Topic: SegWit2MB The Forking Compromise (Read 1468 times)

Yup.  Me, too.  It was 3-8 times daily. Now, it's zero.  In fact, I used my bank for the first time in a long time, for an internet purchase, today because I didn't want to add $6-8 to purchase a tree.


IMO, that's because you use bitcoin.

I don't want segwit.  i would much rather have bigger blocks.   And I use bitcoin many times a week.

How is it different than Ripple of 2004? Aside from the fact that it has Bitcoin under it?

I usually have a question for people who want SegWit.  How many transactions do you have per day? The answer is always the same "zero" ... maybe once a month. Currency vs. Commodity. 

Yeah i feel you...but i would accept it because right now Bitcoin is getting slaughtered in terms of usability.  And a hard fork would be good to good to shake the development up.

No we already have a better solution - softfork Segwit.

Agree.

Do you need to comment in order to vote?

I think this was the agreement reached over a year ago.  Core went ahead with SegWit and a "1MB is law" mentality.  Discussions began on a thread here to continue increasing block sizes, as had been done the previous X years, which led to Bitcoin Unlimited.

After seeing the warning sign on my LiteCoin Core node about unknown rules and learning about Ripple in 2004, I am not convinced about SegWit in the real $$$ matter.  I have am running core, but moved out my $LTC to Jaxx until the warning goes away.

In theory, cool!  It's also cool to think about tethering our cell phones, like Lightning, but for some reasons it hasn't worked and we have cell towers. SegWit is placing an old idea on top of a revolutionary technology, in my current opinion.  My opinion does change.

For anyone not paying attention, miners want LN. However, Bitmain Antpool miners don't want SegWit or any improvement that changes the coinbase so they can't use their exploit.

I somewhat agree to a part of the LN skepticism and don't want to see it to be the main method to transact in the Bitcoin network, at least if the outcome is a "centralized" variant with few large hubs. But a decentralized LN is not impossible: In your scenario, smaller nodes that would like to profit from routing would be forced to be content with a very small fee to compete with large hubs. And I think there will be a growing proportion of 24/7 connected nodes in the future (smartphones, home servers, raspberry nodes with pruned blockchains, etc.). So I will wait and see what happens, then I will give my final opinion on LN


Agree, but I think there will never be an obligation to use it. You simply couldn't force it. I think there will always be attractive alternatives.


OK, if you like. But the side/drivechains I mean (like RSK) would be two-way-pegged altcoins, so they would not be diluting Bitcoin's value/price.

That are only "problems" because "altcoin" is a kind of insult . Otherwise, it's simply a "sharding" solution.


Where would there be a problem? Wouldn't that be even good, so the main chain could become light and small?

NODES flag what they can cope with.. so pools actually do stay within some limit. but that limit is adjustable BY THE NETWORK consensus OF NODE CAPABILTY not by devs wearing crowns screaming "thou shall not pass"

secondly core are the ones wanting only their implementation to be the upstream of a TIER network. but then dilte the node count
with a cesspit of downstream nodes that are not relaying certain tx's not abl to sync to each other due to being "stripped" "prunned" etc

thirdly only core are the ones with the crazy banning, mandatory activations and PoW nuke threats. meaning no matter what consensus is, no matter if pools see passed the empty promise, cor will not ask themselves what they could do better to med community need. they just want their tier network.

LN 'could be' decentralised, but playing out scenario's it will become more hub based not spoke based. even if people dream of spoke based due to greed of hoping they get paid. the hope of them getting paid vs spenders paying more to pay each router is the very reason spenders will choose hubs, to avoid paying 5 fee's to route it through 6 people for example

secondly even then LN is not permissionless, due to dual signing of multisigs.

thirdly nothing against LN as a VOLUNTARY side service, but thinking its the only end solution, pfft.

fourthly. side/drive chains are also known as altcoins. so kind of funny for a few reasons:
1. "scaling bitcoin= move people to an altcoin"
2. "bitcoin cant scale but sidechain altcoin can".. strange how they would be happy to have an altcoin with a dynamic block. but not bitcoin
3. think about the node count once people move over to the sidechain/alt that decide never to return to bitcoin

"Decentralization" doesn't belong to one of the antagonic groups. Both are trying to solve a centralization risk.

As of now, however, my opinion is that the BU approach has more centralization risks, because it depends very much on a strong internet bandwidth growth and a fast storage/technology evolution. LN, on the other hand, depends on connectivity or "internet stability" (it is potentially more decentralized if more nodes are online 24/7). But other 2nd layer solutions like extension blocks and side/drivechains don't depend on neither of the two. That's why I'm tending to affirm that "da truth(TM)" is closer to Core's concept.

@OP: Wondering why participation in your poll is so low? There is already another poll about exactly the same solution. It was started much earlier than Sergio's proposal was delivered, because the concept is already a while around here.

FTFY

It seems that in almost all of these threads, there is a group of 'individuals' that are anti-Segwit and subversively praising BU (whilst claiming to be pro-decentralization). Where is Jonald in this thread?

Stop with this false narrative already.

SegWit 2MB

There we go, much better. 


 

moving the goalpost is just doing nothing more than delaying another DEV control debate later on when 2mb needs to move again and the community pleading to devs to push the boat out again.

if dvs are going to do a hard change to 2mb.. make it dynamic so USERS at runtime can go into an options and set a limit which is then shown in their useragent to then be used as a poll for pools to see the users preferences are.

EG nodes have a speed test that says 2017: 8mb is safe. but 2mb is super safe.. users nodes flag 2mb..(some flag 3mb some flag 1.5).. but majority are at 2mb..
thus pools pools go up in increments from 1mb to 2mb in smallers 0.25mb allotments(less or more) testing and looking out for bugs/orphan risks. much like the rise from 1kb-1mb. which although the rule was 1mb. pools prefered 0.25mb increments.
meaning pools stay below what nodes big rule is(8mb) and below the majority of small rule(preference)

thus can be done by using
consensus.h for the big rule of speed tests that can be added to a node (eg 2017 8mb)
policy.h for the small DYNAMIC/user preference rule(eg ~2mb)

however just kicking a mile stone down the road is just going to end up with sore feet trying to get dev's to do something.
it needs to be decentralised and not reliant on devs decision/control.

Pure bullshit BU propaganda you are spewing here. Bitcoin Core is not trying to change the fundamentals of Bitcoin, they are trying to keep them. And your SegWit complaints are just ridiculous, you don't seem to understand what it does and how it works at all. Pretty much everyone who does understand SegWit is very positive about it.

I like it. It brings the community together. Combine the power of bigger blocks and SegWit sounds better to me than only SegWit or only BU. We must accept a hardfork at december 14. Its not bad for bitcoin when the forked coin dies. Bitcoin has to keep the 21 mln coins philosophy. Why cant we just accept that bitcoin is a mess rightnow lol. Lets fix it and than we moon. I rather moon with a stronger better healty bitcoin that will likely stay there than a bitcoin with technical ill bitcoin with a devided community what results i a pump and dump bitcoin. We need to fix it. Its just one more step in the adoption process.

You do realize BTC started at 1kb block size and has worked up to 1MB, suddenly a business group of developers with a clever name "Bitcoin Core", are trying to change the fundamentals of Bitcoin. SegWit is a layer 2 bootstrap on how it behaves *on top* of existing BTC.  This bootstrapping can change payment methods in both positive and, potentially, nefarious ways.  It makes transactions less secure by removing them from the blockchain.

I don't like it. We should do SegWit first and then first see how the network handles bigger blocks and only then decide based on the new data how we are going to plan ahead with a possible future HF. This is the only logical and sensible thing to do, we can't compromise security for political reasons.