Topic: Segregated Witness has been merged! (Read 2126 times)

Hoping all the best.

This is great news! With segregated witness and lightning networks, Bitcoin will be well prepared to meet future increases in adoption. Core team did an outstanding job and found intelligent solutions for scaling Bitcoin and at the same time increasing network security and efficiency.

The big-blocks-at-all-costs FUD-campaigners have been proven wrong with their doomsday predictions of the Bitcoin network failing after approaching full block capacity. After Segwit and LN are operational, these people will look even more ridiculous with their constant alarmist campaigning against Core.

It's highly encouraging that Core developers persisted in implementing a sustainable and decentralized solution despite the imputations and lies thrown at them by the proponents of a Bitcoin exposed to governmental control.

ya.ya.yo!

It's his MO.  He uses this kinda prose to push people around all the time in the escrow and loan world of this forum.  It's kinda funny to see him try this shit in a technical discussion though.  Cute.

Are you some kind of clairvoyant? You appear to be having troubling "visions" about Segwit/LN, based on your perceived complexity of these solutions, informed by your feelings.


If complexity were an issue in it's own right, Bitcoin 0.1 would never have got off the ground, the system has been complex from the start, and it needed to be to solve the problem Satoshi set out to solve.


You're trying to talk to a world-expert on Bitcoin about the way these changes affect your emotions. Don't be surprised if no-one cares.

SegWit stores/broadcasts signature data separately from transaction data. Prior to SegWit, all of this was stored together, and I see this as two things that can potentially go wrong verses one thing that could potentially go wrong. If someone who is not using SegWit sends a transaction then the signature data will be stored along with the transaction data, adding to where fully validating nodes need to check when checking if a transaction (and block) is valid or not.

I also believe that many (maybe all) of the BIPs that have been implemented in the last medium term were implemented in order to allow for LN to be possible, including SegWit. (Yes some of the BIPs do solve other issues and are overall beneficial to Bitcoin). Based on my understanding of LN (from reading the white paper), I believe LN to be horribly complex because of the number of transactions that need to be signed in a very specific order by each party whenever one party sends BTC to another party via LN. I believe this complexity will result in wallets like electrum, multibit and armory to have bugs in them that go undetected that can result in the loss of funds by users.

That is four people out of 17 primary contributors, not to mention that there are hundreds of other people who occasionally contribute. However, only one of those 4 has commit access, and none of those 4 are project maintainers. Since those 4 are not part of the project leadership (not maintainers), they cannot be considered to "basically represent core", they can't decide the direction that Core goes in and they can't force any changes to Core that other contributors are against.

How so? By comparison of these two pages: https://bitcoincore.org/en/team/ and https://www.blockstream.com/team/ I found that 4 people work for both companies. That's dangerously high and implicating number. And that's what's shown, I believe there are more to know about happening behind the curtains.

Also, do you know about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/     That's THE most important thing you should all know about Bitcoin, in political sense.

The antagonism and misrepresentations-- things like saying core agreed, that blockstream is core, that people were planning on working on this _before_ segwit, that miners would refuse segwit (a capacity increase) unless there were some hardfork, etc-- along with F2Pool not upholding their end seem to have really demoralized most of the people involved there, and cause some loss of face in the technical community for them. They were working on some designs but I think the threats caused them to depriortize that effort. (Consider, if they post a proposal and it arms more threatening behavior, they'll take some blame for facilitating that-- and that is a situation which would be bad for the value of their Bitcoin holdings as well as their professional reputations) In effect, this work is currently pre-undermined because a large body of people won't touch it with a ten foot poll because it's tied up with intolerable behavior, and that makes it a lot less interesting to work on.

Really the biggest lesson from the earlier chapters of this debacle is that you can't convince principled people in the community with threats. Probably the worst thing that could have been done in this blocksize nonsense was running to the mass media with "Bitcoin is forking!" before even writing a BIP... The whole value prop of Bitcoin depends on Bitcoin being resistant to political coercion. Convincing people that we all have a common shared interest to cooperatively move in particular directions that benefit everyone is a strategy that works (which is why segwit itself has such broad support, that even most people that prefer other things admit that its a really good move). That works because it is a way to encourage change that, if it works, doesn't come with without too much risk of adverse change in the future.  If threats and antagonism or PR campaigns based on ignorance (Make Bitcoin Great Again!) are shown to be a successful way to enact change (even otherwise good changes), then they could be abused in the future to make bad changes (such as transaction censorship or undermining the systems' monetary policy) and that cannot be allowed to happen if Bitcoin is to remain valuable: If someone could credibly argue that in the past changes were pushed through via threatening actions by a small set of high hash-power miners this would be powerful FUD that would erode the value proposition. I think a lot of people (including a lot of big miners) are committed to avoiding that outcome.

Look like bitcoin is still the fore-runner in the blockchain technology. With such a strong team backing bitcoin, we are in good shape to face the challenges from mainstream adoption. I will update my Bitcoin-qt core tonight!

Does it feel as dirty as it appears, Carlton?

Wrong. The HK agreement was between the miners and the people who were representing themselves that they. It doesn't "clearly say" that you claim that it does. The people who had signed that agreement, "vouched" to deliver a HF proposal and code 3 months after Segwit release (there's still some time left). However, they can not force other Core members to agree or accept that proposal in any way. Blockstream does not represent Core. That is a bullshit statement.

If these features are too complex for your comprehension skills, do not generalize the statement for others. Let's all blame Core for adding very useful features and all the soft forks that were deployed so far, shall we?  


Maxwell has already voiced his disagreement with the agreement so this should be known by now. He's not the only one though (e.g. maaku).

---

I was expecting them to ruin the wonderful news.

NOTE TO WEARY TRAVELLERS: TROLL ALERT

thread is full of trolls spouting nonsense claims about the HK agreement and Segwit, all Circle^TM-jerking to back up each others trollish claims. Don't feed the trolls.

Idiot. Miners are service providers for the Bitcoin network. They order transactions for the network node and are paid _handsomely_ for this service. If they start blocking transaction features in an attempt to demand control over the system they're going to get fired. This isn't anything that I would do, it's the natural and obvious response to coercive behavior from miners, no different than any other kind of censorship activity. Many people already call for POW changes due to heavy mining centralization, so far I've fought back against those calls to promote harmony and avoid disruption, but this would be a position that would be hard to stick to in this kind of hypothetical.

But it's all moot, because that isn't what things actually look like. I talk to a LOT of miners (and, of course, I'm a miner too) and I don't expect there to actually be any issue there.

You heard it here first Jihan.

The HK agreement was a farce, and you were the mark.

if core think they can threaten users of bitcoin into taking segwit which rewrites the rules of the system, purely because they think hardforks are bad.. then atleast dont  threaten miners with... wait for it... a hard fork!!
(even you must laugh about the hypocracy)

if you think that an algorithm change (hardfork!!!!!!) is "safe" then atleast admit hardforks are possible.

its like saying you are against people owning guns, but then threatening to shoot anyone who wants a gun
its like saying you are against eating meat, but then threatening to bite off and swallowing someones ear or finger should you see they like meat
its like saying you are against immigration, but then threaten to move to another country to live in their house just to make them feel invaded

first it was bribery with the "fee discount" now its blackmail with the mining algorithm hardfork.

can you atleast see how you lot are not only hypocritical, but believe you deserve to "own" bitcoin as a sole trademark of blockstream

i get the feeling that if segwit does not succeed in a certain time frame.. blockstream wont get any round two funding or second stage released funds.
because the sidechains and other stuff that would earn their investors returns wont happen.
and its crap like this that makes bitcoin become incorporated. because decisions are based purely on corporate contracts, not community needs

this is a load of bullshit, sure we do a lot-- but mostly in contrast to the general failure of most of the Bitcoin industry to support infrastructure development. I'm not aware of any way of counting that concludes anything close to "most". There are a good hundred contributors to core, and a great many very active ones which aren't at blockstream.

Anyone talking about blocking segwit for some hardfork is would be proving the big stinking lie of any claim that they were concerned with capacity. Core can't and isn't going to respond to threatening behavior. Fortunately, that isn't really the situation here-- except in the fevered minds of the /r/btc fudsters. I'm not concerned about activation having any deployment issues. (And if is delayed by some miners, that an issue the community can take up with them. I don't consider the segwit deployment urgent.)

Blockstream has no such agreement, and it wouldn't matter if it did. (And, in fact, any effort to push such a thing would be an immediate actionable violation of my employment agreement; and trigger a parachute clause)

What do you think is increasingly complex? I think segwit makes Bitcoin simpler and safer. (though because the old things are still supported you can say there is some increase, but it seems pretty modest considering the simplicity it brings to people who are only using segwit and the number of problems it solves)

That's good news about SegWit. It's just in time to be adopted by the new independent Britain.

I still feel that a reduced block interval is more important than an increased blocksize though.

lets pretend for one minute that luke JR was not representing blockstream.
lets pretend for one minute that luke JR was not representing core.
lets for one minute forget that he was sitting right next to adam back.
lets for one minute forget that he was funded by adam back.

lets also forget that it wasnt some random street hustler invited to the round table, but someone who should be there because they contribute to bitcoin.
lets also forget that it wasnt some vacation,

but instead lets just treat Luke JR as a sole independant human being who signed a document to say he would add a hard fork to the next release.. and signed his personal reputation in favour of doing it.

and simply ask.. without debating core or blockstream
has luke jr wrote any code that integrates a hardfork along with segwit..

the answer is no..
and so the round table agreement is useless and it seems "coders" are ignoring miners desires.
and so the round table might aswell have just been called a "paid vacation" where the agreement has no relevance to a roadmap, but just some bureacratic piece of paper so they can declare their costs as business costs to make their vacation cheap/free, (for tax write-off purposes)

lets not get too stuck on what "title" luke Jr announced or denounced himself as. But instead get stuck with this simple fact, there simply is no code.. which speaks louder than anything else

I am not quite sure what you are talking about. Anypool asked for an increase of the max block size to 2 MB as part of the HK roundtable, and I believe they have supported larger increases in the max block size in the past. Also Antpool's share of the network hashrate is closer to 17% and a substantial portion of that 17% is from cloud miners that they are hosing for their customers that cannot be moved from Antpool.

Also segwit is unlikely to achieve an effective increase up to anywhere near the 1.8MB that is being promised because such increase will require people to actively update their wallet to something that uses segwit.

I disagree with this. Blockstream employs many core devs, and what the core devs have been proposing for a long time now have aligned with exactly with what will most financially benefit blockstream. I would say that it would probably be more accurate to say that core represents blockstream though.

Again this is backwards. The HK agreement said that the miners will agree to run SegWit in production once there is a HF merged into core that increases the maximum block size up to 2MB. I also don't think that the miners will continue to run run/support SegWit (with the empathizes on support) if a HF that increases the max block size does not activate.

I disagree with this in principle. The blockstream core devs are introducing additional features into Bitcoin that are increasingly complex, and have plans for additional features that are substantially more complex. As we saw with the DAO debacle, when you have very complex code, the room for error is very large, and there was literally millions of dollars that were literally sitting around for the taking for months before anyone exploited the problems in the ETH code.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I was fairly concerned about them running into a capacity cliff and bleeding into ETH or something… but that DAO hack + bailout fork was a godsend… an arguably insurmountable crisis for the next biggest competitor.

The good news… this buys some time. Hopefully Core reluctantly, but in good faith, holds up their side of the HF for 2017 bargain… segwit activates first, which allows a good amount of time (full year) for the vast majority of full nodes to upgrade, leading to a seamless HF in latter 2017. More utility for BTC, and a bigger base for interesting and necessary alternate scaling solutions like thunder and lightning.