Topic: Fork you. - page 2. (Read 1225 times)

Repeating the same nonsense over and over again in the hope of it becoming truth is the same as trying to make a dog out of a pile of its poo-poo. It just doesn't work.

Either you just like to insult people or you have been indoctrinated by the moles Hearn and Andresen. You totally fail to see reality here. Bitcoin can't scale on chain in an efficient way and preserve a decentralized network without a solution for micro transactions. SegWit and Lightning Network are an ingenious method to solve the capacity limitations of Bitcoin without exposing the Bitcoin network to governmental control.

If you think that is not Bitcoin than you should leave and embrace your favorite altcoin. In fact it will be a win for the quality and mode of discussion in this forum.

ya.ya.yo!

I would rather have the current developers { 1MegGreg = funny } have the keys, than NSA agents like Gavin/Hearn. If we wanted someone

to sabotage this experiment even further than they have done, we would have left them in charge. The Lightning Network is going to happen,

and we will soon see, if the community wants it or not. Damn, consensus is a MFker!

Dumbass.  Bitcoin is already fully centralized as it is completely under total control by Blockstream, a private for profit entity.  They continue to put forth radical changes including SegWit and LN and continue to shield these changes by saying their alt is 'bitcoin'.  This SegWit/LN alt is not Bitcoin.  

Bitcoin was hijacked because 1MegGreg has centralized control of the commit access and he managed to run off everyone with ideas that don't agree with the Blockstream objectives of privatizing the blockchain.  

They can easily go launch their alt on their own blockchain if they like.  But they know that will fail.  They need to force the Bitcoin user base onto their chain and for this they need to push SegWit and LN onto the original Bitcoin to control that well established user base.

SegWit and LN is bullshit.  It is not Bitcoin.

SegWit has a very high attack vector cross section.  It is a big chunk of shitty untested code.  Whereas BU we just change the '1' to '2' in a few lines of code and nothing else changes.  Malleability isn't a real problem.  MtGox just made that shit up to blame their hack.  SegWit only does one thing, it gets Bitcoin in a good condition for Blockstream to be its daddy by imposing their Lightning Network right on it.  Oh sure, at first it will be 'free'.  It will be 'open source' - lol.  That one kills me.  Bitcoin is not even open source.  Let's face it, 1MegGreg has the commit keys and he is committing changes he likes and not allowing changes others (Hearn, Gavin, others) propose. 

SegWit and LN - is not Bitcoin.  That is merely an alt.  A really fucking dumb alt too.  Just because Blockstream/Core have the commit keys, they try to call it 'Bitcoin' - but it isn't anything like Bitcoin.  It is an alt.

Personally I will stop using bitcoin if it ever forks I don't care what could be the reason, Idea of having people to use the old chain and others use the new chain just kills the solidity of bitcoin.

Exactly. One of the malicious actors trying to hold Bitcoin hostage is Roger Ver, who has significant investment interests in various altcoins. There is overwhelming agreement by the developing and scientific community that SegWit is the best concept currently available to allow Bitcoin to scale without sacrificing decentralization (and hence its foundation of value). Besides the capacity increases made possible by SegWit it also solves the problem of transaction malleability once and for all. It's also the starting point for further innovations and improves the ability to deploy future upgrades.

SegWit is outstanding engineering work. Even a recent investment report by Needham & Co., outlined SegWit as a long awaited feature and raised its price target because of it.

SegWit will activate much sooner than the XTCoin/ClassicCoin/UnlimitedCoin freaks think. The remaining minuscule support for these altcoins will deteriorate quickly as people see the benefits of SegWit at work.

ya.ya.yo!

Has anyone identified any real downside or risk with SegWit? I've not heard of any. So the only reason I can think of for someone to oppose SegWit is just to hold it hostage (keeping under the 95% threshold for activation) while promoting their own alternative scheme. I would hope such a tactic fails, as there is nothing preventing worthy alternatives from being implemented later on their own merits.

transactions wont be delayed but due to orphaning the risk is higher EG instead of 1% orphaning(natural expectation of the last 7 years) it can be 5% or more.. so to be safe its best for merchants to wait for a few more confirmations just to be sure a block wont orphan.

this is especially the case if you cannot independently validate every single transaction in a block by not being an uptodate full node.

I do not give a fuck what the ratio will be, because I know people will warm up to SegWit as soon as they see the impact it will have on the network. We will be able to fit more transactions into a block, without having to increase the Block size, just by ignoring data that are not going to be used.

We also spank malleable transactions & increase security and it also has the potential to decrease bandwidth requirements for SPV nodes.

We now have a network geared for the next evolution to the LN. ^smile^ So play around with ratios all you want, we do not care. 

Sorry for the noob-like pair of questions, but your explanation is not clear to me. 

1)  It seems that you are saying that many transactions will be delayed (more confirmations necessary) or even at risk of getting lost.

2)  This does not make me feel confident as a BTC user who occasionally buys stuff with BTC (I suppose it might make sellers even more so).

Or is the whole topic of hard forks (vs. alternatives) just of interest to developers and folks running BTC infrastructure...?

you can still use it, but using an older node means your not a 100% full validation node anymore. and you need to be wary of blocks containing transactions using segwit, because you are now relying on the mining pools and other segwit nodes validating segwit transactions on your behalf, rather than your own node doing its own independent validation of all transactions within a block to reject it if there was an error.

meaning if there was an issue with just one segwit transaction, you would blindly accept the block as valid... where as a segwit node that sees the issue would orphan the block that contains the error tx. so your relying on other pools to build ontop of it to be deemed as valid by your node.
or for you to see other nodes rejecting that block for you to then reject it too because your no longer on the right blockheight.

even if you personally are only caring about standard tx's... somewhere in the same block your standard tx is, maybe a segwit tx for someone else that has a fault and ends up orphaning the whole block including your standard tx

best to make transactions(blocks) wait and extra few confirmations more than you already do, before trusting the block is 100% safe

Can we still use bitcoin or we have to switch to segwit?

The whole thing is pretty Forked up if you ask me... 

though i dont see their being a intentional split as that is stupid..

but lets play your scenario

knowing MERCHANTS have not moved to segwit. so cant validate a segwit transaction. they wont treat funds as being deposited as they wont see the signature to validate. the only thing they can do is wait XX blocks and "trust" someone else has validated it for them (risky!!)

so merchant customers would get peed off using segwit because their deposits are not showing up, or delayed for XX blocks more than usual. or customers have to send it as a legacy(old) transaction just to get it to show up, thus not utilising/seeing any benefit of segwit.

yes in a few months merchants may do a bit of maintenance and switch but they are not going to jump straight to segwit straight away. after all, the RPC calls have changed, the wallet ability to import legacy(old) keys has changed.. its actually a big deal meaning lots of deposit addresses need to change and lots of funds internally need to move, aswell as how the merchants server interacts and understands the RPC's

so merchants would get peed off using segwit if they rushed it.

so knowing bitcoinunlimited is still a legacy client that runs on the mainnet i can see everyone clamouring to use something that is going to work with merchants that has been publicly available for MONTHS.. not days.

and we wont see segwit punch through the average transactions per block limit. to see it as advantageous any time soon. again no on will see the advantages straight away.

There are 154,423 threads about whether or not it is a good idea to fork.  This is not one of those threads. 

In this thread, you are to assume the contentious hard fork has already happened.  Then, you are asked to guess the value ratio on the two prongs of the fork. 

If you are a complete moron with reading difficulties, then just answer another question about anything you like.  But, if you actually do have the ability to read, then answer the fucking question. 

You guys are worse than Hillary.  Answer the question that is asked or just shut the fuck up already. 

a hard fork does not mean intentional split either..
theres consensual, controversial and intentional split.. yep 3 possible things that can be done via a hard fork.

soft fork is able to push through any change unopposed unrestricted if it wanted to..

with the consensual hard fork people can upgrade whenever they want too..
it only activates when 95% have upgraded... not the other way round.
its not 5% upgrade then 95% have to rush..

as for soft forks
not caring about nodes upgrading first means nodes wont be fully validating. if you dont see the risk of just pushing blind data. then you need to try looking harder at what your happy with.

come on do you really want pools to be pushing data into blocks that nodes blindly ignore as they are not required to upgrade, thus letting the blocks be automatically treated as good.

seriously..

its better to have a consensus upgrade where nodes upgrade when they want. and if they reach 95% that then triggers the pools to do their own 95% too.. then the change happens when/if the whole community is ready.

but hey. brush security under the carpet and just push code through because $75mill banker invested devs said so.

Personally I'm pretty happy with the softfork instead of a hard fork. it's backwards-compatible and everyone can upgrade whenever they wish.
Let's hope 95% of the blocks will be mined by segwit-supporting pools and we'll see segwit in action!

intentionally splitting solves nothing. it just creates corporate owned network by removing free choice of implementation..

but now the core devs have nothing to code, it gives them free time to code 2mb base 4mb weight.

The fork is coming soon.  Core will go with SegWit 1MB.  BU will go with >=2MB no SegWit.  After two weeks and one year, what do you think the ratio of value will be Core:BU?

RawDog says 14 days after fork, ratio will be: 2.8:1.  1:1 after one year.