Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 3. (Read 120029 times)

She is talking about the mining community, they are the ones who must support either Segwit or Segwit2x  so that that the fork must take place and currently its the hard fork which seems to have won.

I've heard this time and again, what is that community you speak of?

No. There is absolute no guarantee that there will be a 2 MB hard fork, and there is almost zero community support for it. It is way too rushed (3 months after BIP91).

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6ls7av/gmaxwell_and_core_fanbois_got_ripped_a_new_one

[–] karljt 19 points 10 hours ago

Wow! That was a bitch-slap of epic proportions.

[–] chernobyl169 32 points 9 hours ago

The dispute about ++i v i++ was very illuminating. Troll buster is right on this point: ++i saves an instruction. He's also right about loop caching which is even more important; it underlines that bitcoin-core has terrible memory management that is extraordinarily time-wasteful, especially in the most-used libraries. The strongest point he brought of all was using uncompressed LevelDB - there's literally no good reason to bloat the node's storage like that. These are serious concerns that have been floating around for years and strongly contributed to the fragmentation of the development teams.

[–] NilacTheGrim 50 points 9 hours ago*

Read the Troll Buster criticism. He's spot on. Can confirm. Am a C++ programmer with 18 years' in the biz. Everything he says is technically accurate.

Even small things suck in core. Try compiling it for Windows. You'll quickly find that despite their blathering on about being cross-platform -- you end up having to compile it using MinGW (either cross-compile it on Linux or 'natively' [again, using MinGW] on Windows) due to lack of build system support for Windows.

So even GMaxwell's weak defense about why they never bothered with architecture-specific optimizations falls apart. He cries "but but cross platform" and the reality is even at cross-platform they do a shit job.

And also, seriously. Optimize yo' SHA256 lib, fuckers. It's the single most critical code path in all of bitcoin. And.. it's shitty. As Troll Buster said -- there are fast platform-specific libs available (freely) that are many times faster.

Also GMaxwell clearly just finds arguments and defenses for why he's right and is a lazy motherfucker. Troll Buster is right -- compression is very standard stuff and deserves to at least be an option in bitcoin and be explored. All people like GMaxwell do is come up with excuses for not doing ANYTHING.

GMaxwell is ignorant and incompetent, basically.

This Troll Buster dude really knows what he's talking about. 100% spot-on.

[–] NilacTheGrim 23 points 11 hours ago

Yeah and what does idiot GMaxwell do? Hand-wavy explanations for why not to do it.

He's lazy and incompetent.

[–] chernobyl169 19 points 11 hours ago

Well, I wouldn't call them hand-wavey. He at least tries to make his arguments sound technical, but they are in fact hollow or disingenuous. It's saddening to know that coders with his attitude are involved in production-level projects all over the world.

Pools were not the only ones signing the NYA agreement. Hard to believe every NYA signer going to toss his reputation by not honouring the agreement. And we are talking about the most important Bitcoin companies here...
https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77

Most bigger pools/companies use custom software, so the core vs btc1 code is not relevant here, what only matter is being compatible with Bitcoin, like accept up to 2M base blocks in about three months.

Guess you remember last 2 days and how the price reacted due to the enforcing of agreements ?

That counts - only that.  

We all are getting honored ONLY when we work together - not against each other !

Lesson learned?

Look at you.  Devolving into nonsense.

If the terms of an agreement are vague, then you are not going to get unambiguous clarity about the terms.

So what are the terms that they understand?

They will support 2mb no matter what ?  They will support hardfork no matter what?  They will support attempting to change the governance of bitcoin no matter what?  These are written or unwritten aspects that they supposedly understand?

They agree to running whatever fucking code is given to them, no matter what?  Does that make sense?  You may not understand what is an agreement.  Usually an agreement has to be specific, and I recall looking at the Hong Kong agreement and a bunch of big block whiners claiming that there was some kind of breach... which was total bullshit because they were trying to assert that the agreement was above and beyond to what it was.  remember that one?

Dont worry, they understand what they signed. Its irrelevant you have problems understanding it...

If the agreement is not clear and does not provide a clear and unambiguous mechanism, then how the fuck they going to be on the same page regarding what it is that they are agreeing to do, exactly?