Is Segwit2x Hard Fork a fact? - page 2.

raskolnikovx

full member

Activity: 186

Merit: 100

Quote from: gentlemand on August 10, 2017, 04:59:47 AM

Bigger blocks looks a lot simpler from the outside to the uninformed.

Big blockers solution (to think that problems must be solved adding more space) leads to 4x, 8x and who knows what in the (unnecesary) way to the visa's 2000 tps. Not the best solution since we need to reduce some weight on the Blockchain and off-chain tecnologies allow us to do that.
Not an expert but we already have a 150 GB history ledger and this keeps growing ...

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 3015

Welt Am Draht

Quote from: raskolnikovx on August 10, 2017, 04:56:57 AM

Thanks for the clarifications. Is SW2x really the best solution? Isnt SW + LN enough to solve this problem without having to produce a Hard Fork?

Does anyone know what the best solution is any more? There are two diametrically opposed ideas. Core is looking to the future at the expense of the present and possibly vice versa for 2x.

And since we still know pretty much nothing about how an LN will operate in terms of routing and gateways I think it's a little early to describe is as the answer to all our prayers.

Bigger blocks looks a lot simpler from the outside to the uninformed.

raskolnikovx

full member

Activity: 186

Merit: 100

Quote from: pooya87 on August 10, 2017, 12:16:05 AM

Quote from: fabiorem on August 09, 2017, 11:25:56 PM

Quote from: thecodebear on August 09, 2017, 10:29:37 PM

I don't get why people are against 2MB.

They just want to create FUD so that they can open a window for us to buy more bitcoins.

But I remember seeing a graphic were 2mb would result, in the long run, in a 1tb block folder, which is too much for storage.

here is a "graphic" for current 1 MB block size which shows the current blockchain size as 127 GB which grows about 50 GB per year with 2 MB it will increase less than 2x because blocks won't be full from day 1.
in other words 1 TB will take about 20 years with 1 MB
and it will take about 10-12 years with 2 MB (worse case scenario is 8 years which is the year 2025)

Thanks for the clarifications. Is SW2x really the best solution? Isnt SW + LN enough to solve scalability problems without having to produce a Hard Fork?

Kanapka

hero member

Activity: 821

Merit: 1003

According to the news is a fact if nothing changes. But 3 months is a lot and some agreement may be reached.

Make your bets about what is going to happen in the 2x day

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: fabiorem on August 09, 2017, 11:25:56 PM

Quote from: thecodebear on August 09, 2017, 10:29:37 PM

I don't get why people are against 2MB.

They just want to create FUD so that they can open a window for us to buy more bitcoins.

But I remember seeing a graphic were 2mb would result, in the long run, in a 1tb block folder, which is too much for storage.

here is a "graphic" for current 1 MB block size which shows the current blockchain size as 127 GB which grows about 50 GB per year with 2 MB it will increase less than 2x because blocks won't be full from day 1.
in other words 1 TB will take about 20 years with 1 MB
and it will take about 10-12 years with 2 MB (worse case scenario is 8 years which is the year 2025)

panju1

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 09, 2017, 10:07:25 PM

NYA's role was to do one thing. To get rid of the Core developers. That is why they are fighting with all their might to block the hard fork to 2mb block sizes because they know that will be the end of them as stewards of the network. They can still contribute, but their influence is not as great as they are today.

It will not happen. Besides, there is BitcoinCash if some people want bigger blocks. If the big blockers want Segwit, they can activate it there too. Bye bye.

With 8MB blocks there is no need to implement segwit and increase capacity further. Moreover, now BCH and BTC will follow different paths, including development.

fabiorem

sr. member

Activity: 1400

Merit: 347

Quote from: thecodebear on August 09, 2017, 10:29:37 PM

I don't get why people are against 2MB.

They just want to create FUD so that they can open a window for us to buy more bitcoins.

But I remember seeing a graphic were 2mb would result, in the long run, in a 1tb block folder, which is too much for storage.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: raskolnikovx on August 09, 2017, 06:51:14 PM

I understand that the New Yoour Agreement

it is New "York" Agreement. as in New York the city where they made the agreement apparently...

Quote from: thecodebear on August 09, 2017, 10:29:37 PM

I don't get why people are against 2MB.

to be honest i don't get it either. i mean i have read some stuff that GMaxwell said but it is not convincing.
and politically 2MB proposal can be the best thing, it prevents the community to split, it brings devs, users and miners together once again, and it successfully flushes out people like Roger Ver and his 8 MB BCC out of the picture.
but if denied the effects will be worse in my opinion.

thecodebear

hero member

Activity: 2240

Merit: 848

I don't get why people are against 2MB. I mean granted hard forking is risky, but if most of the community gets behind it, like most of the community got behind segwit, then the risk isn't that great. Bitcoin needs to scale MASSIVELY in the next few years! And doubling the capacity will help. Why would you not want to scale bitcoin??? Segwit helps but only so much, doubling the capacity will help a bit more. Lightning Network will help a bit more. There will probably need to be more scaling solutions in a two or three years. But those are gonna be needed a lot sooner without an increase to 2MB.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

NYA's role was to do one thing. To get rid of the Core developers. That is why they are fighting with all their might to block the hard fork to 2mb block sizes because they know that will be the end of them as stewards of the network. They can still contribute, but their influence is not as great as they are today.

It will not happen. Besides, there is BitcoinCash if some people want bigger blocks. If the big blockers want Segwit, they can activate it there too. Bye bye.

leowonderful

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 1130

Bitcoin FTW!

Think of it like this:

The miners will attempt to HF or SF.

We can:

Follow along and do nothing

UASF like last time and try to prevent this

Change the POW algorithm and screw over all SHA miners, forcing them to BCC.

Nothing official has been said yet but I see more scummy things happening again soon. Keep an eye out for Bitcoin news, keep your head in things and you'll know as soon as all of us know. I personally just want Lightning in so we see some real improvements and less of this politically charged bullshit.

FiendCoin

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 263

The devil is in the detail.

The whole point of the NYA was to avoid a hardfork chainsplit and activate SegWit.

Bitmain's viabtc has hardforked already and SegWit will be active on the 21st of August.

Bitmain via its proxie viabtc has already broken the agreement.

I see no reason why NYA should be upheld anymore.

I guess we'll find out soon...

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 3015

Welt Am Draht

Let's see some actual code and some actual opinions and testing before it's declared a fact. We do of course know what Core will think already.

The people who are signalling aren't stupid. They're all in it for the money. They're not going to risk that money if it's looking too disruptive. It'll only take one or two having a doubt before the entire house of cards collapses.

Then we're kind of back to square one with the added attraction of BCH for the big blockers to bully everyone with.

raskolnikovx

full member

Activity: 186

Merit: 100

Quote from: CyberKuro on August 09, 2017, 06:59:05 PM

Maybe yes, and maybe no, depend on how much blocks will signaling segwit2x. But, according to https://coin.dance/blocks, Segwit2x (intention) has reached 92,2%. Since core developers don't want to support 2Mb hard fork, then the new idea is Bitcoin Core 0.15.0 which automatically disconnect nodes running Bitcoin-ABC and the Segwit2x fork. So, hard fork likely to be happen in November and we will have another bitcoin chain split.

So, if this happens, Bitcoin (the real Bitcoin) would have to run with 8% of current Mining Power?

CyberKuro

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 506

Maybe yes, and maybe no, depend on how much blocks will signaling segwit2x. But, according to https://coin.dance/blocks, Segwit2x (intention) has reached 92,2%. Since core developers don't want to support 2Mb hard fork, then the new idea is Bitcoin Core 0.15.0 which automatically disconnect nodes running Bitcoin-ABC and the Segwit2x fork. So, hard fork likely to be happen in November and we will have another bitcoin chain split.

raskolnikovx

full member

Activity: 186

Merit: 100

I understand that the New York Agreement had consensus to implement Segwit and 3 months later Segwit2x, which will imply software upgrade by miners and users. But now, lots of people including Bitcoin Core devs are pointing in other directions to solve scalability such as Lightning Network.
So, are we going to have a hard fork by the end of this year and a split between Bitcoin Core people and Big Blockers?

Topic: Is Segwit2x Hard Fork a fact? - page 2. (Read 1423 times)