Topic: Segregated Witness vs Bitcoin Unlimited vs Do Nothing - page 3. (Read 3117 times)

Well, the possibility for it to mutate is there: 95% hashrate agreement. Thought luck with that as we all know.

What are the alternatives? UASF, as we also know, can lead to a chain split, which can be a disaster for the price, but maybe it's our only way out from Jihan's monopoly.
We are assuming that the rest of the miners don't rebel against the PoW change and start mining BUcoin tho... so don't count victory.

It's a extremely tricky situation. I wish that we could at least get segwit, then LN. But even after we get LN, we would need eventual blocksize increases, otherwise optionally doing onchain transactions would be impossible, and LN functionality itself I assume would suffer eventually, without said blocksize increase.

Unfortunately, none of the "flexible blocksize" proposals work, so we will see situations like this every X years.

My best to worse choices are:
SW
Any other idea to resolve block size
Do nothing
BW

We will have to do something sooner or later, because without resolving this issue large worldwide acceptance cannot happen, but BW is not the answer. Bw is a commercial move to fill pockets of a few already wealthy individuals.

There's immutable and then there's ossified. Many people would be more comfortable with something immutable that had capacity baked in. Then it's welcome to be as immutable as fuck.

Doing nothing is as valid of an option as the next thing. Some people value the immutability of bitcoin as a very attractive feature, specially if you intend to use bitcoin as a long term store of value where you expect the price going up.

Sure, I want to see bitcoin with segwit and lightning network to enable instant payments and see bitcoin getting used in over the counter real life situations, but other people don't care about scaling bitcoin, they just want it to be as immutable as possible. Lack of consensus may lead us into a split tho, and hodlers shouldn't have that on their plans.

The " Do Nothing " crowd has to make up their damn mind and stop sitting on the wire like a bunch of cowards. Taking a position that would not

take us forward is going to hurt Bitcoin more than what they might think SegWit or BU would do. We need some sort of scaling solution or Bitcoin

will die or be replaced by a technology that can scale. { No scaling = RIP Bitcoin } 

Wrong. When asked, all major players rejected BU and want segwit.

Wang Chung recently started signaling for segwit with his f2pool, this resulted in a clear uptrend to $1,200, so I don't see how anyone that isn't delusional isn't seeing the positive connection of segwit on the price.

Please realize that no amount of posts will change this reality: Segwit up: price up. All major players except Jihan: support segwit.

im laughing at billybob
trying to mix litecoin with bitcoin results to confuse the numbers.. funny

trying to say there are actually 100k nodes when a more reliable metric is bitnodes which has ~7000
and sipa (segwit main guys) block stats http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png ~68% say no/abstain

1. bitcoin: 68% of blocks and 36% of nodes say no/abstain
where by even then you dont know if the 'yays' are explicit 'yays' or fabricated 'yays' just to avoid DDoS/hacks by hiding as 'yays'

2. assuming that its all down to 1-2 guys causing it...... (facepalm)

if you think that DDoSing isnt happening

Hashing support for segwit goes up, price goes up:



Most relevant actors in the field reject BU and support segwit:



https://medium.com/@21/using-21-to-survey-blockchain-personalities-on-the-bitcoin-hard-fork-1953c9bcb8ed

Most nodes support segwit:





Only a fool would go against this objective reality. Miners that aren't yet signaling for segwit (basically Jihan only with his various pools) are proving to go against:

1) All experts
2) All relevant actors
3) The market
4) Basically all nodes (nobody support BU software)

Miners that are still not signaling for segwit (basically Jihan only with his various pools) are against Bitcoin going to the next level.

Miners that are supporting BU want to see the market crash, thus are enemies of Bitcoin.

The fact that a couple of chinese state-sponsored mining monopolies (basically Jihan only with his various pools) get to stop the rest of the Bitcoin ecosystem is ridiculous.

its about knowing that 8mb is network safe. blockstream know it.
but blockstream want to control things by spoonfeeding.
since 2015 there has been
2017-03-08 - Bitcoin Core version 0.14.0 released
2017-01-03 - Bitcoin Core version 0.13.2 released
2016-10-27 - Bitcoin Core version 0.13.1 released
2016-08-23 - Bitcoin Core version 0.13.0 released
2016-04-15 - Bitcoin Core version 0.12.1 released
2016-02-23 - Bitcoin Core version 0.12.0 released

and even then there is a v0.14.1 coming soon.
and even if segwit gets activated. EVERYONE wanting segwit needs to download yet another version after activation just to get to 'opt-in' to the new keypairs just to get the voluntary disarming themself feature that blockstream used to call a 'fix'.
yep its not a network wide fix its just a voluntary dis-armourment/amnesty, which funnily enough only the innocent people not spamming would opt-in for anyway. thus solving nothing.

if blockstream just recognised in 2015 what the community wanted and done a 8mb single merkle version(consensus.h) where by the nodes could voluntarily say 'i prefer 2mb'(policy.h and useragent display)
then the pools follow the voluntary blocksize preference..

we would have a true single merkle block that was most definetly under 8mb size and dynamically growing at what the majority preferred of say 2mb and grows based on user settings at runtime. without the need of wasting 3 years and atleast 7 different downloads required

get it yet
7 downloads with unachievable hopes of 100% of people move the 46m UTXO to segwit keys to get the estimated upto 2mb 2merkle klusterf*ck of a tier network. which is going to be kept pushing right up until 2019

vs
something that could have been done properly last year that by now would have got high percentage community united around for a healthy peer network

Because SegWit is unnecessary and frankly, shitty software.

Why can't we have both larger blocks as well as SegWit? Is it not possible for miners to signal both?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't really care how, I just know something has to happen to allow scaling. Bitcoin can't grow without more users, and it can't have more users if it can't handle more transactions.
Blocks are full for at least 6 months now. "They" are trying to have a power-battle now, instead of doing a scaling-discussion in the background while at the same time increasing blocks to 2 MB to take the pressure off.

I accept 16MB blocks, so why wouldn't it work? If they generated an 8MB block, my home PC would validate it in seconds, in the background while I'm gaming.

BU isn't losing anything. They've been sitting around 38% and haven't gone down. None of this was unexpected. When I first read about bitcoin in 2011, I figured the day would come when the banking elite would start buying up bitcoin infrastructure (mining) in order to control it, thus skyrocketing the price. AXA/Bilderberg funded Blockstream and their affiliates are largely responsible for the popularity and market cap of bitcoin and many alts. Thank them for making us all money.

What they failed to realize is that even if they had succeeded with taking over Bitcoin, they would just have to do the same thing over again with the next coin, making us all more money. They're fighting a losing battle, all because they know they are worthless without control over the money supply and they are scared to death of losing that control.

I always wondered why we still have (beside SegWit, bitcoin unlimited  and undecided miners) another option signaled: 8 MB blocks.
What BW Pool is thinking? This option is totally, not going to work, it is condemned to fail. They know it, we know it. Then Why?

That may have been an option, but for a reason I don't know they labelled this approach "unsafe", from what I know (afaik they labelled all >1MB approaches unsafe).


I don't understand why you are so happy. BU is losing percents every day that passes. Of course, not enough to ever help SegWit, but this means BU is (also) doomed...
Did you diversify into alts?

Why would they? Their hubris was counted on to doom them from the beginning. If they had just raised the blocksize a little they may have gotten SegWit, but now that opportunity is gone forever. Ha Ha!

What they should've done is stuck to that mythical 2mb + Segwit agreement that wasn't an agreement or whatever it was. Things would be rosier than a rosy thing by now.

SegWit can never succeed because there will always be miners who are against it, and SegWit will never survive a BTC fork.

It's a waste of time to debate. The only question is how long until we start mining bigger blocks.

Bitcoin, since I learned about it 6 years ago, has shown just how incompetent the powers of the world have become - dependent on their monopoly on money creation. I spend way too much time enjoying the nonstop-worthless-shilling on behalf of AXA/Bilderberg funded Blockstream that displays how mindless their followers have become and how desperate and ignorant 'our rulers' have become in their ivory castles.

In a nutshell, its so fun watching you people lose  

P.S.: Hey Henri de Castries, how about spending another $75 million? Definitely helps my portfolio. Ha Ha, Greg failed you.

Although I don't agree with you on BU matter (I think that we need something better than just increase the block size), you are right on this. Somehow they should be more receptive to what the community wants.
And if what the community wants is stupid (since most don't know nor care of the internals) they should invest more time explaining and debating.
And time is something they actually have now, since we are far from the % needed for any of the sides.

...unless...
..Unless they are baking something else. I don't know. Maybe they are testing other approaches too and don't tell. Maybe they will come up with something much better than the actual SegWit and the actual BU ideas. But that's wishful thinking, I know.

Back on track: now it should be the time to discuss more; to explain for everybody want to read (again and again, I know, but maybe packed different) all the small details that makes SegWit the approach they went for.



iamnotback came with an interesting idea (although it was on a LTC related discussion). Maybe all this "war" is just a "divide et impera" game to keep the coin prices from exploding, before the right guys buy in and accumulated the amounts they planned for.

Here we go again from troll, noob and paid shill Franky1. As usual bla bla bla bla bla bla bla BULLSHIT!