Topic: Happy Anniversary, SEGWIT! - page 6. (Read 1358 times)

you should as this from the services that the "community" uses. ask them why they haven't yet implemented SegWit. for example when the exchanges the "community" uses don't accept bech32 addresses, people don't use them.


that is a good question but here is another question; a problem that i see with UASF is that compared to mining (hashrate) the cost of running a node is negligible. you can't go buy a ton of ASICs to signal for what you want but you can easily "buy" servers and run lots of nodes and signal for what you want. an AntMiner s17 is $2735 (20.5e-5% of total hashrate), it seems it costs $10/month to run a node on AWS (~0.02% of total nodes)!

so for instance if in 2017 someone started a UASF to fork the block size to 32 MB and started running a ton of nodes, should we really consider that "the community"?

I agree that BIP148 was dangerous. The biggest problem for me was the rushed timeline. By the time it was publicized, there was only ~2 months left before the fork. That's incredibly irresponsible for an incompatible (essentially a "hard") fork and to this day, I resent Luke Dash Jr. and others who promoted it. I mean, we're talking about a patch not even included in the reference implementation! That's just crazy. I wasn't aware that it even had any hash rate support at all. And of course, anyone can "pledge" hash rate but we would only really know about hash rate support at fork time.

I do think it forced miners' hand, though. They are very risk averse. They didn't want to risk the chain split, knowing that the survival of the BIP148 chain could end up being a drawn out political battle. If that happened, there was a tiny chance that the legacy chain would be orphaned if the BIP148 chain ever got more cumulative POW.


What do you do if a small group of users -- like a few large mining companies -- are blocking upgrades that users want? I don't have a problem with the UASF mechanism per se, but I think it must be done on a very long timeline (years) to maximize full node participation in forcing miners to fork.

I'm probably going to be the least technical person here commenting but firmly on the Segwit lover's side.

What's not to like? More efficient fees, my favourite wallet client provided for easy SW support. And everyone just getting over with it and focusing on privacy (yes, I think we finally stopped talking about scalability even though I agree with you franky, LN is not going to be easily or properly usable for years, but we know at least it really is only a matter of time).

On the side of the everyday user, I can tell you the only reason most people I work/transact with haven't moved over to SW is because the services they use haven't.


Hopefully the 3rd anniversary won't be about opening scabs or scars;)

after reading the previous poster i have to laugh.
too much attention is being put on things leading to moving people offchain rather than things that can optimise BITCOIN

as the previous posters shows, he seems he is stuck on the blocksize debate. but avoids the increase capacity debate.
segwit has not increased capacity. its just allowed more bloated tx's to be hidden away. yet hard drives still fill faster.

if only he could show a single day that bitcoin achieved over 600k transactions (7tx/s that was signified in early bitcoin days) then those segwit lovers can truly say segwit has achieved atleast one of its promises

p.s segwit lovers are only segwit lovers for hopes of thm being LN watchtower/factory operators to earn some income. what they dont realise is they will only earn enough to eat chicken nuggets for christmas, yet they still dont care about the wider communities utility needs of bitcoin

I agree that UASF was a dangerous move, but I still think it should be done again if the circumstances demand it


Really, the overall pressure to get segwit activated somehow is what tipped the balance. UASF was a part of that pressure, and certainly the most belligerent component.

---

Meanwhile, the segwit compromise is working beautifully.

Bitcoin blocks are hovering around ~ 1.3MB, and have been for a while. People who aren't using segwit are pulling blocks down toward the max 1MB possible if no-ones using it, while people using segwit transactions are pushing blocks up toward the 4MB max.


Compromise achieved. Haters, shut your mouth

Well. I never believed those UASF myth forged in some echo chamber.
Someone shouting at dawn never means it is the one who summons the sun.

Since all LN hubs are running a IOU style system, IOUs for Bitcoins or litecoins or any segwit infected coin, technically they are all banks.

You however want to know which LN hubs are being run by current fiat banking monopolies, that is the rub ,
you will never know unless they announce it publicly , you could be using one every day and never know it.

But they count on stupid people like you expecting them to announce everything publicly,
and when they don't you say see nothing is happening , part of the reason the majority of the populace remain in debt slavery is your specific kind of stupid.  

Now send wind_fury a $1 for his non-mining btc node , so you don't hurt his feelings.  
After all without him the entire bitcoin network collapses. satire.
Thank God for his Tandy 1000 personal computer supporting the BTC network.

It is BIP91 which activated segwit.

S2X failed due to lacking true supporters.

What JihadWu and his minions needed was actually no segwit which means he could still spoil on covert asicboost.(S2X was his enemy as well then)
While some other NYA signers actually cared about activation of segwit, giving no shit about 1 or 2 (Both are acceptable for them).

Sometime I even suspected only JGarzik truely supported S2X at that time.

lol here we go again. good old doomad, windfury and carlton thinking if they pretend segwit got activated due to true consensus that the community will suddenly want to use it

sorry guys but pushing people off the network to fake a count is not true consensus. and now its activated i dont see 95% of UTXO's being segwit bc1q addresses or 3 addresses.. so it looks like the community are not that interested in it, even after 2 years of oppertunity to convert.

even funnier is that sipa (pieter wuille) still asks for donations using legacy addresses
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ (bottom right)

as you can see, 2 years after his project programmed got activated.. has hasnt converted
 guess he dont trust the address format just yet


but yea continue on with pretending the whole community wanted it. while the real community now 4 years on still waits for bitcoin to offer what it used to offer 2009-2015.

P.S dont expect LN to be consumer ready for another few years so please stop harping on that LN is the 'solution' to bitcoin issues

of course, the ideology is great but as i said the implementation of it was horrible. it had an almost guaranteed chance of splitting bitcoin and that is the worst thing that could ever happen to bitcoin. Lest we forget, the "community" or more precisely the nodes which were signalling for BIP148 were only 11% of the total nodes.

true, we were supporting activation of SegWit but with >95% support of miners to prevent any kind of damage caused by splitting the network.... just like any other previous forks that we had with the same process. a process that works and has nearly no risk.

It's really easy to get into a debate about precisely who or what is responsible for getting SegWit activated, but the important thing is that we did find consensus for it.  Users, miners and developers moving forward as one network.  I'm definitely in the 'Not a fan of UASF' camp, but whether the threat alone was sufficient to make it happen or not will probably be one of those arguments for the ages that never really gets settled.



Awesome, if you could just substantiate this claim by letting us know which Lightning "hubs" are run by bankers so we can avoid using those particular channels?  

What's that?  You don't have the slightest fucking clue?  Alrighty then.  Would you care to move on to your next barefaced lie?

A happy 2nd Segwit anniversary to you too!


Setting the precedent that the community can push back against the mining-cartel's politicizing in the network, the worst thing?


The community wanted Segwit, the miners used signalling as a political statement, signalling is supposed to be the miners showing their readiness to activate, it's not supposed to be a vote.

The community pushed back.


I will say again that signalling is misunderstood as a vote. The miners politicized the process.

Yes, UASF was the minority, but many supported Segwit's activation.


Debatable. The NYA signers, who tried to control Bitcoin, were desperate. They knew they had to act before UASF activates.


It wasn't "anyone". It was the community wanting to activate Segwit, but the miners didn't want it.

The community won.

Now, I know Bitcoin is all about consensus and such, but I still think if we only had one SegWit implementation from the start, then adoption would have been much faster. Yes, anyone can add things to Bitcoin and the majority would decide if it is used or not, but this over complicates the issue, when too many things with similar changes are added at the same time and then users are forced to make a decision and this takes too much time. 

I am not against open consensus for the decision making process, but I think it is sometimes a stumbling block for quick progress in a OpenSource project like this. 

in my opinion UASF has been the worst thing that has ever been introduced to bitcoin mainly because it is incomplete and the way it has been used (BIP148) is a dangerous thing. basically anything that has a remote chance of splitting bitcoin must be avoided at all costs let alone having a very high chance of it. there is a reason why 95% was chosen, there is a reason why consensus exists and that is why bitcoin is still strong. in 2017 SegWit had ~35% hashrate support while UASF had less than 10% and even less node support but people were still pushing for it disregarding the dangers of it. the fact is SegWit was mainly activated because of SegWit2x not UASF.

when we plant the idea of anybody can split bitcoin without reaching that 95% agreement first, we end up with things such as bcash which consequently were also called "UAHF". if you ask me, if you support UASF then you are also supporting bcash. because that is exactly what they did: they had little support from miners and nodes, a small group of people decided they wanted a different thing and they went that way.

this is the only case where i believe we need to be black and white. we either reach majority support from every one (both miners and nodes) or have no fork at all.

by the way i am not denying the problems that the current mining situation has. specifically about pools having the power to signal anything they want without miners (who are connecting to that pool) having a say in it. but the solution should be solving that problem instead of adding more problems. something like this makes a lot more sense to address than issue: https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bips/blob/betterhash/bip-XXXX.mediawiki

That moment when one anonymous developer, Shaolinfry, changed everything, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/moving-towards-user-activated-soft-fork-activation-1805060

Newbies, learn your history lesson. Bitcoin veterans, always remember!

Happy 2nd anniversary, Segwit.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality



Credit to our friends at Crypto Meme Central, https://twitter.com/cryptoscamhub