If you had to pick one, would it be the Legacy chain or BIP 148?

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: franky1 on June 11, 2017, 02:45:19 PM

Quote from: cellard on June 11, 2017, 12:47:30 PM

Quote from: Variogam on June 10, 2017, 11:31:37 AM

Quote from: cellard on June 10, 2017, 11:03:37 AM

Nobody seems to be on board with the NYC agreement so that is out of the picture. If NYC-group hard forks, they claim to have 80%+ of hashrate, but no Core dev is on board with that, and 95% of the network is running Core software, so it would be nonsense if they actually hardfork and ask people to trust some group of non-Core coders paid by Bitmain.

Core stance was they wont propose consensus rule changes, thats why there has to be agreement between Bitcoin companies and individuas for such change, which NYC agreement accomplished. Code is written and reviewed from few Core developers as well, although not by many or the most active ones. The code change is very small, so it is not a big issue, though much more support/review from the most developers could end the Bitcoin scalling problem pretty quickly.

The 95% of the network trusts Bitcoin Core's software. The rest of the nodes is an irrelevant amount so nobody cares about those.

Calling an agreement "an agreement" while leaving behind the dev team that is responsible for the code that's being run by 95% of the network is laughable.

There will be no hardfork for Barrycoin, it's DOA.

Barry coin IS the same as corecoin..

they are all the same BS cartel
its just a bait and switch to gather more momentum to push through segwit.. the other stuff of promises of 2mb is the same empty promise being mentioned since 2015..

all it is is to have 4 different implementations of segwit to FAKE free choice.. where all the choices still end up being segwit

franky1, besides the hate for Segwit as a scaling solution, what else do you hate about it? Do you not agree with the benefits stated in here? https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4788

Quote from: Iranus on June 11, 2017, 04:29:52 PM

True, but it's mainly to do with a consensus. If a large majority of hashrate and a lot of businesses start supporting a new proposal, it's fine for it to take some time before the code is actually developed.

It's not really an "empty promise" this time, because it's DCG actually telling everyone about who has now agreed on something.

Obviously time is always needed to peer review code etc, but I don't think that any of these companies will be saying "nah, this line of code is wrong, guess we can't support that anymore", when the points are all there.

until the code is developed there is no consensus. any "flagging" done before there is code is just propaganda.
real consensus is about actually using an implementation that can do the job actually announcing it can do the job and wants the job
wasting months flagging for something that has no code available to actually do the function is an empty promise.

EG
imagine people al flag 2mb+segwit.. it gets the threshold needed. and then at the grace period. some a-hole in the BScartel releases 'the 2mb+segwit' but it has a 2mb activates in 2018 'as promised' ... but then(luke Jr style of bait and switch) drops to 500kb by 2019

..
so until there is actual CODE. a promise is meaningless

wxa7115

hero member

Activity: 2814

Merit: 734

Bitcoin is GOD

Quote from: Wind_FURY on June 10, 2017, 08:43:33 AM

The hypothetical situation I am thinking about is no side will win. It could end up with 2 chains like ETH and ETC. Then if you had to pick one chain, what would it be? This is more like a question to gather opinions than what one would actually do for real.

It is hypothetical, but I do not think that is going to happen, there is going to be one chain, there is no room for two bitcoins only one will survive, I will choose BIP 148 but if the legacy chain wins, then we will have to accept it since we will have no choice.

U2

hero member

Activity: 676

Merit: 503

I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not sure...

The Blockchain won't divide. There will be two seperate chains where every day before Aug 1st is the exact same. You'll own both coins if you have bitcoins before then. Fix the OP.

kaijialex

newbie

Activity: 27

Merit: 0

I wouldn't touch my Bitcoin no matter who wins at the end, very risky to end up with the wrong chain.

Iranus

hero member

Activity: 1792

Merit: 534

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: franky1 on June 11, 2017, 04:18:55 PM

Quote from: Iranus on June 11, 2017, 03:38:22 PM

Quote from: franky1

the other stuff of promises of 2mb is the same empty promise being mentioned since 2015..

I thought BITMAIN and many other miners/large block supporters would agree with SegWit if it involved an increase in block size and a hard fork?

What changed?

a few people jumped onto the githubs and plop in code for the 2mb to be activated at X .. and those requests get deleted.. so even in these new proposals they are so far just empty promises.. only really coding different times to activate segwit sooner than november

60%+ of the mining network and many nodes are waiting for there to be some real code of a real coded implementation that includes a legacy block increase..

True, but it's mainly to do with a consensus. If a large majority of hashrate and a lot of businesses start supporting a new proposal, it's fine for it to take some time before the code is actually developed.

It's not really an "empty promise" this time, because it's DCG actually telling everyone about who has now agreed on something.

Obviously time is always needed to peer review code etc, but I don't think that any of these companies will be saying "nah, this line of code is wrong, guess we can't support that anymore", when the points are all there.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4788

Quote from: Iranus on June 11, 2017, 03:38:22 PM

Quote from: franky1

the other stuff of promises of 2mb is the same empty promise being mentioned since 2015..

I thought BITMAIN and many other miners/large block supporters would agree with SegWit if it involved an increase in block size and a hard fork?

What changed?

if

but even these very new proposals that just this last month are 'promising' such... are still being coded as segwit.

a few people jumped onto the githubs and plop in code for the 2mb to be activated at X .. and those requests get deleted.. so even in these new proposals they are so far just empty promises.. only really coding different times to activate segwit sooner than november

60%+ of the mining network and many nodes are waiting for there to be some real code of a real coded implementation that includes a legacy block increase..

Iranus

hero member

Activity: 1792

Merit: 534

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: cellard on June 11, 2017, 12:47:30 PM

Quote from: Variogam on June 10, 2017, 11:31:37 AM

Quote from: cellard on June 10, 2017, 11:03:37 AM

Nobody seems to be on board with the NYC agreement so that is out of the picture. If NYC-group hard forks, they claim to have 80%+ of hashrate, but no Core dev is on board with that, and 95% of the network is running Core software, so it would be nonsense if they actually hardfork and ask people to trust some group of non-Core coders paid by Bitmain.

Core stance was they wont propose consensus rule changes, thats why there has to be agreement between Bitcoin companies and individuas for such change, which NYC agreement accomplished. Code is written and reviewed from few Core developers as well, although not by many or the most active ones. The code change is very small, so it is not a big issue, though much more support/review from the most developers could end the Bitcoin scalling problem pretty quickly.

The 95% of the network trusts Bitcoin Core's software. The rest of the nodes is an irrelevant amount so nobody cares about those.

Alternative implementations make up more like 15%. But Core is still the reference client, yes.

Quote from: franky1

the other stuff of promises of 2mb is the same empty promise being mentioned since 2015..

I thought BITMAIN and many other miners/large block supporters would agree with SegWit if it involved an increase in block size and a hard fork?

What changed?

d5000

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 6249

Decentralization Maximalist

I would closely follow which actors are supporting every chain.

For me, there would be two crucial factors:

- payment processors like BitPay: These are, in my opinion, the services that have to be strengthened for Bitcoin to have a future as a currency. So I will give them more weight than to exchanges;
- the exchanges of my country. Most of them backed the Barry Silbert agreement, but I don't know how their stance on BIP148 and the newer "COOP" proposal is.

I think in mid-July we will have a better panorama for that what is going to come. So I will delay my decision until then. For me, particularly BIP148 is doomed to fail if it doesn't achieve a supermajority of support in all areas - from payment processors to miners. (For me, the important thing now is Segwit being activated; 2MB is not so important but would be not bad.)

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4788

Quote from: cellard on June 11, 2017, 12:47:30 PM

Quote from: Variogam on June 10, 2017, 11:31:37 AM

Quote from: cellard on June 10, 2017, 11:03:37 AM

Nobody seems to be on board with the NYC agreement so that is out of the picture. If NYC-group hard forks, they claim to have 80%+ of hashrate, but no Core dev is on board with that, and 95% of the network is running Core software, so it would be nonsense if they actually hardfork and ask people to trust some group of non-Core coders paid by Bitmain.

Core stance was they wont propose consensus rule changes, thats why there has to be agreement between Bitcoin companies and individuas for such change, which NYC agreement accomplished. Code is written and reviewed from few Core developers as well, although not by many or the most active ones. The code change is very small, so it is not a big issue, though much more support/review from the most developers could end the Bitcoin scalling problem pretty quickly.

The 95% of the network trusts Bitcoin Core's software. The rest of the nodes is an irrelevant amount so nobody cares about those.

Calling an agreement "an agreement" while leaving behind the dev team that is responsible for the code that's being run by 95% of the network is laughable.

There will be no hardfork for Barrycoin, it's DOA.

Barry coin IS the same as corecoin..

they are all the same BS cartel
its just a bait and switch to gather more momentum to push through segwit.. the other stuff of promises of 2mb is the same empty promise being mentioned since 2015..

all it is is to have 4 different implementations of segwit to FAKE free choice.. where all the choices still end up being segwit

classicsucks

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 504

Quote from: Variogam on June 10, 2017, 10:40:35 AM

BIP 148 has currently <1% hashrate support. With such low support, there wont be any BIP 148 chain at all.

Bingo.

Short BTC in late July, and sell your 148Coins to some greater fool on August 1. You still have all of your original BTC and 148Coin will become essentially worthless within a few days.

cellard

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1252

Quote from: Variogam on June 10, 2017, 11:31:37 AM

Quote from: cellard on June 10, 2017, 11:03:37 AM

Nobody seems to be on board with the NYC agreement so that is out of the picture. If NYC-group hard forks, they claim to have 80%+ of hashrate, but no Core dev is on board with that, and 95% of the network is running Core software, so it would be nonsense if they actually hardfork and ask people to trust some group of non-Core coders paid by Bitmain.

Core stance was they wont propose consensus rule changes, thats why there has to be agreement between Bitcoin companies and individuas for such change, which NYC agreement accomplished. Code is written and reviewed from few Core developers as well, although not by many or the most active ones. The code change is very small, so it is not a big issue, though much more support/review from the most developers could end the Bitcoin scalling problem pretty quickly.

The 95% of the network trusts Bitcoin Core's software. The rest of the nodes is an irrelevant amount so nobody cares about those.

Calling an agreement "an agreement" while leaving behind the dev team that is responsible for the code that's being run by 95% of the network is laughable.

There will be no hardfork for Barrycoin, it's DOA.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Wind_FURY on June 11, 2017, 02:05:28 AM

Quote from: deisik on June 10, 2017, 01:40:45 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on June 10, 2017, 08:12:57 AM

You all know the story. BIP 148 or the UASF will commence on August 1. The risk is a blockchain split that could permanently divide it in theory.

I am interested in knowing what everyone here prefers to hold and what you consider as the "real" Bitcoin is. The Legacy chain or the BIP 148 chain?

I prefer the US dollar at the moment

And a little bit of Litecoin. If Litecoin goes down I will buy more of it. As to me, Bitcoin may quickly turn into the lame horse (which you might have to shoot down eventually) as the deadline approaches. We will likely see a lot of manipulation and extreme volatility as we come closer to August 1st. Apart from the usual hysteria, though, I don't see BIP148 as a major threat since it is pretty innocent on its own. If it doesn't get enough support, it will just vanish. On the other hand, miners will have no other option but bite the bullet and accept it (or go home) unless some of them get infuriated and pissed off, and thus may choose to wreak havoc in Bitcoin as revenge (that's what I'm afraid of)

Hehehe, that is a practical move. Yeah, I am thinking of doing the same but holding US dollars in an exchange is very risky. But I might follow you in holding some Litecoin by August 1 and also some Monero. Then I am leaving some Bitcoins just in case there is a split

It is not any more risky than just holding your coins there

If you are actively trading you still have to keep your coins in your exchange account, so it is basically the same. Further, if Bitcoin crashes, it is unlikely that the dollars in your account will get affected, so you can just watch the events unfold as the Judgment day gets closer. If you move your wealth to Litecoin and are going to just wait out idly, then it makes sense to withdraw the coins from exchange, of course. You won't have to pay hefty transaction fees, anyway

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: deisik on June 10, 2017, 01:40:45 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on June 10, 2017, 08:12:57 AM

You all know the story. BIP 148 or the UASF will commence on August 1. The risk is a blockchain split that could permanently divide it in theory.

I am interested in knowing what everyone here prefers to hold and what you consider as the "real" Bitcoin is. The Legacy chain or the BIP 148 chain?

I prefer the US dollar at the moment

And a little bit of Litecoin. If Litecoin goes down I will buy more of it. As to me, Bitcoin may quickly turn into the lame horse (which you might have to shoot down eventually) as the deadline approaches. We will likely see a lot of manipulation and extreme volatility as we come closer to August 1st. Apart from the usual hysteria, though, I don't see BIP148 as a major threat since it is pretty innocent on its own. If it doesn't get enough support, it will just vanish. On the other hand, miners will have no other option but bite the bullet and accept it (or go home) unless some of them get infuriated and pissed off, and thus may choose to wreak havoc in Bitcoin as revenge (that's what I'm afraid of)

Hehehe, that is a practical move. Yeah, I am thinking of doing the same but holding US dollars in an exchange is very risky. But I might follow you in holding some Litecoin by August 1 and also some Monero. Then I am leaving some Bitcoins just in case there is a split.

BrewMaster

legendary

Activity: 2128

Merit: 1293

There is trouble abrewing

it is not a simple choice between the two!
and unlike many around here i like a smooth fork not a risky one. which is why i say BIP 148 only if it has a high enough support. no other way around. the risks are high enough already without the support factor, and if it has a low support things will get unpredictable and i don't like that.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Wind_FURY on June 10, 2017, 08:12:57 AM

You all know the story. BIP 148 or the UASF will commence on August 1. The risk is a blockchain split that could permanently divide it in theory.

I am interested in knowing what everyone here prefers to hold and what you consider as the "real" Bitcoin is. The Legacy chain or the BIP 148 chain?

I prefer the US dollar at the moment

And a little bit of Litecoin. If Litecoin goes down I will buy more of it. As to me, Bitcoin may quickly turn into the lame horse (which you might have to shoot down eventually) as the deadline approaches. We will likely see a lot of manipulation and extreme volatility as we come closer to August 1st. Apart from the usual hysteria, though, I don't see BIP148 as a major threat since it is pretty innocent on its own. If it doesn't get enough support, it will just vanish. On the other hand, miners will have no other option but bite the bullet and accept it (or go home) unless some of them get infuriated and pissed off, and thus may choose to wreak havoc in Bitcoin as revenge (that's what I'm afraid of)

Variogam

sr. member

Activity: 276

Merit: 254

Quote from: cellard on June 10, 2017, 11:03:37 AM

Nobody seems to be on board with the NYC agreement so that is out of the picture. If NYC-group hard forks, they claim to have 80%+ of hashrate, but no Core dev is on board with that, and 95% of the network is running Core software, so it would be nonsense if they actually hardfork and ask people to trust some group of non-Core coders paid by Bitmain.

Core stance was they wont propose consensus rule changes, thats why there has to be agreement between Bitcoin companies and individuas for such change, which NYC agreement accomplished. Code is written and reviewed from few Core developers as well, although not by many or the most active ones. The code change is very small, so it is not a big issue, though much more support/review from the most developers could end the Bitcoin scalling problem pretty quickly.

mimblewimble

newbie

Activity: 9

Merit: 0

Quote from: European Central Bank on June 10, 2017, 10:50:53 AM

no one has to pick one. they'll have both.

i like the spirit of bip 148 but i don't think it's realistic or practical.

at the same time the legacy chain's fate has been decided by a few people in a room in new york. that's not really what i signed up for. they also have zero code so far and there've been hardly any further comments about it. for such a tumultuous change i expect some communication.

i assume both proposals will drive enough people into a middle ground. if it doesn't then i think we're in a little bit of trouble.

but what if whales dump BIP148 on the market?

or any other split of bitcoin for that matter

doesn't this basically mean bitcoin is on a perpetual stalemate where it can never be upgraded?

how do you get past the whales?

cellard

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1252

Quote from: European Central Bank on June 10, 2017, 10:50:53 AM

no one has to pick one. they'll have both.

i like the spirit of bip 148 but i don't think it's realistic or practical.

at the same time the legacy chain's fate has been decided by a few people in a room in new york. that's not really what i signed up for. they also have zero code so far and there've been hardly any further comments about it. for such a tumultuous change i expect some communication.

i assume both proposals will drive enough people into a middle ground. if it doesn't then i think we're in a little bit of trouble.

Im checking the bitcoin dev maillist daily hoping for an agreement that guarantees no possible split to happen:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/thread.html#14554

Nobody seems to be on board with the NYC agreement so that is out of the picture. If NYC-group hard forks, they claim to have 80%+ of hashrate, but no Core dev is on board with that, and 95% of the network is running Core software, so it would be nonsense if they actually hardfork and ask people to trust some group of non-Core coders paid by Bitmain.

European Central Bank

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1087

no one has to pick one. they'll have both.

i like the spirit of bip 148 but i don't think it's realistic or practical.

at the same time the legacy chain's fate has been decided by a few people in a room in new york. that's not really what i signed up for. they also have zero code so far and there've been hardly any further comments about it. for such a tumultuous change i expect some communication.

i assume both proposals will drive enough people into a middle ground. if it doesn't then i think we're in a little bit of trouble.

Topic: If you had to pick one, would it be the Legacy chain or BIP 148? (Read 1084 times)