i kinda liked this one from Aquentin on Reddit this morning:
"I am not sure why you are obsessed with core, why you wish to ask them for permission and why you are even begging them when core does not exist anymore. There is no core without two of the most seniour developers - Gavin and Jeff. Core is a was and what is now called core is a completely different team with a vision that is fully opposed to keeping bitcoin open and accessible to all or easy to use.
The current core team instead wishes to create walled gardens through LN bringing in middle men with their gateways and checkins taking away fees from miners and taking away the easy usability from users all for the pleasure of users paying them a fee.
Moreover, the company currently in control of core has the same business model as R3. They plan to create private blockchains - like liquid - and sell them for a fee to banks, businesses, companies, or even consumers. That is their business model is to create bitranets - similiar to intranets - to compete with the open ledger that is bitcoin. As the interests of open bitcoin and bitranet often are in competition, a team offering such bitranets and in control of bitcoin will necessarily wish to make the open ledger less competitive.
Ergo RBF which kills 0conf transactions while in their liquid bitranet they boast about 0confs as a feature - ergo keeping the open chain from scaling so that the bitranets win by default, etc.
TL;dr There is no core any longer. What was core is now divided into classic and core. Your choice therefore is between a team which abides by the wishes of users, listens to them, shares satoshi's vision and more importantly shares the vision of keeping bitcoin open and accessible to all, a world wide ledger that can be used for smart contracts and a million other things - or you can choose core which is killing 0conf transactions, refuses to listen to users and is controlled by a company that is in direct competition with bitcoin's interest of being open and accessible to all.
The users have made their choice - so have the most seniour developers. The miners signed 8mb in blood so to speak, then asked for bip100 - and core simply ignored you. Now you keep begging them and keep asking for permission... not sure when you'll figure out that not only do they not care about you, but they publicly state that you do not matter at all, yet you keep begging them and asking for permission..."
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/414qxh/49_of_bitcoin_mining_pools_support_bitcoin/cz0ceao
Topic: F2Pool「魚池」🐟 - page 12. (Read 169443 times)
looks pretty good to me:
Well said. Looking forward to both a 2MB hard cap and segwit!
looks pretty good to me:
- SegWit deployed on May 2016
- 2 month after deployment SoftFork activation will be triggered (95% miners adoption)
- 50% network (all kind of full nodes) upgrade after a year.
if all of the above are satisfied SegWit will bring max block size to 1.35 on Jun/Jul 2017. [/i]
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-251#post-9463
- 2 month after deployment SoftFork activation will be triggered (95% miners adoption)
- 50% network (all kind of full nodes) upgrade after a year.
if all of the above are satisfied SegWit will bring max block size to 1.35 on Jun/Jul 2017. [/i]
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-251#post-9463
There is clear economic incentives for all nodes involved with significant volumes of transactions to upgrade (less fees paid in agreggate). The adoption metric is not to be evaluated on a per-node basis.
As far as these large wallet providers are concerned the roll out could be immediate following the release of Seg Wit.
So the scenario above is far from "optimistic"
That non-consensual ('soft' fork) scaling 'solution' is a joke in the year of the halving. That's why the miners are finally acting.
this from Sergio Lerner, prominent Bitcoin core dev. from BitcoinClassic Slack Channel:
sergiodemianlerner 5:29 PM Regarding SegWit, I don't know if you have actually looked at the code but the amount of code changed, including consensus code, is huge. (maybe ~500 lines). I think such change has never been attempted in the history of Bitcoin. We cannot just say lightly that a couple of weeks after the 2mb hard-fork we're going to deploy segwit. That code needs months of review. Also I'm against the complexity of segwit as a soft-fork (probably requires 200 additional lines of code of consensus critical code). Segwit almost prevents consensus-compatible re-implementations of Bitcoin in other languages.
sergiodemianlerner 5:29 PM Regarding SegWit, I don't know if you have actually looked at the code but the amount of code changed, including consensus code, is huge. (maybe ~500 lines). I think such change has never been attempted in the history of Bitcoin. We cannot just say lightly that a couple of weeks after the 2mb hard-fork we're going to deploy segwit. That code needs months of review. Also I'm against the complexity of segwit as a soft-fork (probably requires 200 additional lines of code of consensus critical code). Segwit almost prevents consensus-compatible re-implementations of Bitcoin in other languages.
- SegWit deployed on May 2016
- 2 month after deployment SoftFork activation will be triggered (95% miners adoption)
- 50% network (all kind of full nodes) upgrade after a year.
if all of the above are satisfied SegWit will bring max block size to 1.35 on Jun/Jul 2017. [/i]
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-251#post-9463
- 2 month after deployment SoftFork activation will be triggered (95% miners adoption)
- 50% network (all kind of full nodes) upgrade after a year.
if all of the above are satisfied SegWit will bring max block size to 1.35 on Jun/Jul 2017. [/i]
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-251#post-9463
There is clear economic incentives for all nodes involved with significant volumes of transactions to upgrade (less fees paid in agreggate). The adoption metric is not to be evaluated on a per-node basis.
As far as these large wallet providers are concerned the roll out could be immediate following the release of Seg Wit.
So the scenario above is far from "optimistic"
SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees. how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?
This is a complete lie and misfabrication.
macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.
Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.
There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.
you could find reassuring that chypherdoc number are supported even by the official "Capacity Increase Faq", see:
https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq#segwit-size
for the sake of clarity:
Quote from: Capacity Increase Faq
According to some calculations performed by Anthony Towns, a block filled with standard single-signature P2PKH transactions would be about 1.6MB and a block filled with 2-of-2 multisignature transactions would be about 2.0MB.
to that add that you could ave 4MB virtual block size only if a block is completely filled by 3-of-3 txs.
Based on such actual data and the avg block txs compositions SegWit will give s scaling factor of ~1.75x once the soft-fork will be adopted by 100% of the network.
This is a possible scenario:
- SegWit deployed on april/may 2016
- Soft-Fork triggers in Jun/July 2016
- 50% of adoption after one year
if all the above are valid that means that you will have 1.35MB vitual max block size by june/july 2017.
that link proves my pt. SW is not a good scaling solution.
It provides effectively the same increase as a 2MB increase without the hassle of a hard fork.
It is live on testnet.
It avoids significant economic damages to the ecosystem brought about by uncertainty of a clearly contentious hard fork.
[/quote]
Just a quick clarification on SegWit and block size.
Based on current transaction type distribution in an average mined block, SegWit will give you a 1.6/1.7 MB block "size" if and only if 100% of the network upgraded (x4 gain reacheable only for 3-3 multisig txs).
Just take into consideration a likely / optimistic scenario:
- SegWit deployed on May 2016
- 2 month after deployment SoftFork activation will be triggered (95% miners adoption)
- 50% network (all kind of full nodes) upgrade after a year.
if all of the above are satisfied SegWit will bring max block size to 1.35 on Jun/Jul 2017.
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-251#post-9463
that link proves my pt. SW is not a good scaling solution.
[/quote]
It provides effectively the same increase as a 2MB increase without the hassle of a hard fork.
It is live on testnet.
It avoids significant economic damages to the ecosystem brought about by uncertainty of a clearly contentious hard fork.
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011869.html
[/quote]
that link proves my pt. SW is not a good scaling solution.
why is that link unclickable?
[/quote]
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011869.html
SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees. how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?
This is a complete lie and misfabrication.
macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.
Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.
There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.
please point out the technical error.
First not one miner is forced to mine anything whatsoever. They will pick whatever transactions they wish and will be incentivized to pick Seg Witness tx since they will come with more fees per bytes.
As for the 4MB you present it in a disingenuous way that propose the maximum gains necessarily translates to a 4MB block.
Here's how it actually works:
Quote
That would be 1.6MB and 2MB of total actual data if you hit the limits with real transactions, so it's more like a 1.8x increase for real transactions afaics, even with substantial use of multisig addresses.
The 4MB consensus limit could only be hit by having a single trivial transaction using as little base data as possible, then a single huge 4MB witness. So people trying to abuse the system have 4x the blocksize for 1 block's worth of fees, while people using it as intended only get 1.6x or 2x the blocksize... That seems kinda backwards.
The 4MB consensus limit could only be hit by having a single trivial transaction using as little base data as possible, then a single huge 4MB witness. So people trying to abuse the system have 4x the blocksize for 1 block's worth of fees, while people using it as intended only get 1.6x or 2x the blocksize... That seems kinda backwards.
why is that link unclickable?
SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees. how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?
This is a complete lie and misfabrication.
macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.
Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.
There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.
please point out the technical error.
First not one miner is forced to mine anything whatsoever.
They will pick whatever transactions they wish and will be incentivized to pick Seg Witness tx since they will come with more fees per bytes.
As for the 4MB you present it in a disingenuous way that propose the maximum gains necessarily translates to a 4MB block.
Here's how it actually works:
Quote
That would be 1.6MB and 2MB of total actual data if you hit the limits with real transactions, so it's more like a 1.8x increase for real transactions afaics, even with substantial use of multisig addresses.
The 4MB consensus limit could only be hit by having a single trivial transaction using as little base data as possible, then a single huge 4MB witness. So people trying to abuse the system have 4x the blocksize for 1 block's worth of fees, while people using it as intended only get 1.6x or 2x the blocksize... That seems kinda backwards.
The 4MB consensus limit could only be hit by having a single trivial transaction using as little base data as possible, then a single huge 4MB witness. So people trying to abuse the system have 4x the blocksize for 1 block's worth of fees, while people using it as intended only get 1.6x or 2x the blocksize... That seems kinda backwards.
SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees. how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?
macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.
LOL. The game is over for Blockstream Core, brg. More than 70 percent support the hardfork already. The sooner you capitulate the better for your health.
SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees. how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?
This is a complete lie and misfabrication.
macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.
Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.
There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.
please point out the technical error.
Crickets!
SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees. how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?
This is a complete lie and misfabrication.
macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.
Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.
There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.
It would be classy, responsible and coherent. What a beautiful precedent this would become!
SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees. how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?
This is a complete lie and misfabrication.
macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.
Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.
There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.
please point out the technical error.
Core alienated themselves from the process by refusing to compromise, segwit while awesome is a highly complex change requiring not only nodes, but every service and software that parses the blockchain to upgrade their proprietary software... It may not be as fast to roll out as you predict...
Sound engineering is not made under populist pressure. There urgency of the situation is fabricated and there are no compromise to be made except maybe to indicate an intent to hard fork down the road.
The SegWit testnet is live meaning everyone can start learning and getting their platform to support it once it's ready for release.
Bitcoin Classic proposes to hard fork the network in a mere 3 months with a FOUR WEEKS grace periods for nodes.
This is plainly irresponsible and there certainly are NO justification to force through such a precipitated roll out.
We risk losing a significant fraction of the network nodes which will cause great damage to the decentralization of Bitcoin.
Moreover such consensus change should not happen without 95% miner support. Otherwise it should be considered an attack by the majority miners and an abuse of their position.
If, the network is to go through a hard fork then please have it happen in an orderly fashion so as to not cast Bitcoin in a bad light once again.
SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees. how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?
This is a complete lie and misfabrication.
macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.
Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.
There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.
Segwit is great, but clearly it has not ended the deadlock. 2MB now followed by core roadmap is an amicable compromise.
It has not because people have largely misunderstood it and promoted false information around it.
Creating urgency under the pretense of a "crisis" is NOT an amicable compromise, especially with the way the Core developers are being alineated from the process.
A soft fork rollout of segwit can happen much faster than a hard fork and provide immediate increase in the throughput provided major wallet providers get on board.
It is absolutely necessary that miners reconsider their position since clearly there has been a lack of communication as to the benefits of seg wit and its minimal downside vs. the socio-economic mess that would ensue following a precipitated hard fork.
Core alienated themselves from the process by refusing to compromise, segwit while awesome is a highly complex change requiring not only nodes, but every service and software that parses the blockchain to upgrade their proprietary software... It may not be as fast to roll out as you predict...
SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees. how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?
This is a complete lie and misfabrication.
macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.
Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.
There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.
Segwit is great, but clearly it has not ended the deadlock. 2MB now followed by core roadmap is an amicable compromise.
It has not because people have largely misunderstood it and promoted false information around it.
Creating urgency under the pretense of a "crisis" is NOT an amicable compromise, especially with the way the Core developers are being alineated from the process.
A soft fork rollout of segwit can happen much faster than a hard fork and provide immediate increase in the throughput provided major wallet providers get on board.
It is absolutely necessary that miners reconsider their position since clearly there has been a lack of communication as to the benefits of seg wit and its minimal downside vs. the socio-economic mess that would ensue following a precipitated hard fork.
Jump to: