Topic: Just confriming, segwit or segwit2x is going ahead on BTC? (Read 5979 times)

Agree 20-40% of miners seem to be very short term motivated as seen when BitcoinCash difficulty dropped and was more profitable to mine than BTC - 30%+ of miner switched.

So will be all about the price BTC vs BTCSegwit the following few weeks till the 1st difficulty re-adjustment.

I think you are overestimating the power that some pool operators have. Even if the owner of
F2Pool decides to not support Segwit2x, it is entirely possible that the hashers (=the people,
who actually mine for F2Pool) have different preferences.

Besides, I don´t think that mining pools will be the decisive factor. It is more probable that
the miners will switch to the winning side - irrespective of which chain actually wins out.

The outcome is more dependent on the decision, which chain gets the desired "BTC" ticker
symbol at the main exchanges. As far as I know only Bitfinex has already clarified their stance
on this question. The other exchanges still haven´t addressed the upcoming fork.

This still says 90-95% so f2pool playing games or something...

https://www.xbt.eu/

An month without a restart seems unlikely to me... would like to think they have some resilience and can bounce one of a pair but you never know how well/badly these pools are designed.

Why are we still disusing this?

https://blockchain.info/en/pools

F2pool is %10+ of the hashrate, F2pool is not support segwit2xCoin anymore. Reason they are still voting "intentional" and noobs think it's still relevant:

https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/906022864389681153

So thats -12% ish hashrate support for 2xCoin, and that doesn't count Slush and other miners that will defect.

The legacy chain will not disappear. Bitcoin will not lose.

So Core should add replay protection via hard fork because some other group that hasn’t rallied consensus to them wants to hard fork?  Never mind the complications from forks and rolling out new, well tested, software everywhere in a short period of time. 

Miners don’t dictate the protocol and it should be incumbent on the hard forkers to add replay protection if they can’t get consensus.  Otherwise it seems likely that the goal is only disruption.

If

If 90% or more of the miners supports it then its really core who should add replay protection and change the difficulty adjusting.

squatter, discussing the merit of SegWit was not the point of my post. I was just trying to respond to the usual maxwell's deceiving.

The witness discount was only included as a compromise with those seeking larger block sizes, and it was a worthy compromise since Segwit is at worst UTXO-neutral, whereas standard transactions cause inevitable and perpetual UTXO bloat.

How are there "two economics rather than one?" The only change to incentives appears to be that there is greater incentive now to spend UTXOs rather than to create them. That seems bloody great to me.

Maxwell's way of deceiving things is pretty unique I have to say.

Key parts of SegWit are:

- surprise, surprise witness segregation: i.e. moving scripts and signatures to a separate data structure from the one used to store data used to determine transaction effects.

- implement the above in a way that is soft-fork deployable, quoting the relevant part BIP 141: "The witness is committed in a tree that is nested into the block's existing merkle root via the coinbase transaction for the purpose of making this BIP soft fork compatible."

- changing bitcoin's economic incentive structure that will determine txns inclusion in a block via the introduction of a 75% discount applied to the witness part of a transactions, i.e. base size * 3 + total size  <= 4MB

All of the above will not be integrated in any of Bitcoin Cash implementations in the near, mid, long term or possibly never, for two order of reasons:

- bitcoin cash don't need witness segregation to increase the block size cause the block size limit has been removed all together on August 1st.

- the use a single composite constraint (weight) and the arbitrary discount of the witness data increase the complexity of bitcoin's economic incentives (two economics good rather than one) in a way that is not being studied and analyze enough.
 
The rest of the specification (BIP142/173, BIP143, BIP144, BIP145) are just an adaptation of various part of the code base to accomodate the new nested tree where witness is stored (e.g. BIP 145 adaptation of getblocktemplate), or "independent" piece code that have a reason to be used that goes beyond SegWit (the new signature scheme defined in BIP 143 or the the new base32 encoding of bitcoin address). 

In fact base32 encoding has been used already in project like TOR and I2P.

Lastly, Maxwell's allusions to the mis appropriation and rebranding of core ideas are at best delusional.

These are the two commits that implements the new signature scheme described in BIP 143 in Bitcoin ABC:
 
db236b5a6e2f6cf67d194f86f178584fa99b3ca7
1f50d97ef1885bdb09ea5ae403385fac23bf7276

as you can see both mention BIP 143 as the original specification. BIP 143 is mentioned in the original bitcoin cash specification, and of course 'sigsafes' label has never being used, I wonder where Maxwell found it. Same applies to Bitcoin Cash BIP 173 implementation.

Oh dear. What a perfect way to sum it all up..

Not to mention...


https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC

Update - 8404 nodes. 940 segwit2x. - so down to 11%.

So Core has 90% nodes and Segwit2x 90% miners. Oh dear!

Hmm, so it appears the technical specifications of Bitcoin Cash and Segwit2x are going to be very similar by the time the planned hard fork is set to happen. I've always liked Bitcoin Cash, lol (if only for making alt-dev hard forks look ridiculous )

BCH already incorporates part of segwit-- BIP143, the segwit signature scheme they've just renamed it "safesigs" and present it like it's their own brilliant invention. They're working on merging BIP173 (the error protected base32 addresses we created) but renaming it "cashaddress"... Sense a pattern here?

They've been going on about 'flextrans' which contains exactly the same design feature about segwit that they've thrown so much "not Satoshi's vision" mud about-- that new transactions don't commit to past signatures (a necessary criteria for fixing malleability).

They've gone on about "schnorr signatures" but their implementation there is just our prior abandoned code with the copyright headings removed and their own names added.

Don't make the mistake that honesty or technical merit are even considerations in their marketing. For all it matters for their marketing there is no u-turn so long as they don't admit it.  If you can tell that they are full of crap you aren't in the bcash target audience.

Now the interesting point is that 2Xcoin is going after the same unsophisticated audience, splitting that market.

As someone trying to be as impartial as possible in all this, the assertion may be that BCH isn't actually using all that extra capacity it boasts.  In the last 500 blocks, there hasn't been a single block over 150kb, let alone anything like exceeding the legacy 1mb cap.  It's not a true test of how the network would cope with larger blocks if they're generally far smaller on average than the ones being used in Bitcoin at the moment.  BCH just isn't seeing the usage right now to demonstrate what purpose it set out to perform.  It's not proving anything about larger blocks until the blocks are actually larger.

How is that would you care to elaborate?

by I suppose a crude metric, BCH has a network running and it's market cap is circa $7B

I think people with experience in altcoin mining, actually expected it - because they've seen it happen.

More likely they would integrate Flextrans instead of Segwit.

Because at one point it was 97% mined by a mystery miner. Following that the inflation rate was controlled by when one miner could be bothered to wake up or not. The EDA may have been necessary but it was also clearly not expected to be gamed so brutally.

Why would anyone follow a coin with developers so dim and miners so dominant? What else will they forget to address or break in the future? They've set a mediocre precedent. Lots of people have a grudge against Core but they still follow their code because they know what's what.

Seems pretty unlikely, heh.  BCH supporters made a pretty huge song and dance about how SegWit supposedly wasn't part of Satoshi's vision and isn't "true" to Bitcoin, so there'd be an inordinate quantity of humble pie to swallow if they went down that route.  It's too much of a marketing U-turn to take it seriously.  It could potentially even cause a loss of some of that existing support.  Those who do genuinely oppose SegWit could abandon it and look elsewhere.  Plus I'm not convinced BCH would take the market considering the fairly divisive manner in which it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.  I think most people have made up their minds about BCH by this point and probably won't be convinced otherwise.



Some people around here have some pretty interesting ideas about "control" in Bitcoin and mistakenly believe that only one single group of developers are allowed to make decisions and that miners are somehow a subservient underclass who do the bidding of the devs and can't decide anything for themselves.  Time and again they'll claim it's an attempt to take control from that group of developers, but then they can't seem to square this belief with the undeniable fact that anyone can edit the code and run any code they like, which means those developers never had control to begin with.  I would say they're safe to ignore because their views are so logically flawed, but the sad thing is, people are sometimes taken in by this ridiculous view and start repeating their rhetoric about "hostile takeovers", so you should continue to confront them wherever you find them.  Everyone does what they think is best for themselves because that's how this thing was designed to work.  It never has been and never will be about preserving the power of some centralised group of coders, because they don't (and shouldn't) have all the power.  No one dictates anything.  Not developers, not miners, not users.  It's only Bitcoin when all three come together voluntarily because incentives are aligned.