Topic: SegWit is cancelled ? (Read 2855 times)

This is the game theory nonsense that was supposed to justify a certain HF. While they might be able to prevent a HF for a while (keep in mind that the miners are able to switch pools) it is in their best interest not do so if everyone agrees with it.

You have looked at nothing relevant. The people that have signed the agreement haven't really voiced themselves much besides Luke-jr, who was trying to gather information as to what would be acceptable in the HF.

There was never any guarantee of the price going high (even though it is much higher ATM than late 2015). You only have a bunch of people with primary school knowledge of economics predicting pretty much any random number (example).

Right now there are two pools have ~>24% of the network hashrate, and three additional pools have ~>10% of the network hashrate. The threshold that I propose prevents any one entity from being able to veto a HF. Do you think that any one person (or an entity) should have the power to veto a HF?

Please note that several groups of people would need to be in 75%-80% of agreement, and it would not be 75%-80% of the miners alone. 75%-80% of the miners would need to agree, as well as 75%-80% of the major economic companies, and 75%-80% of other major stake holders.
I have looked at the facts and have come to that conclusion. To me, it has always been clear that a serious proposal to HF the network to raise the maximum block size will never be released. Based on what AntPool is saying, they will not support SegWit without a HF, and AntPool will most likely be able to prevent SegWit from activating. 

I think this struggle is going to continue for coming months and even years. This will be the biggest challenge of bitcoin development and once it is solved we should see a smoother sail. This is also why the price has not been moving up even with the reward halving just round the corner.

If it isnt going to arrive and work before halving, we might see bitcoin strangling with demand closer and just after halving, when more ppl are expected to buy and sell btc. Blocks area already full as of writing this (https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/), people start complaining about delays more and more.

I would say that the chosen threshold is dangerously low.

Says who? There are certain people that are still working on the proposal and there is still enough time. Actually, anyone could make a decent HF proposal that would have parameters that most Core contributor would not instantly reject (e.g. low consensus period; low grace period), but people here prefer complaining.

This deserve an entry in the book of the most ridiculous statements regarding software development. Underlying logic: If project is taking much time ⇒ project is killed.  

I'm understanding you so well! It isn't cancelled but it's taking so much time that an average person is forced to think that the whole thing has been killed. I'm not expecting it before the halving.

It is also why I think it is a bad idea to say that we need a "super duper" 99% majority of every type of Bitcoin stakeholder to agree to a change in order to implement a HF, and call this "consensus". This is going to result in absolutely nothing ever getting done, and will only result in uncertainty. There are simply too many potential entities that can veto any HF proposal. It would be much better to define "consensus" as a majority of each stakeholder-types have a super majority of similar entities agree to a HF, and have it be so that not even a single stake-holder type can veto a HF proposal. For example, "consensus" would be better defined (in the context of Bitcoin) as being 75%-80% of major economic companies, minor economic companies, miners, bitcoin experts, ect, and that no one of these groups can veto a HF (so if the miners do not like a HF, but everyone else does, then tough luck).

It looks like to me that we are not getting even a HF proposal to raise the maximum block size (let alone an actual maximum block size increase) - not that this was ever going to happen, and nor will we get SegWit. Unfortunately I would not be surprised if some alternative to Bitcoin comes along that is scalable.

That's why statements similar to the statement from the person that I've quoted are ridiculous. They are (usually) backed up by nothing.

Seems like things are going in the right direction. Not.

Bingo

Unfortunately it is impossible (or nearly impossible) to measure the "majority" in bitcoinland. There is simply too diverse of a population of stakeholders to possibly be able to accurately be able to poll all of them, in addition to the fact that the various stakeholders of Bitcoin may have competing interests and may not be in line with the best interests of Bitcoin. Some stakeholders may not even own nor use Bitcoin currently.

I would personally opine that major economic companies (collectively, not individually) should be the ones who decide if a HF (or features for a potential HF) should be adopted, as they ultimately are the ones who give bitcoin it's value and they are the ones who can best measure the opinions of Bitcoin users (as if several large of their customers are in favor of, or opposed to a certain proposal they would know, and they would be able to easily filter out sockpuppet type opinions because they can easily measure by transaction volume). I would also say that the opinions of the miners should be given fairly strong weight due to the fact that (as of now) they have invested heavily in what is essentially the success of Bitcoin and their best interests are generally going to be in line with that of Bitcoin.

I would say that it looks like that they figured out that Blockstream et al. doesn't have any intention of actually delivering a HF that increases the maximum block size, and they want to be sure that they will not get tricked into giving Blockstream et al. what they wanted and not get what they bargained for in the end.

It isn't neither delayed nor 'buggy' at this point either. I don't recall anyone 'promising' a merge in April.

Agreed,

Who the hell wants a delayed, buggy segwit at this stage.

Exactly how did you measure this "majority"? Please enlighten me.

You may still for it. NOt everyone wants SW as soft fork:
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753

Easy to fix. Majority wants the entire package incl HF, so it will be done w/o any real issues.

Leads to reunion and peace.

Happy days

That is definitely not a position that one would enjoy being in.

I wouldn't call them facts.

Welcome to Drama-Land, where instead of trying to push forward, we try to keep stalling. I'm now curious as to how this one is going to play out.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753

Thanks for those facts.

I really dont get the logic - how could a HF be in the roadmap  and is soooo dangerous right now? How will this 'HF fear' be eased and selled in 2017?


BTW:  THE  HF  is already in the making.  The comunity is hard forked and btc forked  into eth ....

Fees are higher now, yes - but if peace & adoption & price would be higher, miners would be happier.

Happy days!

my first scenario(2016) was under the guise of pools processing segwit in 2016 like the original promise was (plan pre-roundtable)
.. after all many thought that all this soft fork promises meant that people could see segwit blocks on mainnet this summer...
.. remember those funny days when blockstreamers said softforks didnt need network consensus as they were 100% compatible and perfect..
..
my second scenario(2017) was under the guise of pools processing segwit only when a HF is also active (plan post round table)

Agreed.