The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 15.

Dr Bloggood

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: ComputerGenie on July 17, 2017, 11:24:40 AM

Quote from: Dr Bloggood on July 17, 2017, 11:17:59 AM

Quote from: ComputerGenie on July 17, 2017, 10:55:52 AM

Allow me to paraphrase Luke Dashjr and confuse you even more Tongue

:
People are only pushing for SegWit2x, and the early adoption of SegWit, in order to delay the adoption of SegWit. Roll Eyes

Hm, yes, if confusing me was the goal, you achieved it... Huh

Welcome to the debate and the arguments made in it. Grin

Thank you very much! Grin

ComputerGenie

hero member

Activity: 1092

Merit: 552

Retired IRCX God

Quote from: Dr Bloggood on July 17, 2017, 11:17:59 AM

Quote from: ComputerGenie on July 17, 2017, 10:55:52 AM

Allow me to paraphrase Luke Dashjr and confuse you even more Tongue

:
People are only pushing for SegWit2x, and the early adoption of SegWit, in order to delay the adoption of SegWit. Roll Eyes

Hm, yes, if confusing me was the goal, you achieved it... Huh

Welcome to the debate and the arguments made in it. Grin

Dr Bloggood

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: ComputerGenie on July 17, 2017, 10:55:52 AM

Quote from: Dr Bloggood on July 17, 2017, 10:49:40 AM

Genuine question: Can somebody explain what the problem is?

I thought far above 80% had announced to support SegWit2x already. So it seems like everything will go smoothly, and the problem will be solved soon.

I'm not a newbie, but I don't understand the fine print here. And I'm sure a lot less knowledgeable people are reading this. So maybe one of you super-educated bitcoiners could explain.

Allow me to paraphrase Luke Dashjr and confuse you even more Tongue

:
People are only pushing for SegWit2x, and the early adoption of SegWit, in order to delay the adoption of SegWit. Roll Eyes

Hm, yes, if confusing me was the goal, you achieved it... Huh

mindrust

legendary

Activity: 3276

Merit: 2442

Quote from: allinvain on July 17, 2017, 09:47:22 AM

Quote from: -ck on July 17, 2017, 09:31:08 AM

One by one the pools are starting to solve BIP91 blocks so there is no sign of any of them pulling out now. This of course doesn't mean they're running the btc1 branch as there is a popular BIP91 only branch available too that has only the segwit component of segwit2x...

That would bring a tear of joy to my eyes! If we can have just SegWit without the hard fork it would be amazing. Then later on if _EVERYONE_ is on board with a hard fork without any drama I'm cool with that. BUT it would have to have the support of the Bitcoin Core team.

From my understanding, nobody can force nobody to have 2mb forks. So no matter which BIP you run, as long as It supports segwit, you get it. That includes, BIP91,148,141 and whatever. After we get segwit, bitcoinABC'ers, BTC1'ers, BU'ers and any other filth will be hardforking themselves to their own altcoin.

And we'll live in peace.

BitcoinNewsMagazine

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1164

Quote from: -ck on July 17, 2017, 09:31:08 AM

One by one the pools are starting to solve BIP91 blocks so there is no sign of any of them pulling out now. This of course doesn't mean they're running the btc1 branch as there is a popular BIP91 only branch available too that has only the segwit component of segwit2x...

Yes I am following BIP91 blocks at https://www.xbt.eu/ good resource

williamuk

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: ComputerGenie on July 17, 2017, 10:52:42 AM

Quote from: williamuk on July 17, 2017, 10:45:12 AM

Is this for real, this forum is censored???

AFAIK, this is the least censored public venue where pro-Core folks write/post/moderate.

Ok thanks for explaining

ComputerGenie

hero member

Activity: 1092

Merit: 552

Retired IRCX God

Quote from: Dr Bloggood on July 17, 2017, 10:49:40 AM

Genuine question: Can somebody explain what the problem is?

I thought far above 80% had announced to support SegWit2x already. So it seems like everything will go smoothly, and the problem will be solved soon.

I'm not a newbie, but I don't understand the fine print here. And I'm sure a lot less knowledgeable people are reading this. So maybe one of you super-educated bitcoiners could explain.

Allow me to paraphrase Luke Dashjr and confuse you even more Tongue

:
People are only pushing for SegWit2x, and the early adoption of SegWit, in order to delay the adoption of SegWit. Roll Eyes

ComputerGenie

hero member

Activity: 1092

Merit: 552

Retired IRCX God

Quote from: williamuk on July 17, 2017, 10:45:12 AM

Is this for real, this forum is censored???

AFAIK, this is the least censored public venue where pro-Core folks write/post/moderate.

Dr Bloggood

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: allinvain on July 17, 2017, 08:37:54 AM

Quote from: mindrust on July 17, 2017, 08:33:16 AM

Quote from: allinvain on July 17, 2017, 08:24:27 AM

Quote from: mindrust on July 17, 2017, 08:19:41 AM

Quote from: BitcoinNewsMagazine on July 17, 2017, 08:15:48 AM

I just report the news. Don't forget the NYA and 80% of miners have pledged to switch over to btc1. If that happens Jeff Garzik and friends will control bitcoin.

That can easily be prevented by a PoW change and I think we are getting very close to it. Grin

Whatever they do, my UASF node is up and running.

Hold on, gotta go throw out my miners in the trash Undecided

Well, Bitcoin is an experimental project. Putting it in the center of your life was a mistake. There maybe updates and changes which won't suit everyone, you should have taken this into consideration.

Not your fault though, who would knew that majority of the miners would act like retards? A worthy experience.

Yes you are totally right and I was fully aware that this could happen. It's still too early to tell how this will play out though. Retards indeed.

Genuine question: Can somebody explain what the problem is?

I thought far above 80% had announced to support SegWit2x already. So it seems like everything will go smoothly, and the problem will be solved soon.

I'm not a newbie, but I don't understand the fine print here. And I'm sure a lot less knowledgeable people are reading this. So maybe one of you super-educated bitcoiners could explain.

williamuk

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

ComputerGenie

hero member

Activity: 1092

Merit: 552

Retired IRCX God

Quote from: allinvain on July 17, 2017, 09:47:22 AM

.... BUT it would have to have the support of the Bitcoin Core team.

Quote from: allinvain on July 17, 2017, 10:14:19 AM

...The point is that everyone gets a part of what they want, but not entirely 100% what _they_ and only they want.

Those are opposing views Core will only support a thing if Core wants 100% of that thing. Undecided

allinvain

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1080

Quote from: ComputerGenie on July 17, 2017, 10:03:46 AM

Quote from: allinvain on July 17, 2017, 09:58:36 AM

Quote from: ComputerGenie on July 17, 2017, 09:54:06 AM

Quote from: allinvain on July 17, 2017, 09:47:22 AM

.... BUT it would have to have the support of the Bitcoin Core team.

Just when I was beginning to like you. Roll Eyes

ahhahaha... Cheesy

Well may I ask why not? Wouldn't you like it if everyone was in the same boat? Did any of the Core members run over your dog or something ? Maybe it's just an idealistic pipe dream that everyone would compromise a bit and do something with minimal fuss.

When something is "only if TeamX supports it", that thing is not likely a "compromise", nor is it likely to be devoid of whatever specific motivations TeamX might have, nor is it decentralized. Wink

I cannot argue against that, but in that case if we have a super-majority in the user/miner space then I would accept that as "the will of the people" and Core should do the same. Team X can support something and have it be a compromise at the same time. The point is that everyone gets a part of what they want, but not entirely 100% what _they_ and only they want.

ComputerGenie

hero member

Activity: 1092

Merit: 552

Retired IRCX God

Quote from: allinvain on July 17, 2017, 09:58:36 AM

Quote from: ComputerGenie on July 17, 2017, 09:54:06 AM

Quote from: allinvain on July 17, 2017, 09:47:22 AM

.... BUT it would have to have the support of the Bitcoin Core team.

Just when I was beginning to like you. Roll Eyes

ahhahaha... Cheesy

Well may I ask why not? Wouldn't you like it if everyone was in the same boat? Did any of the Core members run over your dog or something ? Maybe it's just an idealistic pipe dream that everyone would compromise a bit and do something with minimal fuss.

When something is "only if TeamX supports it", that thing is not likely a "compromise", nor is it likely to be devoid of whatever specific motivations TeamX might have, nor is it decentralized. Wink

allinvain

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1080

Quote from: ComputerGenie on July 17, 2017, 09:54:06 AM

Quote from: allinvain on July 17, 2017, 09:47:22 AM

.... BUT it would have to have the support of the Bitcoin Core team.

Just when I was beginning to like you. Roll Eyes

ahhahaha... Cheesy

Well may I ask why not? Wouldn't you like it if everyone was in the same boat? Did any of the Core members run over your dog or something ? Maybe it's just an idealistic pipe dream that everyone would compromise a bit and do something with minimal fuss.

ComputerGenie

hero member

Activity: 1092

Merit: 552

Retired IRCX God

Quote from: allinvain on July 17, 2017, 09:47:22 AM

.... BUT it would have to have the support of the Bitcoin Core team.

Just when I was beginning to like you. Roll Eyes

allinvain

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1080

Quote from: -ck on July 17, 2017, 09:31:08 AM

One by one the pools are starting to solve BIP91 blocks so there is no sign of any of them pulling out now. This of course doesn't mean they're running the btc1 branch as there is a popular BIP91 only branch available too that has only the segwit component of segwit2x...

That would bring a tear of joy to my eyes! If we can have just SegWit without the hard fork it would be amazing. Then later on if _EVERYONE_ is on board with a hard fork without any drama I'm cool with that. BUT it would have to have the support of the Bitcoin Core team.

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

One by one the pools are starting to solve BIP91 blocks so there is no sign of any of them pulling out now. This of course doesn't mean they're running the btc1 branch as there is a popular BIP91 only branch available too that has only the segwit component of segwit2x...

BrewMaster

legendary

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1293

There is trouble abrewing

Quote from: hv_ on July 17, 2017, 07:08:00 AM

Stolen work:

either i am confusing a lot of things or this picture is very wrong!

so please correct where i am wrong:

1. BIP91 does not combine anything. it is a separate consensus layer BIP for SegWit deployment with less than 95% and also has the version bit part which both BIP148 and SegWit2x implement this. BIP91 also has nothing to do with the hard fork!

2. SegWit2x's hard fork is not for 6 months after the activation of SegWit, not in November.

3. i don't get this sentence: "any of these except SegWit2x and BIP91 could result in a hard fork"! you don't potentially result in a hard fork you either have a hard fork or not.
SegWit2x is a soft fork for now and hard fork later.
BIP91 is a soft fork
BIP148 is a soft fork
BIP141 is a soft fork
split can also be caused by any of these without majority support!

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale