Topic: Poll. UASF or Segwit2x? - page 2. (Read 1352 times)
It's not a matter of choice it's a compulsion if I had a choice then I would like to see bitcoin in it's present form without any big changes made to it but since it's not the case it is not going to make any big difference what my choice going to be between the two available ones. So I would say I don't support UASF nor do I support SegWit.
A question with either/or in it is a flawed question, when there are more than 2 choices.
I vote neither.
I vote neither.
I support SegWit2x but of course like all fear the consequences of the transition. We are already seeing the falling prices of up to $ 2,000 and this is only the beginning. I hope that all these sacrifices are not in vain, and after the update we will get the best bitcoin which will quickly return its value and will keep going up.
It's very difficult to be honest. I am a total supporter of having the economical majority agree on something (in this case a proposal). But on the other hand, I am a bit skeptical when it comes to Segwit2x as the lack or proper testing might cover a few *exploitable* bugs here and there. If it wasn't rushed, I would have chosen Segwit2x without a doubt. But right now I am steering towards 40% Segwit2x and 60% UASF. But the thing is that both of them might result in the market to temporarily turn extremely bearish, as certain miners might choose to part ways from that point. We'll see what happens - whatever happens, I am prepared for basically any outcome.
I think as far as I am concerned, I don't prefer any of them. It is more like being stucked between the devil and the deep blue sea. I would have gone for segwit2x few days back but right now, I am really having doubts!
Quote
UASF have small support from miners while SegWit2x testnet failed few days ago which makes few SegWit2x and both of them don't have big support from bitcoin community.
I like UASF since they have better idealism, but SegWit2x also increase blocksize to 2MB which we need right now, so i prefer SegWit2x.
I like UASF since they have better idealism, but SegWit2x also increase blocksize to 2MB which we need right now, so i prefer SegWit2x.
that was not a fail in SegWit2x, that was more like an attack by someone with hashrate who threw at the testnet to force the deadline for hardfork happen faster than planned (on testnet) they mined a ridiculous number of blocks and it was reached fast. and the same problem will NOT happen on the mainnet.
also SegWit2x 2 MB hardfork is not for 6 months after the activation and I believe it is not really needed if SegWit is activated. and on top of that we don't need a 2 MB hard fork since the spam attack stopped.
I don't know if I prefer SegWit2x or not, yet. there are multiple things that I have doubts about when it comes to this.
I prefer SegWit but that didn't go anywhere, the support is stuck at a low percentage!
p.s. however if I have to choose between bad and worse, I will choose bad. because the bad currently has between 85%-90% support from hash power and the risk of splitting is zero.
your poll doesn't have "none of the above" as an option and that is what i would choose.
because so far neither of these proposals have enough support.
UASF has so little hashrate behind it that will fail or end up splitting bitcoin. it also doesn't have enough node support (but not sure about this).
SegWit2x has at least the miners support and it is a very high enough support that won't lead to any split. but the developers are for some reason that i have not yet understood against it!
which is why i say the current bitcoin is my choice and we must not change anything unless it has a big enough support to reduce the risks to a minimum. something like the plans for original SegWit (the 95% and enough time to reach it) there is no rush...
because so far neither of these proposals have enough support.
UASF has so little hashrate behind it that will fail or end up splitting bitcoin. it also doesn't have enough node support (but not sure about this).
SegWit2x has at least the miners support and it is a very high enough support that won't lead to any split. but the developers are for some reason that i have not yet understood against it!
which is why i say the current bitcoin is my choice and we must not change anything unless it has a big enough support to reduce the risks to a minimum. something like the plans for original SegWit (the 95% and enough time to reach it) there is no rush...
Segwit2x is better for bitcoin network,because of 2mb blocksizes and lightning network.
UASF with 1mb blocksizes would be problem.with only UASF in the near future we could face the same problem (long awaiting for confirmation,high fees) again.
On the other hand the reasons for why i will never prefer BU is:
It corrupts decentralization in bitcoin which is very harmful for bitcoin network and so bitcoin's monetary value
It gives bitcoin controll to the big mining corporations,because normal user can't download big amounts of data like 100000GB
Thanks for thread !
UASF with 1mb blocksizes would be problem.with only UASF in the near future we could face the same problem (long awaiting for confirmation,high fees) again.
On the other hand the reasons for why i will never prefer BU is:
It corrupts decentralization in bitcoin which is very harmful for bitcoin network and so bitcoin's monetary value
It gives bitcoin controll to the big mining corporations,because normal user can't download big amounts of data like 100000GB
Thanks for thread !
This should be a fun poll. I want to find out what all of us collectively think is good for Bitcoin overall backed up by our limited knowledge on the issue. So imagine this. If a core developer came up to you right now and asked "What do you support, UASF or Segwit2x?", what would you answer?
It is ok not to read up on the issue, just use what you know now and answer as best as you can.
My answer, I vote for the UASF. The miners should work for the network, not rule and control it.
It is ok not to read up on the issue, just use what you know now and answer as best as you can.
My answer, I vote for the UASF. The miners should work for the network, not rule and control it.
Jump to: