FORK in progress ... now !

[pereira4]

This could turn out to be ok as long as segwit2x manages to not crash during activation period which would be a massive disaster. Once segwit locks in and we avoid BIP148, then miners can go back to running core software and we will be safe until November when delusional hardforkers pretend to fork bitcoin again.

[naughty1]

.. if there is about 90% miners in line - who cares ?

Everyone is interested, look at the current bitcoin, it affects the entire virtual currency market, any change from it has a direct impact on all other currencies. So, people always care about it.

[hv_]

This could turn out to be ok as long as segwit2x manages to not crash during activation period which would be a massive disaster. Once segwit locks in and we avoid BIP148, then miners can go back to running core software and we will be safe until November when delusional hardforkers pretend to fork bitcoin again.

Yeah - cool. Put war fork and war spoon down for a while and get us some pipe n beers.

 

[BrewMaster]

if you take time and read the BIP instead of spamming nonsense ...

BIP148 is not in Bitcoin Core.
BIP91 is not in Bitcoin Core.

SegWit only activate when Blocks have the good version integrated.

Bitcoin Core (the 79% of the network) only recognize the BIP9 block version (2x....02, not 2x....10 and not 2x....12).

what the hell does any of these mean
there is no Bitcoin Core, there is only Bitcoin.
there is no Good Version, there is only block version. and these versions are used to "vote" exactly like last time for previous soft fork to activate P2SH (or you may know it as multisig). these versions show support for proposals. all these different BIP numbers are all activating the same thing. which is Segregated Witness none of them are different in the end result the only difference is in the route they take to reach that end result.

bitcoin core is not the network, Bitcoin is the 100% of the network.
what you see as bitcoin core and all the different names are only clients you can make one yourself too and call it Meuh. i am running my own client and call it CustomClient 0.9.0
none of them are different, they are all enforcing the same consensus rules we know as bitcoin. with little modification to other stuff.
and this has nothing to do with activating SegWit! because core is compatible with SegWit!

[Looarn]

So the question is : Is BTC1 compatible with SegWit ? Has he appear that BTC1 resolve the warning issue.

[Meuh6879]

Once segwit locks in and we avoid BIP148, then miners can go back to running core software and we will be safe until November.

Like this, it's ok.

[chinapeople]

We will know it soon. I read 75% already favors

[DooMAD]

Both UASF and SegWit2x have every right to do what they're doing.  You run whatever code you want, they can run whatever code they want.

don't compare a UASF real modified & verified Bitcoin Core version only with a BIP0148 identified strategy ... and a dark version launched by a mining sector (with 61% of the mining power of the whole Bitcoin network).

Segwit2x is not a BIP.
BIP0091 is not a BIP recognize by Bitcoin Core (find BIP91 here ? https://bitcoincore.org/en/bips/ = NO).

So.  Much.  Arrogance.

First off, I'll compare whatever the hell I like, you oppressive little despot.  Secondly, just because you think one of those two is "valid", it doesn't mean everyone else does and it certainly doesn't mean you get to tell people what they're doing isn't valid just because Core haven't given it their seal of approval (and for the record, I think you'll find some of the Core developers said UASF was "reckless", but I'm sure you're happy to gloss over that little fact).  The difference between us, is that even though I'm not fond of UASF and find it to be a far more radical departure in terms of network governance than any hard fork could ever be, I fully defend their right to do what they're doing.  For the record, I personally think what they're doing is stupid, but I'll defend to the death their right to do it in a permissionless system.

You or I don't get to decide what is or isn't valid.  Nor do any developers.  That's not how this works at all.  All we get to decide is what code we run and so does everyone else.  You have no say whatsoever in what code other people choose to run.  End of.  If you can't handle that, tough shit.  Permissionless.  You can play totalitarian anywhere else you like, but that shit doesn't fly here.

I see, you're another one of those people who think miners and other users have to blindly follow along and can't make their own decisions about the software they choose to run.  I assure you, it's definitely you who has a problem.

Yes, it's a problem for me.
A BIG one.

We have identified a mining sector that it can do an 51% attack if they want.
Remember the 57% of a 1 pool in 2014-2015 ?
No ? 

Ah, yes, the old "everyone who disagrees with me must be under the direct influence of one person because my tinfoil hat says so and that means I can disregard their opinion" argument.  Yeah, that's not getting boring at all.  Again, are you really so arrogant as to think that every single miner supporting SegWit2x is some sort of mindless drone doing what the boss says?  You sound like some demented religious fanatic.  Cry moar.

[Meuh6879]

We will know it soon. I read 75% already favors

Only 63%  

Code:

2017-07-18 17:18:43 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000001def621c5bc90d1f0be86e2c84a955d8b0f94864090a1c height=476403 version=0x20000000 log2_work=86.780956 tx=240142243 date='2017-07-18 17:15:40' progress=0.999998 cache=162.4MiB(84920tx) warning='63 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version'

[CryptoWiz420]

And it's begin ... at the end of every lines = 23 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version

Code:

2017-07-17 15:37:02 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000000eac4304c025e2e0edfab5ac1f95d92cc17b11dd1da4e6e height=476233 version=0x20000010 log2_work=86.774567 tx=239865845 date='2017-07-17 15:33:54' progress=0.999997 cache=12.8MiB(7346tx) warning='23 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version'
2017-07-17 15:38:40 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000000a99a7552d7ffd6a71bdfaba785981e3fd9538a332b05d5 height=476234 version=0x20000010 log2_work=86.774605 tx=239867248 date='2017-07-17 15:35:33' progress=0.999998 cache=17.2MiB(13446tx) warning='24 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version'
2017-07-17 15:44:01 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000008e1c1a36928f1c6947ac10cebfef0c0808429ab48486af height=476235 version=0x20000010 log2_work=86.774643 tx=239868792 date='2017-07-17 15:41:08' progress=0.999998 cache=37.3MiB(20991tx) warning='25 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version'
2017-07-17 15:55:30 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000001f30d0e8e895779b4d449295af78e9704b064aa6d9568a height=476236 version=0x20000010 log2_work=86.77468 tx=239870470 date='2017-07-17 15:52:46' progress=0.999998 cache=54.8MiB(32011tx) warning='26 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version'
2017-07-17 15:56:07 UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000000060221da0de65efda8ba3011d05bd3dc538f9f65aa7e44d height=476237 version=0x20000010 log2_work=86.774718 tx=239871416 date='2017-07-17 15:53:21' progress=0.999998 cache=54.8MiB(33757tx) warning='27 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version'
2017-07-17 16:18:14 UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000000029b42b869de88c4ea4241191eba2b4bd384487599ee79c height=476238 version=0x20000010 log2_work=86.774756 tx=239873267 date='2017-07-17 16:15:52' progress=0.999998 cache=75.2MiB(48503tx) warning='28 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version'
2017-07-17 16:18:41 UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000000142552e056c59d9a87d72d05df167727fc25691e6f15591 height=476239 version=0x20000010 log2_work=86.774793 tx=239874599 date='2017-07-17 16:16:05' progress=0.999998 cache=75.7MiB(49963tx) warning='29 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version'
2017-07-17 16:21:04 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000009ba7049cb17491e2ddf320319786e8c3586d932dcb9cae height=476240 version=0x20000010 log2_work=86.774831 tx=239876127 date='2017-07-17 16:18:14' progress=0.999998 cache=77.3MiB(52935tx) warning='30 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version'

"No, that is completely incorrect. The threshold for BIP 91 (the first half of segwit2x) is 80%, not 50%. Secondly, a 100 block period is much too short to determine anything. It can be highly affected by variance and luck. You need to much longer timespan to determine how much support there actually is. Even the 336 block window for BIP 91 is very short and could be affected by variance so there could actually be less than 80% hash rate support and BIP 91 would still activate."

Your welcome.

Bitcoin Tips: 1E1bAuCkFUVeyz9YWZWRtHpS4D6999n4ET

Send all bitcoins to above address to test for forks. Ill let you know if they are fork coins.

[CryptoWiz420]

We will know it soon. I read 75% already favors

Only 63%  

Code:

2017-07-18 17:18:43 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000001def621c5bc90d1f0be86e2c84a955d8b0f94864090a1c height=476403 version=0x20000000 log2_work=86.780956 tx=240142243 date='2017-07-18 17:15:40' progress=0.999998 cache=162.4MiB(84920tx) warning='63 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version'

Its 88%

remember: 1E1bAuCkFUVeyz9YWZWRtHpS4D6999n4ET
Free fork tester

[harimauagam]

That's great when FORK is underway let's see together do not look at it when it's ready for those who know.