Topic: Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin! - page 16. (Read 84845 times)

This is a ridiculous quote - obviously the leaders of the project represent the team. That would be Adam Back and Greg Maxwell. And they're bound by obligations to Blockstream, who pay their salaries. Implying that they're bound by a moral code is also ridiculous. What, is Blockstream a church now?

Regarding the Hong Kong Agreement, the miners and others in the community have been waiting 4+ years for an increase in the blocksize. The miners felt betrayed because the HK agreement was to support Segwit in exchange for Core submitting a proposal to change the blocksize. When Lukejr finally submitted the proposal, it was to REDUCE the blocksize to 256MB - people felt that was a snarky and dishonest way to adhere to the deal. I guess it's obvious why the miners won't get behind Segwit?

No one really represents Core. The closest you could get to "who represents Core" I suppose would be everyone listed on https://bitcoincore.org/en/team/ but any decision about what goes into Core is made by the entire group, plus a number of contributors not listed on that page.

Nothing really. There is no obligation for Core to do anything and nothing that requires them to do anything. There is a moral obligation for them to do "what is right for Bitcoin", but that is subjective.

Who does, represent Bitcoin Core? What are Core, bound by?

Core did not renege on any deal or agreement, nor was such an agreement made by the group "Bitcoin Core developers". What you are talking about is the Hong Kong Agreement. There, some people who contributed to Bitcoin Core (note that they are contributors and only represent themselves, not the Bitcoin Core project) estimated that Segwit would be ready in April 2016 and agreed to publish a proposal for a hard fork that they could recommend within 3 months of Segwit's release into a version of Bitcoin Core. Note that they estimated Segwit to be ready by April 2016 and the proposal to be published by July 2016. Those were estimates, not hard deadlines.

Unfortunately testing and implementation of Segwit took a lot longer than estimated and it ended up being released in November 2016. However, because April 2016 was not a deadline but rather an estimate, the agreement was not broken. 3 months after Segwit was released, Luke-Jr (one of the contributors who signed the agreement), published a hard fork proposal which he could recommend to Core. The Core contributors who signed the agreement did not renege on their end of the deal, but at this point, I think the some of the miners who signed it have. Note that because the Core contributors who signed the agreement did not and do not represent the entire Bitcoin Core project, Core itself is not bound by the agreement and had no obligation to release on the estimated schedule outlined by the agreement and no obligation to accept and implement the hard fork proposal.

Either Segwit will be dropped as "the community doesn't want it" or the dates will be changed.

I asked this question a few weeks back but I didn't receive an answer so, I would like to know, If we ever reach the last (26th activation period-- and how much would that take btw) and we fail to get the 95%, what does that mean?
Does it mean that SegWit will be dropped as a solution and developers will have to think in something else?

In trying to understand the two main sides of this impasse (I'm currently for SegWit +LN type layer), but feel it only fair that I explore the BU reasoning to get a balanced view.  I read on the following reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5wnw8p/the_normal_persons_explanation_of_bu_vs_segwit/

It says that  Core reneged on their deal to release in July 2017.  It might be old new to some, but I've never heard of that.  Does anyone have the real story?  I can't understand why they would renege on what looked like a perfectly sensible way forward, and wonder if it is more one sided fluff from the misinformed, or if I truly have no idea what the issues are all about.

ZOMG Carlton this is great that we can agree that UASF is trash.  Just when I thought you're arguing just to argue.

Mr. CK: I am not a defender of BU rhetoric. The only reason BU has gotten any further than XT and Classic is the massive opposition to Segwit. Personally I'm in favor of a planned 2MB hard fork of 0.12 that gets just about everyone on board. It's been done before, and we can do it again!

You and Carlton may have to get a room if your love-fest continues much longer... just trolling.

Someone is always going to do it, and I guess I must be more willing to sacrifice my peace of mind, because it's immensely frustrating. I'm not some kind of zen master, I think I've demonstrated that once or twice so far Biting back pretty hard is important IMO, part of the Bitcoin troll's strategy is to inflict psychological pressure on those who contradict them. I think I've shown that some of them respond to being pressurised themselves, while a smaller number of others do not. Which is interesting.

Unfortunately I simply do not have the energy nor intestinal fortitude to tackle the trolls myself. I refuse to let my disgust with peoples' behaviour on this forum affect my mood in the real world. I don't think this is offtopic at all for dealing with FUD regarding segwit is an important part of acceptance and understanding and it's important for people reading this thread to understand there IS a lot of FUD and there ARE massive trolls who seem to make it a full time job to attack it.

Ignoring them may not work, some of them are pretty skilled propagandists. Bear in mind, there are several who I don't respond to, despite them desperately trying to get my attention (I don't use the ignore feature at all, doesn't mean I have to read the trolls). Anyway, we're in danger of appearing a little diversionary ourselves, this is now way OT

If you're speaking of 'kanopool' then yes I am not a joint owner nor on any payroll. I don't respond to him because I don't engage trolls. It's why there are quite a few regulars here that I have on ignore as well. You're doing a great job entertaining their nonsense yourself - you seem to enjoy that sort of interchange whereas I find it like arguing with my own kids. I don't have the time or energy to engage them. My ignore list is much bigger courtesy of the main bitcoin discussion section than it ever was from mining/ ironically.

im not trying to argue with you,but if you look at btc now its mainly centralized by hundreds of small groups,from where you hold your wallet,who develops it,from every exchange and who owns it,to miners that mine it,and people that use it.My perspective is that someone who maintains core could should be able to push updates.its like any other industry you dont let someone who cleans cars,tinker with engine,or dictate how it should be designed or run-you simply look what can be improved for the end user,and push out new design hoping it will be better then last one.

Guess what im saying btc is meant to progress,if it was to reach masses,escape cap limit,transactions bumps,and ease of use.Since otherwise id say btc is actually at its equilibrium now,where you have enough people using it ,and enough supply to cater them needs.thus actually nothing could be changed and it would still work away in closed circle,where everyone seems happy.Thus someone could raise question why bother with fork or bu when keeping it as is,will be sufficient for next couple years.

Chinese miners is not one cohesive group. Not all chinese miners do the same thing, not all miners do the same thing. There is no one cohesive group that defines "chinese miners". The chinese miners are decentralized, each individual person can do whatever they want. On the other hand, developers are a cohesive group as there is really only one software that defines the network. There is only one software, so whatever an individual developer does, the entire cohesive group produces only one thing that represents "the developers". That is centralized, chinese miners are less so.

They don't. There is no single miner which has a majority say in anything. For any consensus change to be made, there must be consensus, i.e. nearly all miners (not just the majority) must agree to enforce the new rules. Likewise, nearly all full nodes must also enforce those new rules.

No. No one group should be making and forcing decisions and changes onto everyone else. The miners should not be forcing users to a certain change, devs should not either.

Miners are independent as well. Again, there is not one cohesive group of miners that decides what all miners must do. However, by virtue of there being only one software, there is a cohesive group of developers that decides what the developers do.

The developers are not, and cannot be, the ultimate final authority. That would make them a centralized group that has control over Bitcoin, and that is completely antithetical to Bitcoin's ideals. All that the developers can do is to propose a solution, implement it, and make it available to everyone and then the community as a whole must decide whether to adopt that solution or not. That decision is made by people running full nodes and miners choosing to signal readiness for the solution. But the developers cannot and will not force people to adopt a particular solution.

you see you say decentralized and miners in same sentence,why do some chinesse miners would have a majority say in it,when devs should be ones making decision,would you think that miners are smarter and know whats better or someone who develops and patches the code ?
Since the way i see developers are independent,miners will chase profits and whatever fill pockets for them.

Since from the get go btc was meant as experiment and grew into industry,but along the way it lost its values to asic miners,those who can exploit it.And if people that mumble all the time how it would be great if btc was adopted globally and everyone should use it,then stuff like miners having majority say and control,cap amounts and transactions,should be fixed,might be some btc fork or whatever,but current system wasnt designed for such scale of users,thus upgrade is needed one way or another.

The developers are not, and cannot be, the ultimate final authority. That would make them a centralized group that has control over Bitcoin, and that is completely antithetical to Bitcoin's ideals. All that the developers can do is to propose a solution, implement it, and make it available to everyone and then the community as a whole must decide whether to adopt that solution or not. That decision is made by people running full nodes and miners choosing to signal readiness for the solution. But the developers cannot and will not force people to adopt a particular solution.

hi im new to this forum 

Anyway not new to btc,and have a question,why do developers just dont push out whatever update they want and ,finish this political debate for good,since clearly giving miners power over mining,fees isnt decentralized option,more like exclusive cartel.

Since devs only need to roll out update and let whoever wants it to implement given theres no flaws with control it will populate itsef,thus people will move to it,it might mean end to current btc,but surely next version would be better in scalling and speed thus new chapter.Seems really simple solution,instead asking people who own monopoly what they want.

No longer joint owners of CKpool then? Well, at least that's your major conflict of interest out of the equation. Why do you still post in the same threads as kano without contradicting his lies? It looks like the same implicit approval you used to afford him.

That's an interesting way of saying there is no plan B. Sounds more assertive. Less resigned.

With the sky high activation threshold Core is basically pushing miners over to BU and everyone is ok with that?

Looking at Segwit, that's a lot of effort just for Core to dig its own grave.

If bitcoin splits then both chains are open to manipulations in the code, people can always switch to the desired chain but I think besides bitcoin losing it's value by at least %40 after split these are the miners losing, imagine if BU forks then Core miners will successfully activate segwit and any miner from BU wants to switch back to main chain(Core) is switching to segwit activated chain, so why not accept segwit now before damaging the network?

Actually I'm not. A business partner of his that is.