Proposal Support

[DooMAD]

As the debate rages on, it seems like some people are beginning to make assumptions about which proposals people actually do and don't support.  For example, all "bigblockers" have to apparently support BU, which isn't necessarily the case.  So if anyone would like to go on record and explicitly declare their support for the various proposals, you've come to the right thread.

For clarity:

BIP141:  This is Core's proposed softfork for Segregated Witness, commonly referred to as "SegWit".  The reasoning for this proposal is outlined with both benefits and costs.

BIP148:  This is a User Activated Softfork for SegWit, commonly referred to as "UASF".  The reasoning for this proposal is  outlined here.

BIP149:  This is a User Activated Softfork for SegWit with an "activation on timeout".  The reasoning for this proposal is outlined here.

SegWit2x / New York Agreement:  This is a SegWit hardfork with the addition of a 2MB blocksize, commonly referred to as "SegWit2x".  The reasoning for this proposal is outlined here and here.

Extension Blocks:  This is a proposal to create an opt-in second layer for an on-chain capacity increase.  The reasoning for this proposal is outlined here and here

Segwit Adaptive:  This is a proposal to allow dynamic resizing of blocks based on network traffic.  Based on BIP106.  The reasoning for this proposal is outlined here.

Emergent Consensus:  This is a proposal for miners and nodes to dynamically declare the size of blocks they are willing to accept.  The reasoning for this proposal is outlined here.

Bitmaincoin:  This is an altcoin proposed by Bitmain and included as a joke of sorts.

"Prefer"	= Preferred proposal regardless of apparent support
"Acceptable"	= A solid or workable solution
"Deficient"	= Okay with the idea, but appears to be lacking wide support
"Weak"	= Better than nothing
"No"	= Self explanatory

"Undecided" / "No Opinion" / "DGAF" / etc = Self Explanatory

	BIP141 SegWit |	BIP148 UASF |	BIP149 Timeout |	SegWit2x / New York Agreement |	Extension Blocks |	SegWit Adaptive |	Emergent Consensus |	Bitmaincoin
DooMAD	Acceptable	No	Weak	Acceptable	Deficient	Prefer	No	Fuck No
iCEBREAKER	Acceptable	OhHellYes	Acceptable	GetRektM8	Acceptable	Deficient	ROFLMAOPIMP	"Pick up the gun."
franky1	Weak	No	No	Better than nothin	Weak	Acceptable	Prefer	No
theymos	Prefer	Deficient	Prefer	No*	No†	No	No	No
Lauda	Prefer	Acceptable	Acceptable	Acceptable	Deficient	Deficient	LOL	ForkYourMotherIfYouWantFork
d5000	Prefer	No	Acceptable	Acceptable	Prefer	Prefer	As an Altcoin	No
jonald_fyookball	No	#UASF! do it	No	No	Weak	No	Prefer	Bitcoin. FTFY
PaasHaas	Prefer	Acceptable	Acceptable	Acceptable	Deficient	Weak	NO	Hell NO
azguard	Prefer	Acceptable	No	Prefer	Deficient	Deficient	No	No
sgbett	No	No	No	Weak.	Deficient	No	Bitcoin.	Also Bitcoin.
Foxpup	Prefer	Deficient	Acceptable	No	No	No	ROFL	OMGWTFBBQ
forevernoob	Prefer	Acceptable	Acceptable	No	Undecided	No	No	No
mindrust	Prefer	#UASF	Yaawn...	no	undecided	undecided	LOL!	LOL!
ibminer	Prefer	No	No	NO!	Deficient	Weak	NO!	NO!
SpartacusRex	Prefer	Acceptable	Acceptable	Acceptable	LOL	LOL	LOL	ForkYourMotherIfYouWantFork
hv_	NotSN	NotSN	NotSN	Compromis	beFree	No	Bitcoin	SN_Bitcoin
quake313	Prefer	Acceptable	Acceptable	Acceptable	no	No	NO	NO WAY
mainpmf	Prefer	Acceptable	NODON'TDOTHAT	Acceptable	no	No	NO	NO WAY
Variogam	Deficient	No	No	Prefer	Acceptable	Deficient	Deficient	No
frodocooper	Acceptable	No	Weak	No	No	Prefer	No	No
FiendCoin	Prefer	Acceptable	Acceptable	Acceptable with Core Support	No	No	NEVER BU	Hell to the muthafucking naw!
Ost	Acceptable	Acceptable	Undecided	Acceptable	Undecided	Prefer	No	Hell No

If anyone wants me to add them to the list, please 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]

(Optional) Colours are:

Code:

[glow=#00FF66,2,300]Prefer[/glow]
[glow=#00BB44,2,100]Acceptable[/glow]
[glow=yellow,2,300]Deficient[/glow]
[glow=cyan,2,100]Weak[/glow]
[glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/glow]
Undecided / No Opinion / DGAF / etc leave uncoloured

[1713994318]

1713994318

[1713994318]

1713994318

[1713994318]

1713994318

[1713994318]

1713994318

[1713994318]

1713994318

[Ost]

Code:

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

I'm not sure about some of these though, since I don't know a lot about all of them. Maybe there should be something like a "No opinion" option?

[DooMAD]

I'm not sure about some of these though, since I don't know a lot about all of them. Maybe there should be something like a "No opinion" option?

You can certainly put "Undecided" or "No Opinion" and leave those uncoloured if you like.  Just don't delete any lines because it messes up the table formatting. 

Did you want to edit your submission before inclusion?

[Ost]

I'm not sure about some of these though, since I don't know a lot about all of them. Maybe there should be something like a "No opinion" option?

You can certainly put "Undecided" or "No Opinion" and leave those uncoloured if you like.  Just don't delete any lines because it messes up the table formatting. 

Did you want to edit your submission before inclusion?

Code:

[tr]
[td]Ost[/td]
[td][glow=green,2,100]Acceptable[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=green,2,100]Acceptable[/glow][/td]
[td]Undecided[/td]
[td][glow=green,2,100]Acceptable[/glow][/td]
[td]Undecided[/td]
[td][glow=#00FF66,2,300]Prefer[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=red,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=red,2,300]Hell No[/glow][/td]
[/tr]

Here you go!

[iCEBREAKER]

	BIP141	BIP148	BIP149	SegWit2x	Extension Blocks	SegWit Adaptive/BIP106	BU/EC	Bitmaincoin
iCEBREAKER	Acceptable	OhHellYes	Acceptable	GetRektM8	Acceptable	Deficient	ROFLMAOPIMP	"Pick up the gun."

Code:

[tr]
[td]iCEBREAKER[/td]
[td][glow=#00BB44,2,100]Acceptable[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#00FF66,2,300]OhHellYes[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#00BB44,2,100]Acceptable[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]GetRektM8[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#00BB44,2,100]Acceptable[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=yellow,2,300]Deficient[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]ROFLMAOPIMP[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]"Pick up the gun."[/glow][/td]
[/tr]

[forevernoob]

Code:

[tr]
[td]forevernoob[/td]
[td][glow=#00FF66,2,300]Prefer[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=green,2,100]Acceptable[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=green,2,100]Acceptable[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=red,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=red,2,300]Undecided[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=red,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=red,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=red,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[/tr]

[mindrust]

	BIP141	BIP148	BIP149	SegWit2x	Extension Blocks	SegWit Adaptive/BIP106	BU/EC	Bitmaincoin
mindrust	Prefer	#UASF	Yaawn...	no	undecided	undecided	LOL!	LOL!

[franky1]

franky1

Weak

Weak

Weak

Weak

Weak

Weak

Weak

Weak

Code:

[tr]
[td]franky1         [/td]
[td][glow=cyan,2,100]Weak[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=cyan,2,100]Weak[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=cyan,2,100]Weak[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=cyan,2,100]Weak[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=cyan,2,100]Weak[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=cyan,2,100]Weak[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=cyan,2,100]Weak[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=cyan,2,100]Weak[/glow][/td]
[/tr]

they are all missing things.
segwit148149 segwit2x  are all 2merkle which is cludgy code, also doesnt limit txsigops of legacy tx's very well or uses cludgy maths to do it

the dynamic bips have issues too
like 106 for instance has crap bip of going down as well as up, which can cause blocks made before going down (thus being more then new limit) potentially getting orphaned out.. there should be no need to drop a consensus limit as that causes issues for the chain.. pools can simply do a policy blocksize drop instead

segwit+size increases still rely on developer spoon feeding/promises after X. which is still empty promises/delays


its as if devs want to promote the worse versions there are, as ways to keep the dev's in control/ or to make the devs remain relevant by always having issues for the devs to be needed to then fix later

any bip that actually gives nodes full control to not rely on dev endless requirement ends up being tossed aside

concepts i prefer
dynamics - takes the dv spoonfeeding/2year debate out of the way because NODES control size (yep i said nodes not pools)
but with other things aswell such as
1 merkle block where all keypairs sit side by side in same area

all the stuff people want new keypairs, weak/thin blocks

nodes request a UTXO set first to run in lite mode while it syncs so that people can see unspents and make tx's meaning they are not waiting a week before even being able to do anything

other things like
proper limiting sigops and bloat per tx

add a new fee priority mechanism that penalises people that spend more then once a day and reward those that dont, (yep there are ways to do it)

[theymos]

theymos

Prefer

Deficient

Prefer

No*

No†

No

No

No

Code:

[tr]
[td]theymos[/td]
[td][glow=#00FF66,2,300]Prefer[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=yellow,2,300]Deficient[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#00FF66,2,300]Prefer[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No*[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No†[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[/tr]

* Despite the straightforward-sounding name, the meaning of "SegWit2x" is very unclear. There are like a dozen totally different proposals going by that name, most of them very bad, a few like COOP less bad. I can imagine a "SegWit + 2MB-hardfork" proposal that I would instead rate as Deficient.

† I am completely opposed to that extblocks proposal, but the idea of extension blocks is OK. SegWit basically is an extension block proposal, after all.

[Lauda]

	BIP141	BIP148	BIP149	SegWit2x	Extension Blocks	SegWit Adaptive/BIP106	BU/EC	Bitmaincoin
Lauda	Prefer	Acceptable	Acceptable	Acceptable]	Deficient	Deficient	LOL	ForkYourMotherIfYouWantFork

Code:

[tr]
[td]Lauda[/td]
[td][glow=#00FF66,2,300]Prefer[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#00BB44,2,100]Acceptable[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#00BB44,2,100]Acceptable[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#00BB44,2,100]Acceptable[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=yellow,2,300]Deficient[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=yellow,2,300]Deficient[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]LOL[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]ForkYourMotherIfYouWantFork[/glow][/td]
[/tr]

If my modifications to the last two are not acceptable, just replace with "No".

* Despite the straightforward-sounding name, the meaning of "SegWit2x" is very unclear. There are like a dozen totally different proposals going by that name, most of them very bad, a few like COOP less bad. I can imagine a "SegWit + 2MB-hardfork" proposal that I would instead rate as Deficient.

They are finally aiming to make it compatible with existing Segwit deployment and even BIP 148. In that variant, I'd find it acceptable even though I don't agree with the rushed hard fork in 6 months. If they do not do it, in the way that I've just specified then my vote would be 'No'.
OP, I suggest putting in some time to make the formatting/styling of the OP better.

[andyatcrux]

Where is Bip 91? It is now compatible with Bip 148, is being chosen by miners as we speak and may very well give us Segwit prior to August 1st.  Maybe it is classified here as Segwit2X (not the deployment method, but okay) ?

[Lauda]

Where is Bip 91? It is now compatible with Bip 148, is being chosen by miners as we speak and may very well give us Segwit prior to August 1st.

BIP 91 seems to have been incorporated into the Segwit2x proposal. Therefore it should not be listed separately.

[andyatcrux]

Yeah, thanks. I edited my message to late. 

[frodocooper]

	BIP141	BIP148	BIP149	SegWit2x	Extension Blocks	SegWit Adaptive/BIP106	BU/EC	Bitmaincoin
frodocooper	Acceptable	No	Weak	No	No	Prefer	No	No

Code:

[tr]
[td]frodocooper   [/td]
[td][glow=#00BB44,2,100]Acceptable[/glow]   [/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=cyan,2,100]Weak[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/glow]   [/td] 
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#00FF66,2,300]Prefer[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[/tr]

[Variogam]

	BIP141	BIP148	BIP149	SegWit2x	Extension Blocks	SegWit Adaptive/BIP106	BU/EC	Bitmaincoin
Variogam	Deficient	No	No	Prefer	Acceptable	Deficient	Deficient	No

Code:

[tr]
[td]Variogam[/td]
[td][glow=yellow,2,300]Deficient[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#00FF66,2,300]Prefer[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#00BB44,2,100]Acceptable[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=yellow,2,300]Deficient[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=yellow,2,300]Deficient[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[/tr]

[FiendCoin]

	BIP141	BIP148	BIP149	SegWit2x	Extension Blocks	SegWit Adaptive/BIP106	BU/EC	Bitmaincoin
FiendCoin	Prefer	Acceptable	Acceptable	Acceptable with Core Support	No	No	NEVER BU	Hell to the muthafucking naw!

Code:

[tr]
[td]FiendCoin   [/td]
[td][glow=#00FF66,2,300]Prefer[/glow]   [/td]
[td][glow=#00BB44,2,100]Acceptable[/glow] [/td]
[td][glow=#00BB44,2,100]Acceptable[/glow] [/td]
[td][glow=#FFA500,2,300]Acceptable with Core Support[/glow]   [/td] 
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]NEVER BU[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]Hell to the muthafucking naw![/glow][/td]
[/tr]

[d5000]

Nice initiative.

	BIP141	BIP148	BIP149	SegWit2x	Extension Blocks	SegWit Adaptive/BIP106	BU/EC	Bitmaincoin
d5000	Prefer	No	Acceptable	Acceptable	Prefer	Prefer	As an Altcoin	No

From the three "preferred" variants (these are those I consider "good", not just "acceptable"), I rank them the following way:
1) Extension blocks (the concept, not a particular initiative)
2) Segwit-Adaptive/BIP-106
3) "traditional" Segwit BIP-141

Code:

[tr]
[td]d5000[/td]
[td][glow=#00FF66,2,300]Prefer[/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/td]
[td][glow=#00BB44,2,100]Acceptable[/td]
[td][glow=#00BB44,2,100]Acceptable[/td]
[td][glow=#00FF66,2,300]Prefer[/td]
[td][glow=#00FF66,2,300]Prefer[/td]
[td][glow=yellow,2,300]As an[br]Altcoin[/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/td]
[/tr]

[DooMAD]

Checkpoint.  Keep 'em coming.  Currently it's loosely ordered by membership rank and the order in which you posted.  Hope that's okay with everyone.  I'm definitely too lazy to alphabetise or do anything overtly OCD with it.  Looks like there are already some trends emerging in what we generally do and don't approve of.

OP, I suggest putting in some time to make the formatting/styling of the OP better.

Yeah, could do with some tweaking.  I did throw it together rather hastily, heh.  Can't do a great deal with the table itself since, as far as I'm aware at least, there's no option for borders in SMF's BBCode unless you mod it.  But the rest of the post cold be arranged a bit better.  Might also try to add more of a summary for each proposal.

add a new fee priority mechanism that penalises people that spend more then once a day and reward those that dont, (yep there are ways to do it)

I'd like to include that in the proposal for SegWit Adaptive, but if you can't get behind it (or any of the other proposals) because of your views on the "1 merkle block where all keypairs sit side by side in same area" part, you're just going to isolate yourself.  You have to recognise the main trend in this thread so far, which is that everyone else who has posted has, in some form or another, expressed support for SegWit.  I don't mean to be blunt, but, regardless of your feelings towards it, there's too much momentum behind the idea for you to obstruct it.  With the possible exception of extreme ossification and stagnation where this debate never ends, the only outcome moving forward is one that includes SegWit.  Either accept that, or find yourself moving (of your own volition) to the fringes where your voice won't be heard.  

[franky1]

but if you can't get behind it (or any of the other proposals) because of your views on the "1 merkle block where all keypairs sit side by side in same area" part, you're just going to isolate yourself.  You have to recognise the main trend in this thread so far, which is that everyone else who has posted has, in some form or another, expressed support for SegWit.  I don't mean to be blunt, but, regardless of your feelings towards it, there's too much momentum behind the idea for you to obstruct it.  With the possible exception of extreme ossification and stagnation where this debate never ends, the only outcome moving forward is one that includes SegWit.  Either accept that, or find yourself moving (of your own volition) to the fringes where your voice won't be heard.  

you do realise that segwit can actually be done in a 1 merkle block..
ill leave you to think about that and have a lightbulb(epiphany) moment.

[quake313]

	BIP141	BIP148	BIP149	SegWit2x	Extension Blocks	SegWit Adaptive/BIP106	BU/EC	Bitmaincoin
quake313	Prefer	Acceptable	Acceptable	Acceptable	no	No	NO	NO WAY

Code:

[tr]
[td]quake313[/td]
[td][glow=#00FF66,2,300]Prefer[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#00BB44,2,100]Acceptable[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#00BB44,2,100]Acceptable[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#00BB44,2,300]Acceptable[/glow][/td] 
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]no[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]NO[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]NO WAY[/glow][/td]
[/tr]

Great idea btw DooMAD.