Topic: [2017-04-17]F2Pool Starts Signaling for Segwit in Bitcoin (Read 425 times)

I am aware of that, but I just don't trust them as they haven't exactly proven to be reliable when it comes to standing firm behind everything they say and do. Do you consider it to be coincidence that they first have been hammering down on Segwit, which resulted in them suffering from a DDOS attack, where not long after that they miraculously changed from opinion, and see now that Segwit is somewhat of a decent option (at least better than what's available).


In other words, the 95% support percentage is basically not really that important to focus on. Problem with F2Pool is (as I mentioned in a response to Iranus as well) is that that they change from stance quite regularly, and thus make themselves not look like a reliable party in the way that their words and actions have no real value until after a longer time proves that they stand firm behind it.

From the miners perspective, all forks are hard, especially Segwit which will put non-Segwit miners at an economic disadvantage (they can earn more fees with Segwit blocks).

The higher the signalling goes over 51%, the more concerned they'll be that their blocs won't get relayed, so it could activate quickly (or get very close) soon after 51% signalling hits. Without the hash power of the the miners not signalling Segwit making blocks, the 95% threshold becomes a lower number in hashrate terms anyway, so if F2Pool maintain their signalling, we might see >50% signalling soon, and activation soon after. This has happened with most other soft forks, miners don't like to get left running old network rules creating old block versions, even when they're still compatible.

Clearly this not at all a situation in which BU can just overtake SegWit straight away again.  BU is mainly supported by the same group of pools and it has been consistently been that way for a while.  F2Pool signalling SegWit means that the support will be consistently higher than BU, just like how stable BU has been for a while.

Seems you're a bit out of date or you haven't been paying attention either.  F2Pool said on their Twitter that they would be signalling SegWit due to their user feedback supporting it.  I'm not sure if they'll stick with it or whether they think SegWit will happen either, but I know that they are legitimately deciding to signal SegWit right now and while they do, SegWit will be in the lead.

Segwit has been infront of BU several times already, and each time BU gains back its leading position. In that regard, the lead of Segwit holds no value at all. Especially when you consider that Segwit requires 95% support. Reason for F2Pool to start signalling support might because they were suffering from a DDOS attack after an anti Segwit tweet from them. Either way, the situation remains the same - Segwit can't come even close to the 95% mark.

Well, I was suspecting Wang Chun wanting to manipulate the price with his tweets. At least his posts about Litecoin were so strange that it looked like he simply abused his "power" to gamble with some coins.

But if it's true that F2Pool really is a "classic pool" that runs no own miners (or only with very weak hashrate) then he is not totally free in his decisions. So he may be signalling Segwit really because otherwise the pool would lose even more users.

SegWit is leading right now according to coin.dance.  Seems that in the past 24 hours (I use recent time because F2Pool only started signalling recently) SegWit has been leading by about 7%.

To be honest I just think that Wang Chun doesn't expect anything to happen, and he's just signalling to placate all the people telling him to support SegWit.

In a surprising move, F2Pool, which has around 9% network hardware share, began signaling for segregated witnesses (segwit), a controversial proposal that aims to increase capacity while facilitating layer two protocols such as the Lightning Network and sidechains.

Unlike in litecoin, where the market rallied after F2Pool began signaling segwit, there was no price reaction in bitcoin, which may indicate the market doesn’t think there has been any change as segwit still requires another 65% of miners.

Moreover, the signaling began after a somewhat peculiar series of events. Firstly, F2Pool started signaling segwit in litecoin, then surprisingly said he was re-considering, then Charlie Lee said F2pool will keep signaling, Wang Chun, F2Pool’s co-founder, confirmed, but further suggested he will keep signaling because “I scare DDoS too much.”


// Get exclusive analysis of bitcoin and learn from our tutorials. Join Hacked.com for just $39 now. //

That’s just the starters – or just the warm up if you’re into exercising. Wang Chun then went on to say in a statement that could not possibly make his views any more clear:

“Segwit will be a disaster. I am not going to support it on BTC because I am a bitcoin HODLER. Meanwhile, I do not have a single litecoin.”

You’d rationally conclude that’s that then, but it seems Wang Chun was still hungry and wanted some dessert which took the form of asking his followers a fairly peculiar question: “Should miners stop signaling segwit by the end of current activation period and switch to UASF?”

Miners can’t quite signal for a UASF, otherwise known as a flag-day soft-fork. That is, after block X segwit is activated. In such scenario, miners either upgrade or don’t upgrade. Plus, there is no difference between the two as far as miners are concerned because for miners all forks are hardforks.

Here comes the twist: “As 56% from the poll in favor of segwit & agreed UASF is bad. We’ll respect ur opinion and implement segwit on both BTC & LTC soon. Thanks.”

The poll didn’t ask whether his followers are in favor of segwit or otherwise, but gave a choice between segwit or UASF which also implements segwit. So, between segwit or segwit, with the only real question asked being whether segwit should be activated at a threshold of 95% of miners or whether it should just be activated regardless of how many miners support it.

The Art of Surprise

This, of course, just two days after he said “segwit will be a disaster.” Now, to make some rational sense of this isn’t easy, but some suspect F2Pool isn’t really neutral. They implemented full-rbf, for example, at the advice of Peter Todd, then backtracked after a huge backlash by users.

They’ve never really mined on any other client, but Bitcoin Core, except for that one time when they pretended to give their users a choice by making mining with Bitcoin Classic as difficult as possible which led to just one block in a week or so despite the pool at the time having some 25% network share.

On the other hand, it may well be the case that the decision is actually purely made to avoid any DDoS as Wang Chun says or implies. F2Pool is a classic pool, running no hash of its own, and is a fairly small operation, therefore may not have the resources other pools do.

In that case, it doesn’t seem like a smart move to reveal DDoS-ing has so much effect on his pool. Nor does it sound like a good idea for miners to keep using F2Pool when their profits can so easily be affected by a DDoS either from competitors or segwit supporters.

Their hash has fallen to around 9% in the past four days, with segwit and Bitcoin Unlimited now very much neck and neck, both having around 36% network share. That suggests bitcoin is fully split.

As such, after two years, there is still no resolution in sight, while bitcoin’s fees reach all-time high, above $1, with users yesterday complaining about unconfirmed transactions.

Maybe some new proposal will be able to bridge the divide, but what we’ll probably see is a repeat of the same old story. Firstly, nitpick every little thing in showing strong opposition, then smear the proposal’s name, then its devs, then whoever supports it, then DDoS.

This time, though, all of it is getting far too boring, like those Hollywood movies that keep repeating the same story-line.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/f2pool-starts-signaling-segwit-bitcoin/