what would happen if BCH activated segwit....? just to in your face segwit.....2x and also take the market
I mean what advantage or argument would you have left not to use BCH with segwit......
Topic: Just confriming, segwit or segwit2x is going ahead on BTC? - page 2. (Read 5979 times)
How would they control the code if Core devs would follow the 2MB increase?
We're far away from not being able to scale on chain and increasing the blocksize doesn't mean there can't be developed on other scaling solutions.
If other solutions works and get adopted then the blocksize keeps smaller or gets smaller again.
But its simple. If majority mines the segwit2x chain then core gave the main coding away.
Nothing stops them from following that chain.
We're far away from not being able to scale on chain and increasing the blocksize doesn't mean there can't be developed on other scaling solutions.
If other solutions works and get adopted then the blocksize keeps smaller or gets smaller again.
But its simple. If majority mines the segwit2x chain then core gave the main coding away.
Nothing stops them from following that chain.
Oh and the argument that bigger than 1MB blocks would not allow someone to run full nodes becomes annoying also.
With segwit the blocksize could be 4MB and the amount of transactions fitting in a block would only double if all would use segwit.
With segwit the blocksize could be 4MB and the amount of transactions fitting in a block would only double if all would use segwit.
So, which contradictory "fact" of yours would you prefer to be true?
- Bitcoin (with Segwit) has 1MB blocks
- Bitcoin (with Segwit) has 4MB blocks
- 2MB blocks is not enough
- 2MB blocks will be enough
- Stating that >1MB blocks is unsustainable is annoying
(bolded are true, red is subjectively true
)More to the point, no blocksize will ever be enough. That's why trying to use "scalability" arguments to justify blocksize increases is never going to make sense, it's an inherently un-scalable technology.
Scalability cannot happen on the blockchain, but it can happen at the level of transaction scripting. Which is, ironically, a point that the NYA proposal concedes anyway. Makes one wonder why the NYA puts so much emphasis on a blocksize increase... (and taking control of the Bitcoin source code in order to hard fork to that increased blocksize...)
I support bigger blocks. Bitcoin becomes less usable without.
Segwit didn't solve anything so far.
Adoption is very slow and many was ready for years.
I've integrated segwit to our plattform and its mostly done but no one uses segwit so far.
Core wallet doesn't even support it fully.
The change goes straight to a non segwit address, you would assume they would've code something in to enable segwit fully once its activated on the chain.
LN is far from ready and probably will face a lot of problems what might be solved or not.
Bigger blocks much earlier would've make sense and the blocks would've been smaller automatic again once other solutions are ready and adopted.
For now I see those scenarios:
1. Segwit2x become the majority and the 1MB chain will die if no changes made to diff adjusting and no replay protection added.
2. 1MB stays the majority chain and Bitcoin Cash will get more support as the 1MB chain becomes less usable with full blocks and high fees.
3. Segwit2x and 1MB becomes both enough hashpower to survive in this case it would be open what chain will win in the end.
F2pool said they will not support NYA anymore but still signaling. In the end individual miners decide on what pool they mine.
If many miners would disagree with NYA they would already have switched to slush or made new pools.
Till November a lot could change. It will be interesting but is annoying the same time.
The stalling caused a lot damage to Bitcoin already even if the price is high now what could be a bubble as well or not or maybe the price would've been even higher.
There is no technical and no economical reason to not increase the blocksize now and work on other solutions the same time.
Bitcoin Cash was released in a rush and more wallets and services support it already than Segwit and Segwit was ready for years...
Blocksize increasing would require to update nodes, such splits cost a lot more time and work to do.
Oh and the argument that bigger than 1MB blocks would not allow someone to run full nodes becomes annoying also.
With segwit the blocksize could be 4MB and the amount of transactions fitting in a block would only double if all would use segwit.
Segwit didn't solve anything so far.
Adoption is very slow and many was ready for years.
I've integrated segwit to our plattform and its mostly done but no one uses segwit so far.
Core wallet doesn't even support it fully.
The change goes straight to a non segwit address, you would assume they would've code something in to enable segwit fully once its activated on the chain.
LN is far from ready and probably will face a lot of problems what might be solved or not.
Bigger blocks much earlier would've make sense and the blocks would've been smaller automatic again once other solutions are ready and adopted.
For now I see those scenarios:
1. Segwit2x become the majority and the 1MB chain will die if no changes made to diff adjusting and no replay protection added.
2. 1MB stays the majority chain and Bitcoin Cash will get more support as the 1MB chain becomes less usable with full blocks and high fees.
3. Segwit2x and 1MB becomes both enough hashpower to survive in this case it would be open what chain will win in the end.
F2pool said they will not support NYA anymore but still signaling. In the end individual miners decide on what pool they mine.
If many miners would disagree with NYA they would already have switched to slush or made new pools.
Till November a lot could change. It will be interesting but is annoying the same time.
The stalling caused a lot damage to Bitcoin already even if the price is high now what could be a bubble as well or not or maybe the price would've been even higher.
There is no technical and no economical reason to not increase the blocksize now and work on other solutions the same time.
Bitcoin Cash was released in a rush and more wallets and services support it already than Segwit and Segwit was ready for years...
Blocksize increasing would require to update nodes, such splits cost a lot more time and work to do.
Oh and the argument that bigger than 1MB blocks would not allow someone to run full nodes becomes annoying also.
With segwit the blocksize could be 4MB and the amount of transactions fitting in a block would only double if all would use segwit.
I have not heard that F2 pool left the 2x proposal, that's great, the more the merrier. Can't wait to sell more hard forked useless alt coin. I am honestly more worried about an alt coin overcoming bitcoin, than this 2x hard fork.
So I have read in a few articles now that F2Pool will not support segwit2x anymore.
That would mean about 10% of the mining power just left the proposal.
According to the article it is probable that other mining pools and businesses will withdraw their consent to segwit2x as well.
How will that affect segwit2x?
That would mean about 10% of the mining power just left the proposal.
According to the article it is probable that other mining pools and businesses will withdraw their consent to segwit2x as well.
How will that affect segwit2x?
It's strange because the recently mined F2Pool blocks I could be bothered to check were still putting NYA in their coinbase and the declared Segwit2x support hasn't dropped yet. If there is a drop in support, it increases the likelihood of either a permanent split, or if the situation snowballs and drops completely, then the fork might be aborted.
How will that affect segwit2x?
The one and only thing it had going for it was that overwhelming 'consensus'. That will rapidly dwindle away. What you're left with is a rushed hard fork with no rated developers that no one wants other than a minuscule handful of people.
It's not going to happen in any meaningful way.
If 90% or more of the miners supports it then its really core who should add replay protection and change the difficulty adjusting.
Why should every single user out there have to migrate to something decided by a handful of people with blinking boxes?
So I have read in a few articles now that F2Pool will not support segwit2x anymore.
That would mean about 10% of the mining power just left the proposal.
According to the article it is probable that other mining pools and businesses will withdraw their consent to segwit2x as well.
How will that affect segwit2x?
That would mean about 10% of the mining power just left the proposal.
According to the article it is probable that other mining pools and businesses will withdraw their consent to segwit2x as well.
How will that affect segwit2x?
If 90% or more of the miners supports it then its really core who should add replay protection and change the difficulty adjusting.
Without adjusting the difficulty and without replay protection its most likely that the market will adopt quick on segwit2x.
The mining support could even drop then ( not must ).
It would be in own interest of core to add replay protection and update the difficulty adjusting.
If most miners will not support segwit2x by the time it activates then thats ofc another story.
I prepare for all outcomes but if segwit2x becomes the chain with most hashpower then I'll see that as Bitcoin as probably the 1mb chain will die if no replay protection and quicker difficulty adjusting is added.
Splitting your own coins can be easly done with RBF.
Send with low fee on the majority chain and when its confirmed use RBF to send them with higher fee on the minority chain.
Without adjusting the difficulty and without replay protection its most likely that the market will adopt quick on segwit2x.
The mining support could even drop then ( not must ).
It would be in own interest of core to add replay protection and update the difficulty adjusting.
If most miners will not support segwit2x by the time it activates then thats ofc another story.
I prepare for all outcomes but if segwit2x becomes the chain with most hashpower then I'll see that as Bitcoin as probably the 1mb chain will die if no replay protection and quicker difficulty adjusting is added.
Splitting your own coins can be easly done with RBF.
Send with low fee on the majority chain and when its confirmed use RBF to send them with higher fee on the minority chain.
No, its people who want to use off-chain solutions not devs ! On-chain won't scale to VISA levels sorry...
L2 solutions are the best technical proposal since it preserve decentralization and can scale far more than raw block increase. LN increase privacy as a side effect too.
Also, S2X and BCH are nothing more than big businesses and cartels imposing their will on their users, it set a very bad precedent in the development governance where closed doors meeting and centralized actors decide what should be implemented or not...
In term of price BCH and S2X may have a future but in term of financial sovereignty and paradigm shift they don't have anything, notice that all companies that are against L2 solutions are middlemen type companies ! LN can make them redundant !
L2 solutions are the best technical proposal since it preserve decentralization and can scale far more than raw block increase. LN increase privacy as a side effect too.
Also, S2X and BCH are nothing more than big businesses and cartels imposing their will on their users, it set a very bad precedent in the development governance where closed doors meeting and centralized actors decide what should be implemented or not...
In term of price BCH and S2X may have a future but in term of financial sovereignty and paradigm shift they don't have anything, notice that all companies that are against L2 solutions are middlemen type companies ! LN can make them redundant !
sock puppet? You need some scaleing of the on chain capacity to keep fees low, saying non visa levels is a orthogonal issue.
block space should accessible at a relatively low fee.
The aspect of the agreement I personally object is timing. November (or any date in 2017) is, in my opinion, too early for a hard fork. So I had a slight (delusional) hope that there could be an agreement to postpone the 2MB part to mid-to-end 2018, with the approval of at least some of the Core developers. But it seems that won't become true.
I think it's a fine and necessary idea in principle but as you say it's the timing. It's ridiculously short and all parties involved, Core and the 2X crew, have now guaranteed another alt. Which one will be the alt is another matter.
Oh yes. I have to concur there. The timing changes everything. I think they wil backpedal when push comes to shove.
99.99999% segwit will lock in in a few days. There is no controversy over this - miners, users, bitcoincore devs all agree they want this!
But the 1m->2m base blocksize increase is still very split. (I know segwit in effect enables 2-4 times more Tx in this 1/2Meg - but only as the wallets/users upgrade).
According to https://www.xbt.eu/ 90-95% of the miners are supporting the 2Mb blocksize increase that will occur at block 494,784 (edit: correcting as advised below based on https://segwit2x.github.io/segwit2x-announce.html).
So we will get an extra chain in about 90 days time. And the chain with 90% of the hash power will be the chain with the 2Mb block size - so NOT compatible with BitcoinCore!
As I have said before this causes huge issues for the BitcoinCore chain - as blocks will take 10 times longer, and also it will take 20 weeks till the difficulty resets (rather than the normal 2 weeks). And even after the reset blocks will still be taking 2.5 times longer for another 5 weeks.
So the big question is whether the "Economy" will move to the BitcoinSegWit2x code or not - i.e. payment processors, shops, wallets etc... According to https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/ they have not even started to - only about a few % have moved.
If we have a split where the "Economy" goes one way and the miners go the other will be mess!
....
The truth about bitcoin and any pow based crypto-currency is that there is one and only one source of power, mining, and it can not be changed by some propaganda or civil activity, thus, I do not agree with your last statement about the split, there will be no split, core chain will die and market will adopt. But the 1m->2m base blocksize increase is still very split. (I know segwit in effect enables 2-4 times more Tx in this 1/2Meg - but only as the wallets/users upgrade).
According to https://www.xbt.eu/ 90-95% of the miners are supporting the 2Mb blocksize increase that will occur at block 494,784 (edit: correcting as advised below based on https://segwit2x.github.io/segwit2x-announce.html).
So we will get an extra chain in about 90 days time. And the chain with 90% of the hash power will be the chain with the 2Mb block size - so NOT compatible with BitcoinCore!
As I have said before this causes huge issues for the BitcoinCore chain - as blocks will take 10 times longer, and also it will take 20 weeks till the difficulty resets (rather than the normal 2 weeks). And even after the reset blocks will still be taking 2.5 times longer for another 5 weeks.
So the big question is whether the "Economy" will move to the BitcoinSegWit2x code or not - i.e. payment processors, shops, wallets etc... According to https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/ they have not even started to - only about a few % have moved.
If we have a split where the "Economy" goes one way and the miners go the other will be mess!
....
https://www.bitwala.com/bitwala-statement-segwit2x/
Here is the first NYA signee to state they're not going to support it without some contribution from Core. I fully expect the majority of them on the signee's list to do the same before November arrives.
Here is the first NYA signee to state they're not going to support it without some contribution from Core. I fully expect the majority of them on the signee's list to do the same before November arrives.
SegWit2x is going ahead as planned, yes (source segwit2x working group and coin.dance intent). The 1 MB legacy-only chain is being mined by approximately 9-10% of the current Bitcoin hashrate (source: bitcoinwisdom.com). The 1 MB legacy chain will become an AltCoin if anyone continues to mine it after the 2x code becomes active otherwise the 1 MB chain will be the 2x chain.
No, its people who want to use off-chain solutions not devs ! On-chain won't scale to VISA levels sorry...
L2 solutions are the best technical proposal since it preserve decentralization and can scale far more than raw block increase. LN increase privacy as a side effect too.
Also, S2X and BCH are nothing more than big businesses and cartels imposing their will on their users, it set a very bad precedent in the development governance where closed doors meeting and centralized actors decide what should be implemented or not...
In term of price BCH and S2X may have a future but in term of financial sovereignty and paradigm shift they don't have anything, notice that all companies that are against L2 solutions are middlemen type companies ! LN can make them redundant !
L2 solutions are the best technical proposal since it preserve decentralization and can scale far more than raw block increase. LN increase privacy as a side effect too.
Also, S2X and BCH are nothing more than big businesses and cartels imposing their will on their users, it set a very bad precedent in the development governance where closed doors meeting and centralized actors decide what should be implemented or not...
In term of price BCH and S2X may have a future but in term of financial sovereignty and paradigm shift they don't have anything, notice that all companies that are against L2 solutions are middlemen type companies ! LN can make them redundant !
Care to elaborate how do they impose their will on the users?
How exactly is anyone forced to do anything they would like users to do?
There is not only Segwit factor which effect the price.Lots of ICO's and Alt coin buying is also effecting the price..
And suddenly bitcoin core says they dont want to stick with segwit2x.
What are you talking about? They were never in favor of 2x.
It was like "ahh they are signaling segwit2x.. well segwit is ok, they can signal it.. lets tell them when segwit is implemented, that we wont support the 2x part".
That they are strictly against segwit2x - even when the miners are signaling segwit - they should have given out weeks ago.
Anyone reading the dev's mailing list, know that Segwit 2x has been rejected for months: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014633.html
They even had a list of devs on the wiki that explained, transparently, where each one stood regarding the various BIPs and forks (segwit, uasf, segwit2x, etc)
Quote from: gmaxwell on dev list
I don't think the rejection of segwit2x from Bitcoin's developers
could be any more resolute than what we've already seen:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support
could be any more resolute than what we've already seen:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support
But they began to be quite when they saw everyone is "ok" with segwit2x. Till now, when segwit will be implemented next week.
It was like "ahh they are signaling segwit2x.. well segwit is ok, they can signal it.. lets tell them when segwit is implemented, that we wont support the 2x part".
It was like "ahh they are signaling segwit2x.. well segwit is ok, they can signal it.. lets tell them when segwit is implemented, that we wont support the 2x part".
They didn't endorse any of it at any moment.
And suddenly bitcoin core says they dont want to stick with segwit2x.
What are you talking about? They were never in favor of 2x.
It was like "ahh they are signaling segwit2x.. well segwit is ok, they can signal it.. lets tell them when segwit is implemented, that we wont support the 2x part".
That they are strictly against segwit2x - even when the miners are signaling segwit - they should have given out weeks ago.
And suddenly bitcoin core says they dont want to stick with segwit2x.
What are you talking about? They were never in favor of 2x.
Jump to: