Looks like the market is taking this as great news!
The price is $440 now. So it is good news for the bitcoin industry and community. I hope the SegWit will be successful.
Topic: Consensus Reached - page 4. (Read 5225 times)
The price is $440 now. So it is good news for the bitcoin industry and community. I hope the SegWit will be successful.
I am also confused as to why it would take so long to code a HF whose only change is to increase the maximum block size. I would think this would only involve changing a few lines of code, and see little reason why this code could not be released tomorrow
You must have missed the last 18 months. Vacation? Coma?
Here, this will help you catch up.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoins-great-schism-a-compendium-1347252
Classic should be OK with the agreement
It should stick around as a competing impl.
No. Diseases should be completely exterminated. It should stick around as a competing impl.
No
this agreement is made possible by the credible threat classic represented
we NEED a competing impl
Litecoin is a competing implementation of the Nakamoto Consensus schema described in Satoshi's whitepaper, with its own distinct socioeconomic majority.
Primecoin is another alternative, competing PoW-based distributed consensus.
Classic is a declaration of war, not a competing solution. Classic's raison d'etre is to "slap" Blockstream and "fire" Core, not increase tps from 3 to 6 tps.
Your 'but muh credurrble threat' talking point was already debunked and demolished by no less than Bram Cohen. https://medium.com/@bramcohen/double-billing-is-not-healthy-competition-b698c345b11e
Remember him? He made Bittorrent, which did for antifragile file distribution what Bitcoin does for value, thereby disrupting Napster's centralized approach.
Looks like the market is taking this as great news!
It sure seems to like it doesn't it
Looks like the market is taking this as great news!
...
But if they wanted to, they could put controversial features in a HF, right?
What you are arguing could be a possibility, but hopefully they have worked out those terms as well.This is the loophole. If core blockstream proposes a HF that includes controversial changes along with an increase in the maximum block size then such HF will not get adopted.
Not controversial features, fixes I'd say. Fixes that might be needed (e.g. Time-warp attack).In your opinion, what could be added to the July 2016 HF proposal that would be a deal breaker or be seen as bad faith?
They are delivering a HF proposal by July, and this does not mean that the HF will get implemented (even though the average block size will likely be near the effective maximum by then). It would not be difficult to effectively torpedo a maximum block size increase by putting something controversial in the HF.
"by July" could mean May. By July the average block size won't be near the maximum because Segwit should be deployed by then and should already give some headroom. They could, however you're underestimating the miners. If such a thing does occur, then they'd lose both trust and reputation as I've already stated. Everyone became so paranoid and whatnot, we've completely moved away from technical discussions and debates about improvements to "but they could be evil" (regardless if it is Core, Gavin, etc.). The possibility of this is always there, and we should not blindly follow anyone but we have to focus on the important things.But if they wanted to, they could put controversial features in a HF, right?
Yes.I'm not entirely sure consensus has been reached.
It has.
I'm not entirely sure consensus has been reached.
They have to deliver Segwit in April and they have to propose a hard fork by July. If Core doesn't fulfill these conditions then they will lose their respect and trust.
They are delivering a HF proposal by July, and this does not mean that the HF will get implemented (even though the average block size will likely be near the effective maximum by then). It would not be difficult to effectively torpedo a maximum block size increase by putting something controversial in the HF. This is the loophole. If core blockstream proposes a HF that includes controversial changes along with an increase in the maximum block size then such HF will not get adopted.
Not controversial features, fixes I'd say. Fixes that might be needed (e.g. Time-warp attack).
So after this consenus we should expect a stronger bitcoin and a higher and more stable price?
I'm seeing Segwit in April and code for 2MB in June, but then no implementation of 2 MB blocks until July 2017. Is that right? Or is it a typo and should be 2016? 13 months seems a long while. Let's hope Segwit can fill the intervening void adequately.
Quote
This hard-fork is expected to include features which are currently being discussed within technical communities, including an increase in the maximum effective block size, to more than 2 MB and less than 4 MB, and will only be adopted with a broad support across the entire Bitcoin community. -We will run a SegWit release in production by the time such a hard-fork is released in a version of Bitcoin Core.
does this line imply 2MB + segwit or just segwit
its not clear
I'm taking it as a both 2MB + segwit.
Segwit right meow.
No more nonsense about contentious hard forks.
2mb eventually but Not Tonight Dear.
the Treaty of Versailles worked well for a while and then the shit hit the fan.
Some would argue that the shit hit the fan because of that treaty.Thus, my comment, would be in that context of future Bitcoin/bitcoin prediction/comment.
Sorry neither of us put any bitcoin signifiers in there for your approval and understanding.
Sorry I should have quoted bitbitch not you ^^
This is not a consensus, just a statement from FOMC meeting. And these miners seems never stick to their words: One day they support classic, another day they support blockstream, I guess next time they will have their own devs and support nobody
Blockstream obviously does not want to raise the block size, if they do, then they can do it today right now. So their plan is to first send LN into rail. But in order to make people use LN, they must limit the transaction on chain, so they will come up with another idea later, like 99% consensus HF. But someone already raised legal issues about LN hubs, they are financial institution and must be regulated in US, and not allowed in China
So far nothing more interesting than the old style enterprise politics power grab, I hoped bitcoin can do better but obviously almost all the things that have lots of value ends up like this
Blockstream obviously does not want to raise the block size, if they do, then they can do it today right now. So their plan is to first send LN into rail. But in order to make people use LN, they must limit the transaction on chain, so they will come up with another idea later, like 99% consensus HF. But someone already raised legal issues about LN hubs, they are financial institution and must be regulated in US, and not allowed in China
So far nothing more interesting than the old style enterprise politics power grab, I hoped bitcoin can do better but obviously almost all the things that have lots of value ends up like this
the Treaty of Versailles worked well for a while and then the shit hit the fan.
Some would argue that the shit hit the fan because of that treaty.Thus, my comment, would be in that context of future Bitcoin/bitcoin prediction/comment.
Sorry neither of us put any bitcoin signifiers in there for your approval and understanding.
the Treaty of Versailles worked well for a while and then the shit hit the fan.
Some would argue that the shit hit the fan because of that treaty.Some would argue that it has nothing to do with btc consensus...
This announcement ain't gonna stop the bitching or unite people. They've bought themselves an extra couple of years. I don't think a lot of people will wait that long and I don't think they'll be willing to listen to reason even if it is well thought out.
Well everyone who is not satisfied with this is free to leave at any time.
No one is forcing anybody to stay.There are several other coins out there you can choose if you want.
the Treaty of Versailles worked well for a while and then the shit hit the fan.
Some would argue that the shit hit the fan because of that treaty. 
The Bitcoin Community is proving to be mature enough to reach consensus on such an important issue. Hope this will be the norm in the future when vital decisions need to be taken.
the Treaty of Versailles worked well for a while and then the shit hit the fan.
Jump to: