that isn't Core approved.

You're really not a good shill. Anyway, looking forward to miners running big block code. Fuck your Core shitcoin settlement system.

Bitcoin will never scale anywhere by means of constantly raising the blocksize unless you want to see datacenters running nodes. If that is what you want, then have fun seeing governments switching off bitcoin anytime they feel like it, meanwhile conservative blocksize bitcoin will be immune to that since it's impossible to globally attack a network of decentralized nodes.

In the rare event that non-Core software manages to not crash (see bitcoin unlimited) you'll see gov agents and idiots complaining about full blocks and quickly wanting another raise, until only corporations can run nodes (forget the "gigabytes by midnight" nonsense that franky1 keeps repeating, people will not be able to run nodes eventually because they will keep demanding higher and higher blocksizes quicker than people can adapt to run nodes and the nod count will tend to 0 -datacenters- , period")

In the end the conservative blocksize approach will win, because not only it is the network that has a decentralized node array immune to global attackers, but it has the best developers. So good luck with your shitcoin, Bitcoin will be ok.

[Variogam]

I WOULD like to see an agreement to avoid UASF, the problem is, there's no way to do a proper hard fork in 6 months, I think 1 year would be better, oh and forget about anything that isn't Bitcoin Core approved. No one on their right mind is running software for a hard fork that isn't Core approved.

The argument to avoid UASF is there is not much support for it, it divides the Bitcoin community and very likely results in pernament Bitcoin split. The SegWit2x has better support and realistic copromise to avoid the split: unmodifed SegWit from the latest Core dev team and very small increase in blocksize which proves there is nothing like 1MB4EVR. I believe such compromise is necessary and much safer than the UASF which creates a lot of havoc, uncertainity and very likely split.  So far Core devs have constructive attitude, hopefully they understand a compromise is best way to solving the scalling issue and not splitting Bitcoin apart, and SegWit2x is a relistic way to accomplish it. After so long scalling debate, 6 months seems sufficient time for everybody to update, free technical help to anybody interested is planned.

If we want to do this right, miners should follow the soft fork segwit activation then a hard fork later on, anything that isn't segwit via soft fork is a mess and a scam, since it doesnt end covert asicboost.

This is addressed here:
https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/8

Just few quotes from the discussion:

jgarzik: Quoting [with permission] one chip maker, Jihan Wu of Bitmain: "Asicboost is being repetitively mentioned in the reddit. Btc1 can take a very clear stance to help to ban it if community emotion desire it"

hmsln: @jgarzik Can you confirm to us that the parts of the current Segwit implementation that might hamper/prevent Asicboost will stay the same in whatever implementation is finally released by the Working Group?

Cobra-Bitcoin:@jgarzik I don't understand why you have to use such weasel words and be so pedantic. Just answer @hmsln's question with a simple yes/no answer. This isn't difficult. If you keep being suspicious, people will assume that you're going to alter Segwit in strange ways to preserve Asicboost for the financial benefit of a certain person...

jgarzik:The WG agreed to "segwit AND 2M", and that what we are focused on delivering. To the extent that current segwit disables asicboost, or not, that remains unchanged and unmodified. This issue asks the question, therefore, do additional changes need to be added, to further ban/disable/render inert asicboost.

hmsln: @jgarzik Thanks, this is the clear answer we were waiting for.

Cobra-Bitcoin: Cheers mate. I've archived this. Good to know you're still committed to blocking Asicboost. There will be hell to pay if you ever backtrack on this.

[FiendCoin]

oh and forget about anything that isn't Bitcoin Core approved. No one on their right mind is running software for a hard fork that isn't Core approved.

You're really not a good shill. Anyway, looking forward to miners running big block code. Fuck your Core shitcoin settlement system.

Bitcoin will never scale anywhere by means of constantly raising the blocksize unless you want to see datacenters running nodes. If that is what you want, then have fun seeing governments switching off bitcoin anytime they feel like it, meanwhile conservative blocksize bitcoin will be immune to that since it's impossible to globally attack a network of decentralized nodes.

In the rare event that non-Core software manages to not crash (see bitcoin unlimited) you'll see gov agents and idiots complaining about full blocks and quickly wanting another raise, until only corporations can run nodes (forget the "gigabytes by midnight" nonsense that franky1 keeps repeating, people will not be able to run nodes eventually because they will keep demanding higher and higher blocksizes quicker than people can adapt to run nodes and the nod count will tend to 0 -datacenters- , period")

In the end the conservative blocksize approach will win, because not only it is the network that has a decentralized node array immune to global attackers, but it has the best developers. So good luck with your shitcoin, Bitcoin will be ok.

25hashcoin probably IS franky1. That guy (or service/business) has many alt accounts to try and influence people here.

[25hashcoin]

oh and forget about anything that isn't Bitcoin Core approved. No one on their right mind is running software for a hard fork that isn't Core approved.

You're really not a good shill. Anyway, looking forward to miners running big block code. Fuck your Core shitcoin settlement system.

Bitcoin will never scale anywhere by means of constantly raising the blocksize unless you want to see datacenters running nodes. If that is what you want, then have fun seeing governments switching off bitcoin anytime they feel like it, meanwhile conservative blocksize bitcoin will be immune to that since it's impossible to globally attack a network of decentralized nodes.

In the rare event that non-Core software manages to not crash (see bitcoin unlimited) you'll see gov agents and idiots complaining about full blocks and quickly wanting another raise, until only corporations can run nodes (forget the "gigabytes by midnight" nonsense that franky1 keeps repeating, people will not be able to run nodes eventually because they will keep demanding higher and higher blocksizes quicker than people can adapt to run nodes and the nod count will tend to 0 -datacenters- , period")

In the end the conservative blocksize approach will win, because not only it is the network that has a decentralized node array immune to global attackers, but it has the best developers. So good luck with your shitcoin, Bitcoin will be ok.

25hashcoin probably IS franky1. That guy (or service/business) has many alt accounts to try and influence people here.

No, and no. Your misconceptions of reality are causing you to become delusional.

[franky1]

25hashcoin probably IS franky1. That guy (or service/business) has many alt accounts to try and influence people here.

nah i am me and me alone. i dont need multiple accounts.

i dont need to make new accounts to speak my mind. because i do not fear what people say about me.
insults are like whistles in the wind. but ignorance from others simply because they "trust" a business rather than code. really need to learn to grasp what is more important.

it might be worth you spending more time reading code and documentation rather than the social reddit fud drama of scripting sheep to sleep

your first post

It's sad that so many bitcoiners are dumb enough to support B(F)U Chinacoin.

just 2 months ago reveals:
1. your not a newbie to bitcoin
2. you love using the reddit buzzwords(scripts)

so its obvious you have more than one account

[FiendCoin]

You're really not a good shill. Anyway, looking forward to miners running big block code. Fuck your Core shitcoin settlement system.

Bitcoin will never scale anywhere by means of constantly raising the blocksize unless you want to see datacenters running nodes. If that is what you want, then have fun seeing governments switching off bitcoin anytime they feel like it, meanwhile conservative blocksize bitcoin will be immune to that since it's impossible to globally attack a network of decentralized nodes.

In the rare event that non-Core software manages to not crash (see bitcoin unlimited) you'll see gov agents and idiots complaining about full blocks and quickly wanting another raise, until only corporations can run nodes (forget the "gigabytes by midnight" nonsense that franky1 keeps repeating, people will not be able to run nodes eventually because they will keep demanding higher and higher blocksizes quicker than people can adapt to run nodes and the nod count will tend to 0 -datacenters- , period")

In the end the conservative blocksize approach will win, because not only it is the network that has a decentralized node array immune to global attackers, but it has the best developers. So good luck with your shitcoin, Bitcoin will be ok.

25hashcoin probably IS franky1. That guy (or service/business) has many alt accounts to try and influence people here.

No, and no. Your misconceptions of reality are causing you to become delusional.

And the next poster (franky1) is your main shill account. Coincidence? Mmm... I think not 

25hashcoin probably IS franky1. That guy (or service/business) has many alt accounts to try and influence people here.

nah i am me and me alone. i dont need multiple accounts.

Sure you don't 

It's sad that so many bitcoiners are dumb enough to support B(F)U Chinacoin.

Was true then and is true now. The only thing that has changed for me is that I now know most of the pro BU supporters are nothing more than sock-puppet shill accounts.

just 2 months ago reveals:
1. your not a newbie to bitcoin
2. you love using the reddit buzzwords(scripts)

so its obvious you have more than one account

Shilling 101, I accuse you of something you throw it back at me, BRAVO /clap

Truth is, I have been following this forum (and Bitcoin) for years but have never posted until I got sick and tired of reading all the McShilling posts from you and your ilk, that I decided to start posting to counter you shysters. Now that I see Bitcoin is heading in the right direction and you and your brethren have lost the war, I don't feel compelled to keep battling you guys, its pointless, BU/EC or whatever you want to rebrand your shitcoin is done

An upgrade is coming one way or the other and it won't be B(F)U 

[Amph]

Slushpool has added BIP148 voting option for its miners + the option to mine on BIP148 chain if and if there is a chain split after August 1.

They have 4.3% hashrate and I think this move would give more support to Segwit activated BIP148.

Guess Antpool would never be able to grasp the philosophical notion of pool neutrality.

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

4.3% hashrate is a good start, but if we add a Bitfury, thats another 7.9%. But the condition as far as I remember was that the Core devs must add the UASF code officially within the next Core release.

If we manage to get Bitfury on board then things get really serious because we enter the 10%+ zone.

Anything beyond 10% is interesting to see because snowball effect beggins.

if that is the condition then it will already doomed because core dev tema is all against UASF, just check their opinion on the matter

i thought that the UASF don't need core dev to do anything, they just rely on node to force segwit

[cellard]

Slushpool has added BIP148 voting option for its miners + the option to mine on BIP148 chain if and if there is a chain split after August 1.

They have 4.3% hashrate and I think this move would give more support to Segwit activated BIP148.

Guess Antpool would never be able to grasp the philosophical notion of pool neutrality.

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

4.3% hashrate is a good start, but if we add a Bitfury, thats another 7.9%. But the condition as far as I remember was that the Core devs must add the UASF code officially within the next Core release.

If we manage to get Bitfury on board then things get really serious because we enter the 10%+ zone.

Anything beyond 10% is interesting to see because snowball effect beggins.

if that is the condition then it will already doomed because core dev tema is all against UASF, just check their opinion on the matter

i thought that the UASF don't need core dev to do anything, they just rely on node to force segwit

We need hashrate anyway, and he's talking about the fact that certain miners will only support UASF with their hashrate if Core devs back it up within an official release.

In any case, Slushpool is a good start. The beauty of UASF is that services need to back it up or risk loses, they also benefit by listing it because they rack more fees.

By august 1st you'll see all big exchanges listing BIP148 coins.