Topic: Poll. UASF or Segwit2x? (Read 1351 times)

Whatever the network decides at this point, I am more interested in seeing the issue resolved and looking at it from behind in a rear view mirror, than in a front view and being worried about it. May as well make the choice now we already have had enough debate and discussion we will execute something and either have regrets later and attempt to fix it, or finally have it addressed in one form or another.

This link nails the whole drama of which protocol imho. It is to the point. Reaffirms my view that segwit2 +2mb will not get it together
fast enough to avoid a split ...even if the split will be healed later..due to ..again...imho ...missed deadline

anyway how this guy puts it out there


https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-miners-miss-first-bip-148-deadline/

anyway my view of this coming cluster is they just won't get anything done in time by August 1st

hope I am incorrect

How exactly do you get rid of developers in an open source project where anyone can write whatever code they want?  What's preventing them from continuing to produce code in the event of a fork?  Unless you bought that account, I'm severely disappointed with your grasp of the concept of "control over the network".  I'm tired of writing it repeatedly, so get it into your head already.  Those securing the chain, both mining and non-mining nodes, control the network and they can run whatever code they wish.  

Corporations can't force the average user to run software they don't want to run, so you have to concede one of two things.  Either:

a) it's not a corporate takeover, or
b) non-mining full nodes are completely irrelevant.  

What's it gonna be?  Choose your answer carefully.

Did you ever get to ponder if the so called million dollar investments was for the love of Bitcoin or it was all about the next viable business venture? Make no mistake of the fact that Bitcoin was made not for miners, but for users, miners are simply to facilitate that. As is, UASF is the voice of users and all the noise about 101% miners support for segwit2x is nothing but castles in the air. Much more important is where the support of users/businesses/investors lies and miners cannot afford to allow their million dollar investments rot in desolation.

What would you say to:Its just a fair counter attack, a second mover reaction, against the first move from BScore, not providing consensus solutions first time?

Yes! This is the Bitcoin Oligarchy flexing their muscles and imposing their will on everyone in the community. For a public and permissionless network, this should not be.

Wikipedia knows about everything, but explanation is mostly restricted to who already knows, it gets much tougher when technicalities are involved. Wiki people should split the pedia into basic conversion of the complex knowledge to basics to complex to complicated for who can understand, would be much more helpful for the basic people like us

Here's a much simpler explanation, https://medium.com/@SDWouters/why-schnorr-signatures-will-help-solve-2-of-bitcoins-biggest-problems-today-9b7718e7861c

It is still a bit tough, go through it a couple of times, it is pure cryptography, no dramatics involved.

The first part of Segwit2x, Segwit is just a formality for the second part, no thoughts on how the first would be useful, but on just somehow implement the second part.

thanks for the link, I did not know that about UASF supports.
also the link you gave about Schnorr signature didn't help me understand how SegWit prevents spam attack but SegWit2x does not. so I need more information than that

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

Spam attack has nothing to do with Segwit, but everything to do with pushing Segwit2x. There is Schnorr signature to prevent such attacks, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnorr_signature, who cares when miners are manipulating the network fee with incentivized spamming (their cost of spamming is lesser than the fees pocketed through a highly congested bitcoin network)

SegWit2x is a corporate attempt to take control over the network and get rid off Core Developers.
Never will I support such an attack to the network.
Furthermore for now it's just signaling what we have seen so far. This means nothing! No one of us knows what the certain miners and economic nodes will run when time has come. Imo most of it is game theory! Who bluffs and tricks best?!

could you clarify a couple of things you said here for me:
SegWit2x (btc1) and bitcoin (bitcoin) share many contributors. replace the author with the names of those contributed to first one. it also has J. Garzik who has been a bitcoin core developer for many years.

developers aside, the code is the clone of bitcoin core version 13 which had SegWit and it is activating the same SegWit.
are you saying SegWit code is flawed and exploitable or bitcoin core version 13 is . and note that the part about "2x" or the 2 MB hard fork is not for 6 months after the activation of SegWit...

an who are these more solid developers? I have so far seen no good plan for BIP148 except a rushed crappy plan with an extremely high risk of chain split. and I have seen only one developer support it passionately on reddit. no other person than LukeJr!
other developers are either against it or have not said much.
I remember reading the early days what Gmaxwell said in the mailing list about how he is not supporting it and how it is rushed compered to original SegWit plan.

how come?!!
it is still the same SegWit with only a future plan to do a hard fork to increase the base block size to 2 MB
and what does the "spam attack" have anything to do with SegWit?

UASF

I had gone through some of the Jihan's tweet, not now, when it was the BU propaganda, now Segwit2x, just out of curiosity, biggest manufacturer of mining equipment/owner of the biggest mining pool, not with a predefined notion, but with an open mind, but this guy never fails to portray how egoistic he is, he doesn't give a damn about the technical aspects, being too egoistic to only care about reaping profits from his manufacturing business and by dominating bitcoin mining, thus centralizing the whole network.

Either Segwit2x or UASF, bitcoin would have Segwit activated, that's what matters for me. I am not against bigger blocks, but in my opinion it isn't necessary at this point in time, rule out the spammers from the equation and you still have smooth and fast transaction network. Some wouldn't agree with me and it is understandable, lightening network or side options is centralization in their opinion, but my point is I don't want the network to be forked for the sole reason of getting control over it.

Jihan is a mining equipment manufacturer, Ver has the elite approach, Wright is just a wannabe Satoshi, common sense is more than enough to grasp that these guys don't give a damn about average bitcoin users.

Neither trolling nor I have any strings, just my opinion.

I d generally vote for UASF but these people have simply been unable to deliver what they have promised, considering all the glitches and failures in the code. So I vote SegWit2x, at least that one ll work.

Besides 90% of the miners think so, we ll have SegWit2x.

Not to mention mining safeguard the network, makes your transactions available plus these people have invested millions in BTC. What did you invest since you obviously want to have some kind of saying?

UASF are helping the bitcoin and asking nothing in return

Looking at the track record of Segwit2x developers, I would not be amazed if something huge gets exploited if it succeeds. The UASF solution

seem to have more solid developers, but it lacks the miner support. If Segwit2x succeeds, we will see everything dominated by miner decisions

and if you look at the way that they exploited users with high fees, then the future does not look too bright.  

The correct vote would have been BIP91 or BIP148, because "Segwit2x" includes the 2MB hardfork for November.

I'm currently slightly biased towards BIP91 because it has much more miner support than BIP148 and I think it minimizes the chances of a chain split. I think avoiding a chain split is more important than finding the "ideal" solution, as long as it's an acceptable solution.

In October, I will re-evaluate my position: if there is a safe supermajority of miner support, I'll also accept the 2MB hard fork - although I would have liked a much longer period before that fork to be able to include more "goodies". If support is weak (<70%) then I will communicate in this forum/wherever the need for a hardfork-less solution (and so I'll be probably joining the small blockers).

aren't these 2 at different times?
i mean we are sure that UASF of BIP148 is set for Aug 1
but i think SegWit2x is set to start signalling in mid Aug (or July 21) i am not so sure, the news about SegWit2x has always been filled with a lot of drama instead of real discussions!
edit: never mind i got off my lazy ass and googled it
according to segwit2x.github.io i am correct about July 21

this can easily mean a fail for UASF because of lack of support and possibly switching to support the other proposal and get a 100% support!

So basically, USAF has to hit at least 21% to stop the 80% on segwit2 right?

Then if that happens, bitmain has said it will automatically do a UAHF to the bitcoin network...

so what are folk giving for odds of any of the 2 above happening?

me maybe if generous I think 3% chance


All this FUD imho is just that FUD to drive the price down one more time for whales before the price pumps after an agreement (even if it is just the first 1/2 of the segwit2 +2mb part)

All very familiar

rinse/wash/repeat

MY 'guess' is we will be back about $2,400 usd BTC by Oct 2017 at the worst..this too shall pass

Why you didn't put none on the choices? My reason is none is there is UASF has only small mining support, it will result in chain split or it will fail and segwit2x although they are more organized and they have the majority of support,but their code, it was rushed even the bitcoin core developers critized it so, i think segwit2x may bring problems to us.