Topic: How does Luke Jr expect segwit to be activated? (Read 1245 times)

This dime is different. Ask yourself: What did Litecoin had to offer back then, that Bitcoin couldn't?

Yes, Litecoin always had the transaction volume advantage, but Bitcoin never had any problems of unconfirmed transactions staking up and fees going too high.

The current fundamentals are much different. Now some people are finding Bitcoin useless for certain usages, so they will be forced to find an alternative, and for the time being, Litecoin now equipped with segwit is the only coin ready for mainstream usage. It's impossible that Litecoin stagnates as long as BTC can't scale due no segwit.

Once a correction happens to Bitcoin, everyone who has invested their hard earned money in the alts are going to lose their investment. I still remember how Litecoin crashed from BTC0.03 to BTC0.004 ($21 to $1) when Bitcoin came down from $700 to $230.

He does believe the earth is the center of the universe? lmao.

Luke JR may be a delusional christian fundamentalist nutjob, but that does not change the fact he is a great programmer and has been proven right on numerous occasions when it comes to bitcoin, so my opinion about him as a bitcoin coder remains very high, again, even if he is wrong about pretty much everything else, but this is a bitcoin forum so as long as he keeps my bitcoins safe with his great code, I couldn't give a fuck if he thinks his religion is the correct one out of the other trillion ones.

With 95% mining segwit will be NEVER activated.
That proposal where 95%  of network will go for segwit is just plain stupid it will never happen.

Today ETH miners are getting almost same $$$ as BTC miners when marketcaps will be equal then they will mine 3x more $$$ than BTC. That will force them for changes if not let it be we will see new king on the hill.
In hisstory when old king dies noone cries and everybody are happy from new king.
If BTC miners won't get any solution, (Unlimited is bugged joke) they don't deserve 1st place in crypto.
LTC as copy coin and controlled by mining cartel if pice of shit to me wit h12 miners government on top.

You are correct in my opinion, UASF is not a magic solution. If there is no agreement, it will lead to a chain split, just like a hard fork. It has a slightly different game theory because "segwit opponents" would have to initiate the fork, but in a context of high polarization it will have the same outcome.

But Bitcoin can escape: with a compromise between the Core and the moderate forces of the BTU/miner fraction. I'm every day more convinced that we should go for a version like Segwit2MB where the code "guarantees" that a hard fork has to take place in the future, but with less size increase (e.g. 17,7% per year like in BIP 103).

alt are there for diversification, if you want to invest big amount in a cheap coins for a great return you can do it, without altcoin you can't

alt serve the sole purpose to increase your bitcoin balance, ok maybe ETH have more than this to offer, but we would see when this thign change to pos what will happen

besides i don't think any alt can dream of destroying bitcoin, and investors are the one that decide where they want to put their money, not some Jihad Wu and Roger Ver guys...

What's the point of having Alts? If they can destroy Bitcoin, the only decentralized crypto, to destroy scamcoins would be very easy in eth it's enough to snub out Buterin for example. So there's no alternatives, either Bitcoin thrives or all crypto go to hell

You're telling me you haven't converted to full tonal counting yet? You're missing out on a whole new world of inconvenience and pointlessness.

Luke Jr should be taken with a grain of salt. 

He believes blocks should be smaller.  He also believes the sun revolves around the earth.  Really.

By compromising? 95% is a totally impossible figure.

Litecoin got everyone on board by including a completely unnecessary block size increase. A Lightning Network would ultimately be pretty hopeless with 1mb blocks so perhaps a formally agreed time frame for a 2mb increase post Segwit would get enough people on board to make it viable with a lower percentage. It was enough to please all the miners last time funnily enough.

did you honestly beleive blockstream invented their elements:segwit altcoin, their side service elements:LN and their elements:sidechain. for the benefit of bitcoin.. and for the next 120 years blockstream were only here to support bitcoin


nope. its just a experiment to show off their roadmap, and as soon as the community shown up their cludgy code,
the NOP(anyonecanspend) backdoor exploit to let them trojan horse in soft features
the 2merkle doft method that hit a snag in regards to making pools less efficient if segwit got in.

however didnt recode it any better, as a proper community uniting version with all the other features the community have been begging for since atleast 2011-16.
but instead jumped ship to get their experiment promoted on altcoins. and threatened the bitcoin community with bilateral splits and PoW killing code...

its all a prologue to them joining the hyperledger project

blockstream REKT any implementation that was not bockstream partner endorsed. they were willing to even kill off PoW just to advertise what trojans they can implement into bitcoin as thier advert for why they deserve to be part of hyper ledger. by not fixing the bitcoin backdoors but instead using the backdoors.

yep they employed people in strategic companies to get control
their DCG partner invested in BTCC to get the pool vote ball rolling
they bypassed node consensus.
they paid for many all inclusive weekend vacations (roundtables) to try talking other pools into accepting segwit
and even when that didnt work.

instead of doing the honourable bitcoin ethos thing, which is to recode their experiment into something less cludgy and with features the community really want, they threatened, blackmailed, insulted and .. when that didnt work.

they jumped over to LTC
and with charlie lee at coinbase, bobby lee at BTCC samson mow at btcc and blockstream.. its all starting to become clear.
coinbase:dcg
btcc:dcg
blockstream:dcg

P.S the whole hearne, gavin, distractions were just distractions. they were planning to move on anyway and so used as scape goats. even now they are paid by the same cartel groups (gavin:bloq:DCG)

even the craig wright drama was distraction timed to inlin with the paid for all inclusive roundtable events, so that coindesk:dcg can headline craigwright(a nowbody) to keep the curious mind occupied investigating a nobody rather than asking about the round tables
take the craig wright drama of 2017.. which over shadowed any real talks about the round table secrets.

but anyway
TL:DR;
if you still trust blockstream, it sucks to be you. especially when they and DGC are just playing games to knock on the bankers hyperledger door

We are still very from that, meanwhile im feeling like the biggest idiot by not buying LTC when it was clear it was going to go up (but you always have that doubt). I just don't want to stay on the sidelines for months (years?) until the stars align and somehow we get that 95% of miners agreeing to activate it. And no, UASF will not cut it, it will create a disturbance and crush the price, LTC will keep profiting. I think it's time to admit facts: BTC is trapped in a really tricky situation and we are losing on LTC gains, if it doesn't correct soon im going to pass out.

It is really not possible to get a majority consensus with bitcoin as there are several parties involved to take control and UASF could end up badly but if the majority supports segwit as we saw in a twitter poll conducted by viabtc then we could carry on without much issue,in a realistic situation we need to act on upgrading the bitcoin infra to have a better future.

Better late than never, but if you look at the whole situation, then it's purely the fault of all pools that have not been willing to let Segwit activate. Every pool that signals BU support is from my point of view against Bitcoin as it is right now. Segwit isn't a long term solution, or a solution at all, but it offers Bitcoin a good enough bump forwards in order to cope with the increased demand for block space. All other proposals are pure rubbish and infested with greed lusted individuals looking to take over Bitcoin as we know it. As we speak; Ripple's market cap sits at +$5.5 billion. It's not only Ether that is catching up in terms of market cap.

Things seem to develop like I said before: ViaBTC is considering supporting Segwit (at least they've polled about that at Twitter). They still don't admit it but already cite the "Flippening" danger and I can imagine their resistance could soon develop into grudging support. This last tweet ("for now" they don't change their view) looks like they could be reconsidering it and it resembles a bit the F2Pool statements in the months before they supported Segwit.

An event which could the moderate pools reconsiderating their position could be Bitcoin going below of 50% of the total cryptocurrency market cap or Ethereum passing a critical mark like $100 or 33% of Bitcoin's market cap.

Well, at least Gavin Andressen is on record supporting Segwit, but I can't take a guy that said he wanted a benevolent dictator (remember the Mike Hearn/XT insanity) serious. He also keeps talking about BU which we all know it just doesn't work.

Roger Ver has said tons of things, he always changes his stance, I wouldn't give that any importance. Also as of right now we are still tied with BUcoin blocks. All we see is just simple block variance: it is a tie.

The speculator in me wants to buy a big ton of LTC because I don't see this situation resolving, or not anytime soon. But at the same time, it does feel like buying at the top of a pump.

@BillyBobZorton: That's possible, but I consider it unlikely. The Big Blocker movement isn't a 2017 nor a Bitmain invention, it has been now about 2 years around (remember XT, Classic ...). There are supporters like Gavin Andresen and some respected members of the German and Spanish forums - I don't really believe they have bad intentions. If they really are all paid by Jihan, then he would have been a social engineering genius.

So I consider the big blockers' opinion and "cause" a legitimate one - but that must not mean I support it. I think the centralization danger is higher with big blocks than with Segwit and second-layer solutions.

I have more worries respect to the extreme polarization of the community. This polarization could lead to the scenario I have outlined above to fail. That would mean: There would be a class of miners and pools that rather would allow a "Flippening" than to support Segwit. That's why in my opinion we - the Segwit supporters - therefore should try to convince the moderate fraction of the Big Blockers side to adopt Segwit and don't ignore their opinions, e.g. with a compromise solution like I said above.

Roger Ver, for example, has stated in late 2016 that he would support Segwit if it gets majority support. Now that Segwit blocks are nearing the 50% mark, we should remind him - kindly! - of this promise. But if "Core maximalists" accuse him constantly to have bad intentions then he's not likely to fulfill his promise.

Good points, but what if that is exactly Jihad Wu's and Roger Ver's motives? What if they really want to crush BTC because they got big positions in some altcoin like ETH or LTC and they will short BTC as the flippening occurs? Or what if jihad Wu gets paid millions++ by the PBOC to kill BTC? You never know with those bastards, this is why I think having a position in LTC (and even if I dont like it, ETH) is reasonable, you never know if they will go to the end and finally kill BTC's leadership.

Luke may be right here, for the following reason:

For the Bitcoin miners, a "worst case" scenario would be a situation where Bitcoin loses its leadership in the cryptocurrency sphere. That is what some know as "the Flippening". It would most probably lead to a sharply decreasing Bitcoin price. As miners have invested a lot of money in SHA-256 ASICs, they cannot simply switch to ETH and LTC, and they would lose much money.

Now imagine that Litecoin really gets Lightning working and could offer instant micropayments. Also Ethereum is working on Raiden, which is similar.

So let's fast-forward ~6 months into the future in this scenario, with a working LTC LN and ETH's Raiden reaching beta quality. ETH and LTC get both near or above the 50% mark of Bitcoin's market cap.  The incentive for miners then is high to simply accept Segwit to avoid both coins gaining even more ground so the "Flippening" scenario becomes a real danger.

Even if that doesn't lead to 95% support, a 70-75% miner support would be enough for an UASF or a Segwit hard fork, maybe with a compromise solution included (hard-coded future increase of the base block size, as Jihan and others would like to have).

(That scenario is also why I started this thread).

I just would like to hear what the man himself thinks about this issue from his own words.

He barely posts here anymore but he was online yesterday so im sure he will see this thread. We would like to see what he means that "eventually" bitcoin will get segwit. Looks like you are just hoping retard looking at the fundamental facts: the situation does not look good for segwit happening in bitcoin.