Bitmain announces plan to create altcoin if BIP148 succeeds

[Lauda]

Perhaps it might be an idea to take the layout of the giant image and make a post or thread collating everyone's own preferences for each proposal.

	BIP141	BIP148	BIP149	SegWit2x	Extension Blocks	SegWit Adaptive/BIP106	BU/EC	Bitmaincoin
DooMAD	Acceptable	No	Weak	Acceptable	Deficient	Prefer	No	Fuck No
next person	etc	etc	etc	etc	etc	etc	etc	no

If anyone wants me to add them, post in the following format (preferably still in the code tags):

Code:

[tr]
[td]Name[/td]
[td]BIP141 opinion[/td]
[td]BIP148 opinion[/td]
[td]BIP149 opinion[/td]
[td]SegWit2x opinion[/td]
[td]Extension Blocks opinion[/td]
[td]SegWit Adaptive/BIP106 opinion[/td]
[td]BU/EC opinion[/td]
[td]Bitmaincoin opinion[/td]
[/tr]

Colours are:

Code:

[glow=#00FF66,2,300]Prefer[/glow]
[glow=green,2,100]Acceptable[/glow]
[glow=yellow,2,300]Deficient[/glow]
[glow=cyan,2,100]Weak[/glow]
[glow=red,2,300]No[/glow]

Can you post this in a new thread? I think it's a cool idea but it is better suited in a new thread.

That is actually a decent idea, albeit it needs to follow the Wiki table + possible additions as added by DooMAD. If he does not want to pick that up, I could create a thread (albeit it would need to be limited to e.g. people without negative trust; people above certain rank; in order to reduce shilling/manipulation).
Even EC is better than JihanCoin.

[Carlton Banks]

That is actually a decent idea, albeit it needs to follow the Wiki table + possible additions as added by DooMAD. If he does not want to pick that up, I could create a thread (albeit it would need to be limited to e.g. people without negative trust; people above certain rank; in order to reduce shilling/manipulation).

re: bolded; in other words, it's a terrible idea

Even EC is better than JihanCoin.

are you ok? someone bring back the real lauda, both are equally off-the-charts heinous

[Lauda]

re: bolded; in other words, it's a terrible idea

I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. If you allow anyone to sign up on this list on Bitcointalk, then it is a terrible idea.

Even EC is better than JihanCoin.

are you ok? someone bring back the real lauda, both are equally off-the-charts heinous

For you, JihanCoin is the same as having EC

[Carlton Banks]

What makes you think that allowing positive trust and/or high ranked members is going to produce useful information?


What makes you think that JihanCoin and EC are the same thing? It's not anything I posted, your comment is strange

[DooMAD]

That is actually a decent idea, albeit it needs to follow the Wiki table + possible additions as added by DooMAD. If he does not want to pick that up, I could create a thread (albeit it would need to be limited to e.g. people without negative trust; people above certain rank; in order to reduce shilling/manipulation).

Thread is up.  I doubt I'll be bothering to check everyone's reputation feedback, but I can probably divvy up the list by membership rank if that's important.  Also, in the interest of balance, should we include things like 8MB if miners are still signalling that?

What makes you think that allowing positive trust and/or high ranked members is going to produce useful information?

That was my initial feeling, but I suppose it's not beyond the realm of possibility that people might make a new account just to skew the results.

[btemtd]

Guys what would you do if you have  a nice chunk of funds in BTC say 50% for example would you cash it in before the upcoming UNKNOWN august 1 ... I mean these days 15btc is like $50,000 Aud... pretty crazy!!

[jonald_fyookball]

 

That is actually a decent idea, albeit it needs to follow the Wiki table + possible additions as added by DooMAD. If he does not want to pick that up, I could create a thread (albeit it would need to be limited to e.g. people without negative trust; people above certain rank; in order to reduce shilling/manipulation).

Great idea...make sure this is also excluding those with negative trust give because you (or some Blockstream employees) disagree with them.  This will ensure a wide diversity of opinions and true representation of support.  Also make sure to use neutral labels that aren't biased.  For example, instead of "bigger blocks", make sure to say Jihancoin.  Anything else would be unfair.   /s

[Carlton Banks]

What makes you think that allowing positive trust and/or high ranked members is going to produce useful information?

That was my initial feeling, but I suppose it's not beyond the realm of possibility that people might make a new account just to skew the results.

Think so? That would be a possibility.

Can you guess what my vote's going to be?

[classicsucks]

Long term holder and lurker here. Been in BTC since 2011 and I have been following the scaling debate closely for the past year.


I also realized that some of the Core devs weren't as trustworthy as I thought they were, and that some of them became so entrenched in their position that they failed to see the bigger picture and refused to even consider a compromise.

At this point I think it's best to look at what the code does, rather than who wrote it. Code that makes bitcoin work better should be adopted, compiled, and run, and code that doesn't should be ignored. Simple.

I think Bitmain has overstepped their domain a bit with UAHF. All they had to do was ignore the 148coin fools, and make sure they keep mining smoothly on August 1. I think Jihan got scared it could work so he announced his own counter-bluff.

Nobody is changing the POW for bitcoin - that's by definition an altcoin. Even Maxwell said that BIP148 is a "stupid way to create an altcoin". I suppose that UAHF is roughly equivalent.

[Iranus]

Long term holder and lurker here. Been in BTC since 2011 and I have been following the scaling debate closely for the past year.


I also realized that some of the Core devs weren't as trustworthy as I thought they were, and that some of them became so entrenched in their position that they failed to see the bigger picture and refused to even consider a compromise.

At this point I think it's best to look at what the code does, rather than who wrote it. Code that makes bitcoin work better should be adopted, compiled, and run, and code that doesn't should be ignored. Simple.

I disagree.  Who runs the code is completely relevant if that group has a lot of power.

The difference is that Core's power is to propose code, while BITMAIN's power is to signal for it.

If BITMAIN, a private mining company, decides to go off and propose their own code, it means that they have control over their new chain unless enough other miners signal for their code to negate their power.  For now, this is basically manipulation of the new chain since they have the power for 51% attacks, potentially for a long time considering that the market won't support their chain for a while, and the power to create changes in the code without consulting miners which are supposed to be independent from developers.

[jonald_fyookball]

Long term holder and lurker here. Been in BTC since 2011 and I have been following the scaling debate closely for the past year.


I also realized that some of the Core devs weren't as trustworthy as I thought they were, and that some of them became so entrenched in their position that they failed to see the bigger picture and refused to even consider a compromise.

At this point I think it's best to look at what the code does, rather than who wrote it. Code that makes bitcoin work better should be adopted, compiled, and run, and code that doesn't should be ignored. Simple.

I think Bitmain has overstepped their domain a bit with UAHF. All they had to do was ignore the 148coin fools, and make sure they keep mining smoothly on August 1. I think Jihan got scared it could work so he announced his own counter-bluff.

Nobody is changing the POW for bitcoin - that's by definition an altcoin. Even Maxwell said that BIP148 is a "stupid way to create an altcoin". I suppose that UAHF is roughly equivalent.

i dont think so.  I think UAHF is a great way to get bigger blocks.  Good chance to hold the longest chain, and even if not, the chain will attract more economic activity in the long run than segshit and blockstream.

[chek2fire]

i only know that bitcoin developers has maintenance all of this years bitcoin without a single problem and this is enough to trust my money. For that and only for that reason i prefer to trust the best coders.
The code speaks in bitcoin and until today speak in the favour of bitcoin developers.

[mmortal03]

What's up with Bitmain being listed as finding BIP141 acceptable until July, when they're obviously not pointing their hash power at it?: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

Edit: Oh, look, there's a thread for that: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6hn2zj/why_did_bitmain_go_from_no_to_acc_until_july_for/

[chek2fire]

What's up with Bitmain being listed as finding BIP141 acceptable until July, when they're obviously not pointing their hash power at it?: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

Edit: Oh, look, there's a thread for that: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6hn2zj/why_did_bitmain_go_from_no_to_acc_until_july_for/

i have a theory for this guys. I think they have found a new kind psychedelic mushroom to the Tibet mountains where they operate their mining facilities. Because their actions is not logical at all..

[Iranus]

Long term holder and lurker here. Been in BTC since 2011 and I have been following the scaling debate closely for the past year.


I also realized that some of the Core devs weren't as trustworthy as I thought they were, and that some of them became so entrenched in their position that they failed to see the bigger picture and refused to even consider a compromise.

At this point I think it's best to look at what the code does, rather than who wrote it. Code that makes bitcoin work better should be adopted, compiled, and run, and code that doesn't should be ignored. Simple.

I think Bitmain has overstepped their domain a bit with UAHF. All they had to do was ignore the 148coin fools, and make sure they keep mining smoothly on August 1. I think Jihan got scared it could work so he announced his own counter-bluff.

Nobody is changing the POW for bitcoin - that's by definition an altcoin. Even Maxwell said that BIP148 is a "stupid way to create an altcoin". I suppose that UAHF is roughly equivalent.

i dont think so.  I think UAHF is a great way to get bigger blocks.  Good chance to hold the longest chain, and even if not, the chain will attract more economic activity in the long run than segshit and blockstream.

It really is hilarious how most people on the Internet just get so caught up with their preconceptions that they just make loud assumptions without backing them up with anything meaningful whatsoever.  You've assumed that more people support one side than the other just because of what you think, rather than from any meaningful evidence, because you've separated "real people" from "those other people".

If it doesn't hold the longest chain, it's a BITMAIN-dominated chain and it's an outrage to decentralisation - if it does hold the longest chain eventually that would be interesting to me, but it doesn't seem likely at this point.

IMO this is a similar mentality that leads people to supporting BIP 148 even though the main justification that they gave for avoiding a hard fork was that it would cause a chain split.

[TheButterZone]

Bitmain should do it right this instant. Keep ASICboost, add another shitcoin to the list, cut the quasi-extortion.

[Variogam]

What's up with Bitmain being listed as finding BIP141 acceptable until July, when they're obviously not pointing their hash power at it?: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

Acceptable as part of SegWit2x ? The SegWit2x is not ready yet (expected fully tested in mid July), so they not pointing their hash power at it now.

[leopard2]

I kinda doubt that they're actually going to stick by what they say here, but if they do, it only seems like good news. If you'd like to use a currency controlled by a single company that puts its ability to use its patented Asicboost tech above all other considerations, feel free! I'll stick with Bitcoin, thank you very much.

BIP148 fixes the ASICBOOST exploit. Sure they don't like that at Bitmain, as they have a monopoly on the Asicboost patent.

The situation is foggier than ever and imho this translates to $100 Litecoins. 

[btemtd]

No response.. wow. Fuk it I'll sell..

This place amazes me the bitcoin community amazes me.. just in this f**ing thread people can't even agree. You people are the reason alot of the public thinks de-centralised won't work.BITCOIN WILL never reach consensus if people can't even agree in a  TINY thread regarding a small code enhancement.

[d5000]

Guys what would you do if you have  a nice chunk of funds in BTC say 50% for example would you cash it in before the upcoming UNKNOWN august 1 ... I mean these days 15btc is like $50,000 Aud... pretty crazy!!

OK, I answer:
- You should observe the sentiment on both sides.
- If the final Segwit2x version is fully compatible with BIP148 and gets support from 80% as announced then I think for now there will be no chain split and the outcome is bullish. Buy/hold.
- The worst outcome is an UASF BIP148 with more than 15 but less than 35% hashrate support. That will result in a chain split almost surely, with BIP148 being the minority chain in terms of hashrate but probably majority of users. Turbulences ahead. Sell/Trade the swings.
- BIP148 with 35%-50%+ has a chance to get a majority of miners on board. That could result in a chain split but here I think there will be a chance the BIP148 chain wins at the end because of user/economy support. However, I expect turbulences and a price drop. Sell.
- BIP148 with 50%+ even without Segwit2x support would be sure to win, but probably won't happen. Would be bullish however.
- BIP148 with <15% has no chance. So the legacy chain or an incompatible Segwit2x chain will win. If that means that the stalemate continues, I consider it bearish. The price evolution of a winning BIP148-incompatible Segwit2x chain is difficult to predict.