Topic: SegWit yay or nay? come vote here. - page 4. (Read 7400 times)

lol those running full nodes are wanting the information about the network .. and they deserve to know.

yea a couple million litenode/webwallet average joe users dont need to know because they have no intention to secure the network. but that does not mean sweeping things under the carpet and hiding the truth with wishy washy meaningless buzzwords to confuse people.



oh lauda.. havnt you seen the other plan.. intentionally blacklist known block producers to make sgwit nodes only see blocks from sgwit supporters to get the 95% trigger.

EG ban connections from old implementations to only get 2016 blocks from pools with new implementations and trigger the grace period as soon as it hits 1916 blocks.

in short cause an intentional split to get the soft fork activated..

---

separate subject. after activation when the real segwit fully functional implementation (p2wpkh wallet generation active) how many old nodes will you white list as your downstreamer? 1% 10% 0% or will you not be picky and allow any connection to connect..

be honest i have seen on other topics you have a keen interest in your node ban lists. so we both know you understand the concept

Im missing blockstream ... its the genesisblock of all evil  

Rule Nr1 for r/btc consiratists, somehow mention blockstream in a bad context. Logic is not necessary.

And there it is. Please include the Rothschilds  

You shouldn't burder the average Joe with in depth technicalities. It will not bring benefit of any sorts.

'Considerably fewer'? I'm certain that the 'luck factor' isn't that great to a specific miner or subset of miners in such a big period of time.

exaggerating what i have said to such an extent that you make yourself look silly instead of showing proof that gmaxwell isnt actually trying to change things.

how about try reading things rationally and logically.
oh and please dont throw in the "gigabyte by midnight" rhetoric as thats more scripted exaggerations of r/bitcoin.. the real conspiracy makers

gmaxwell is part of the new world order and he controll the internett..
franky1's conspiracy theories incomming in 3..2...1 

Not accurate.  It activates when 95% of the last 2016 blocks include a SEGWIT support signal.  This does not require 95% miner support.  It requires support from the miners who mined those 1916 blocks.  This could be considerably fewer than 95% of all miners, and could be significantly less than 95% of all hashrate.  There is luck involved in finding blocks.

standard sweep it under the carpet statement...
(facepalm)

OP you do realize that running a poll, where random people with zero knowledge can vote and vote brigading can occur is really pointless? It won't provide you with any kind of valid results, not even for this small community of BTCT.

You can't split a blockchain with a successful and backwards compatible soft fork. It will only activate when 95% of the miners are signaling for a certain period of time.

If fully adopted by the network and wallet providers, it won't make any visible difference to the average user. If the user does not know about thing like CSV, CLTV and similar, they don't need to concren themselves with the technical details of Segwit.

Posting this here so a bunch of people with paid signatures can answer with short meaningless replies.

I totally agree with SegWit since it offers advantage for many of us, but we must make sure there won't be any blockchain split and make sure all nodes/miners ready for SegWit.
Also, someone needs to explain about SegWit for regular users to prevent misunderstanding.

i have actually tried being unbiased.. and done such


highlighting the fact that old nodes drop/ignore uncomfirmd transactions.

and the fact that there are full(Segwit) and stripped(old) block versions of the same block data..

the network connections of nodes is affected to ensure less issues (this is swept under the carpet). so i done this.


please note
the not 100% node utility and not 100% whitelisting old nodes, change how the network dymanics look.
and
about transaction count
not 100% segwit key use, changes how much expectation/achievement of the actual one time boost of transaction count is actually reached.

~7% are BU supporting whether they realise it or not.. yep 7% implicitly, but an unknown number below 7% explicitly.
the difference between implicit and explicit terms is that some people upgrade just because they see something new and shiny but dont understand whats 'under the hood'. so its not ~7% full knowledge explicit desire. it's less...

no, because i do not like that place much. i don't like /r/bitcoin much either but it is a lot better than the other one.

but feel free to share, or even open up a new Poll here or on some other source like strawpoll or google polls if you think this is not good enough.

Im not very sure about agreeing to segwit or not. What I know that if segwit is approved it will boost the bitcoin blockchain capacity compared to the current blockchain capacity. This will signal much bigger blocksize and much faster bitcoin transaction speed. But the problem lies on the votation of miners since it need to get at least 95% of the miners population to officially launched this network. So lastly I will not say yes or no but observed as of this moment.

mhm.. yea core are stupidly going for the most foolish 'dynamic' method they can, as a way to turn people away from wanting it.

its like going up to a starving man with food you know he wants.. then rubbing the food between your a*scrack and handing it to him. and when he refuses to eat it, because you have only offered uneatable food .. you can scream to the world that starving people are not starving. because they refused your food.

they are desperate to keep onchain scaling halted, so are suggesting a dynamic method with market cap penalising code just to scare people away from wanting it. (people are smart enough to stick away from such stupid methods like this)

then claim "people dont want it", rather than offering a clean straight forward natural, non penalising dynamic method which people do want.
 

---

/Satoshi:0.13.1/   1512 (26.84%)
/Satoshi:0.13.2/   1165 (20.68%)
/Satoshi:0.13.99/   116 (2%)

~50% are segwit supporting whether they realise it or not.. yep 50% implicitly, but an unknown number below 50% explicitly.
the difference between implicit and explicit terms is that some people upgrade just because they see something new and shiny but dont understand whats 'under the hood'. so its not ~50% full knowledge explicit desire. it's less
the other 35% you are mentioning above ~50% are undecided. yep even if they love core. they have not decided yet or they oppose segwit. by not upgrading
(try understanding the context of stats)

---

kind of funny, i have actually in many topics highlighted the tech, explained it in laymans ELI-5 and shown the finer details that others sweep under the rug or word twisted with buzzwords to hide its importance or meaning. but as soon as i mention a persons name... its treated as attacking their king and thus they must defend bad implementation to protect the king. even if they dont understand the implementation.

gotta love blockstream fans playing the victim card, especially after poking the bear first

That would be utterly pathetic

I guess if Litecoin adopts SegWit (and LN soon thereafter), it will be hard for Bitcoin to follow its lead since that would show in the open that it has no panties how corrupt and backward Bitcoin itself is, after so many disputes, debates, and quarrels. On the other hand, it will be more interesting to see how these updates will eventually affect the adoption and price of Litecoin. If everything is okay with updating Litecoin to SW and LN, this can't possibly have a negative effect but how much it could boost the price remains to be seen, though. So we should just watch Litecoin closely as it reacts on the news linked to the actual implementation of these proposals

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
Discuss the merits of SegWit, not who the lead developer's baby momma's sister had a beef with last weekend. Technical merits, not gossiping about people.

Quote from: franky1 on January 23, 2017, 05:04:22 PM

...
funny part is that all the other 70 differ versions (dozen different brands) are all running on bitcoins mainnet now, and for a long time and not causing issues.

85% of nodes are Core (https://coin.dance/nodes). The biggest alternative has only 7%.

Quote from: franky1 on January 23, 2017, 05:04:22 PM

...
those in r/bitcoin point the finger in the other direction when saying a proposal they want.. to make them look like the victim and gain sympathy.
they are the ones playing the psychology games. they are the ones that want dominance not everyone on the same equal playing field.
they are the ones desiring centralised commercial services.

95% of /r/bitcoin posts have nothing to do with scaling. They're about "Oo look I started selling cookies for Bitcoin" and occasionally news about ETF's and regulations pertaining to cryptocurrencies being passed.

Quote from: franky1 on January 23, 2017, 05:04:22 PM

i feel sorry for those in r/bitcoin being handed scripts to follow and handed the same scripts by dozens of people to make it seem like its real because more then one person is saying it to them.

if only those at r/bitcoin didnt just play follow the leader games and instead actually read the code and looked passed all the buzzword games that are thrown at them by the script writers.

Quote from: franky1 on January 23, 2017, 05:04:22 PM

seems more people are screaming im fud because i mention gmaxwells name. rather than about why or what im actually saying about his plans and desires.

gmaxwell puts code on the internet. You can accept it or reject it, your choice. Nobody's putting a gun to your head and forcing you to run Bitcoin Core (yet 85% choose to do this, the vast majority apparently).


tl;dr - 85% of Bitcoin users voluntarily have chosen to use Bitcoin Core over alternatives. Most of those people don't give a fuck about who gmaxwell is or what he says.

The issue with a dynamic blocksize, following a model similar to that of Monero, in Bitcoin is that there is eventually no incentive for the miners as the base reward falls. The reason the dynamic blocksize works in Monero is that Monero has a minimum base reward of 0.6 XMR per block. A rough equivalent in Bitcoin would be 3 XBT per block in perpetuity. Fees have little or no impact on mining security in Monero. They are actually there to control the blocksize increase and deter spam attacks. So unless one is prepared to violate the 21 million XBT maximum limit, I am afraid there may be little that the Monero project may be able to offer Bitcoin on blocksize scaling.

What I must strongly caution against is taking elements of Monero's dynamic blocksize, with critical security components removed, and expecting them to work in Bitcoin. This I am afraid can easily lead to disaster.

Edit: The total fees per block in Monero are actually set to be proportional to the block reward. Think about this when combined with a block reward that falls to zero over time.

Segwit will not be activated in Bitcoin so the big blockers have nothing to be afraid of. One interesting development is in Litecoin. It might be a big possibility that Segwit will be activated there and soon they will have their own version of the Lightning Network. Can one now say that Litecoin is more advanced than Bitcoin if Segwit is activated and they have their LN operational? Will Bitcoin see the light and follow their example?