Topic: BIP148 has been deployed by slushpool (Read 859 times)

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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 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.

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.

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.")

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

4.3% hashrate is a good start

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/