The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 30.

Variogam

sr. member

Activity: 276

Merit: 254

Quote from: hv_ on July 09, 2017, 12:46:13 PM

What do they have what I do not?

Small community. One of biggest mistakes of Bitcoin was not focusing to fix the 1M problem properly while it was still small project. Even the SegWit2x is not final solution to the scalling problem, but there is no better working code with enought support to get implemented right now.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.20028136

What do they have what I do not?

Buhuuuu

Cry

.

d5000

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 6249

Decentralization Maximalist

Quote from: DooMAD on July 09, 2017, 05:28:53 AM

Developers. Are. Not. Governors.
[...]
A hard fork resulting from a significant majority of those securing the network (that's a mix of both mining nodes and non-mining full nodes) freely choosing to run code enforcing new rules is exactly how Bitcoin was designed to work and is NOT a change in governance.

Allow me to _slightly_ disagree (although I support your conclusion - a hard fork supported by miners & economy is perfectly legit for me).

Developers have a kind of "informal" (de facto) power not granted by the protocol, but that was probably taken into account when Bitcoin was conceived. I would describe it as social leadership.

Miners and economic nodes - the two groups you're referring as the two main power holders - do not decide "out of thin air" what client/protocol version they run. They must choose from the available implementations. If they want to create an own implementation, there are a lot of costs for them because they would not only probably need to pay developers, but also they'd need a marketing fund to assure most Bitcoin users run compatible software.

That is only a descriptive analysis - I simply recognize that people perceive developers as "leaders", but that should not mean that I think they should dictate development. But they are an important power group. One of the reasons is probably that good developers are scarce, and so there is not much competition between development teams - so not every idea can get enough traction to be transformed into an implementation that works (and is essentially bug-free enough for a multi-billion dollar network like Bitcoin).

CuriousInvestor

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: Netnox on July 09, 2017, 06:43:06 AM

Quote from: BitcoinNewsMagazine on July 08, 2017, 06:38:46 PM

The Chinese miners expect the NYA (New York Agreement) to be honored. All you have to do is read Bitmain's published articles to see the roadmap. Bitmain wants miners to switch from Bitcoin Core to the new btc1 client which will enforce SegWit2X. If 80% of miners switch over starting on July 21 as they have promised there will be no hard fork. The deadline for switch over is July 29. Bitmain has also promised if UASF gains any traction they have a hard fork planned to wipe out UASF.

Bitmain's stand is very confusing. A few days back, I heard that they are planing to mine a new crypto-currency, if their suggestions are not accepted. So what is going to happen? Are they going to continue with BTC, or are they going to split off?

It's subjective to say whether something is BTC or not during a split. Bitmain will begin to mine a different chain privately post August 1st (BIP148), if they sense the support is strong, they will HARDFORK to another BTC, if not, they will keep mining the original Bitoin chain.

Netnox

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1008

Quote from: BitcoinNewsMagazine on July 08, 2017, 06:38:46 PM

The Chinese miners expect the NYA (New York Agreement) to be honored. All you have to do is read Bitmain's published articles to see the roadmap. Bitmain wants miners to switch from Bitcoin Core to the new btc1 client which will enforce SegWit2X. If 80% of miners switch over starting on July 21 as they have promised there will be no hard fork. The deadline for switch over is July 29. Bitmain has also promised if UASF gains any traction they have a hard fork planned to wipe out UASF.

Bitmain's stand is very confusing. A few days back, I heard that they are planing to mine a new crypto-currency, if their suggestions are not accepted. So what is going to happen? Are they going to continue with BTC, or are they going to split off?

The One

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: DooMAD on July 09, 2017, 05:28:53 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 08, 2017, 04:54:31 AM

and that this issue has been used as an attempt to change governance

*sigh*

How many times does it have to be said?

Developers. Are. Not. Governors.

Please get this batshit insane notion out of your head. And I mean all of you. Everyone on this forum who thinks any developers are somehow in charge or in control. You are fundamentally and utterly wrong in how you perceive governance. If someone was using the issue to claim that we need to change the way in which the consensus protocol works, that would be a change in governance. Every time some UASF supporter talks about excluding the miners from the equation altogether and forcing a POW change, THAT is a change in governance.

A hard fork resulting from a significant majority of those securing the network (that's a mix of both mining nodes and non-mining full nodes) freely choosing to run code enforcing new rules is exactly how Bitcoin was designed to work and is NOT a change in governance. Stop talking shit.

If you want a coin where governance is dictated by developers, go away and use Ripple. You simply don't belong here.

You can exclude me from the predeterminer "all" Grin

Otherwise keep up the good work.

ComputerGenie

hero member

Activity: 1092

Merit: 552

Retired IRCX God

Quote from: DooMAD on July 09, 2017, 05:28:53 AM

*sigh*

How many times does it have to be said?

Developers. Are. Not. Governors.

Please get this batshit insane notion out of your head. And I mean all of you. Everyone on this forum who thinks any developers are somehow in charge or in control. You are fundamentally and utterly wrong in how you perceive governance. If someone was using the issue to claim that we need to change the way in which the consensus protocol works, that would be a change in governance. Every time some UASF supporter talks about excluding the miners from the equation altogether and forcing a POW change, THAT is a change in governance.

A hard fork resulting from a significant majority of those securing the network (that's a mix of both mining nodes and non-mining full nodes) freely choosing to run code enforcing new rules is exactly how Bitcoin was designed to work and is NOT a change in governance...

A-feken-men! Cool

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: DooMAD on July 09, 2017, 05:28:53 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 08, 2017, 04:54:31 AM

and that this issue has been used as an attempt to change governance

*sigh*

How many times does it have to be said?

Developers. Are. Not. Governors.

Please get this batshit insane notion out of your head. And I mean all of you. Everyone on this forum who thinks any developers are somehow in charge or in control. You are fundamentally and utterly wrong in how you perceive governance. If someone was using the issue to claim that we need to change the way in which the consensus protocol works, that would be a change in governance. Every time some UASF supporter talks about excluding the miners from the equation altogether and forcing a POW change, THAT is a change in governance.

A hard fork resulting from a significant majority of those securing the network (that's a mix of both mining nodes and non-mining full nodes) freely choosing to run code enforcing new rules is exactly how Bitcoin was designed to work and is NOT a change in governance. Stop talking shit.

If you want a coin where governance is dictated by developers, go away and use Ripple. You simply don't belong here.

++. Not that mad....

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 08, 2017, 04:54:31 AM

and that this issue has been used as an attempt to change governance

*sigh*

How many times does it have to be said?

Developers. Are. Not. Governors.

Please get this batshit insane notion out of your head. And I mean all of you. Everyone on this forum who thinks any developers are somehow in charge or in control. You are fundamentally and utterly wrong in how you perceive governance. If someone was using the issue to claim that we need to change the way in which the consensus protocol works, that would be a change in governance. Every time some UASF supporter talks about excluding the miners from the equation altogether and forcing a POW change, THAT is a change in governance.

A hard fork resulting from a significant majority of those securing the network (that's a mix of both mining nodes and non-mining full nodes) freely choosing to run code enforcing new rules is exactly how Bitcoin was designed to work and is NOT a change in governance. Stop talking shit.

If you want a coin where governance is dictated by developers, go away and use Ripple. You simply don't belong here.

Variogam

sr. member

Activity: 276

Merit: 254

Quote from: BitcoinNewsMagazine on July 08, 2017, 06:38:46 PM

Quote from: BitcoinNewsMagazine on July 08, 2017, 05:38:52 PM

July 21 is a critical date for the future of bitcoin. That is when 86% of miners who have already signaled support for SegWit2x (by putting NYA in the coinbase) are supposed to switch their mining nodes to btc1 software. It will be easy enough to see if they do at bitnodes or Coindance.

The Chinese miners expect the NYA (New York Agreement) to be honored. All you have to do is read Bitmain's published articles to see the roadmap. Bitmain wants miners to switch from Bitcoin Core to the new btc1 client which will enforce SegWit2X. If 80% of miners switch over starting on July 21 as they have promised there will be no hard fork. The deadline for switch over is July 29. Bitmain has also promised if UASF gains any traction they have a hard fork planned to wipe out UASF.

I thought all NYA participants should start running SegWit2x compatible software as soon as possible afer July 21. It would be unresponsible to activate SegWit2x when there are few SegWit2x compatible full nodes. Dont know how many nodes NYA participants and SegWit2x supporters control, but over 50% (around 3000) would be safe signal SegWit2x going to be success, so miners can start signalling in blocks as well.

AK47-

sr. member

Activity: 644

Merit: 250

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 08, 2017, 07:50:24 PM

Quote from: -ck on July 08, 2017, 07:28:50 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 08, 2017, 07:23:20 PM

Sounds a bit pie in the sky to me, so I guess the period of July 21 to 29 may be interesting to verify what the fuck is going on besides merely stating an intention... and do you not think that some kind of poll could be helpful to see what members think will happen? I personally don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable to understand even how to frame such a poll.

A poll from all the clueless users here will achieve nothing anyway and most of the clued up people don't vote in nonsense like that.

You may be correct; however, I still believe that a poll can be helpful to attempt to educate folks about the parameter of issues and possible outcomes. I spend a lot of time looking into these matters, and I still do not understand the possible ways this could play out.. .

So I would not be considering the matter in terms of accuracy of the results but instead as a means to brainstorm about possible outcomes and to consider and to reconsider the possible weight to give to various possible outcomes or even outcomes that might not have been previously considered to be within the range of reasonable.

But I think that will make the situation more complex and it wouldn't yeild anything. Most of the users aren't very well aware with the situation and if they were said to vote, most of them either follow the majority or just vote without any consideration or wouldn't vote at all. I believe this is technical aspect, let the techies decide.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 11299

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: -ck on July 08, 2017, 07:28:50 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 08, 2017, 07:23:20 PM

Sounds a bit pie in the sky to me, so I guess the period of July 21 to 29 may be interesting to verify what the fuck is going on besides merely stating an intention... and do you not think that some kind of poll could be helpful to see what members think will happen? I personally don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable to understand even how to frame such a poll.

A poll from all the clueless users here will achieve nothing anyway and most of the clued up people don't vote in nonsense like that.

You may be correct; however, I still believe that a poll can be helpful to attempt to educate folks about the parameter of issues and possible outcomes. I spend a lot of time looking into these matters, and I still do not understand the possible ways this could play out.. .

So I would not be considering the matter in terms of accuracy of the results but instead as a means to brainstorm about possible outcomes and to consider and to reconsider the possible weight to give to various possible outcomes or even outcomes that might not have been previously considered to be within the range of reasonable.

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 08, 2017, 07:23:20 PM

Sounds a bit pie in the sky to me, so I guess the period of July 21 to 29 may be interesting to verify what the fuck is going on besides merely stating an intention... and do you not think that some kind of poll could be helpful to see what members think will happen? I personally don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable to understand even how to frame such a poll.

A poll from all the clueless users here will achieve nothing anyway and most of the clued up people don't vote in nonsense like that.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 11299

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: BitcoinNewsMagazine on July 08, 2017, 06:38:46 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 08, 2017, 05:53:00 PM

Quote from: BitcoinNewsMagazine on July 08, 2017, 05:38:52 PM

July 21 is a critical date for the future of bitcoin. That is when 86% of miners who have already signaled support for SegWit2x (by putting NYA in the coinbase) are supposed to switch their mining nodes to btc1 software. It will be easy enough to see if they do at bitnodes or Coindance.

Maybe we should have a poll or a bet that describes what percentage is doing what, while outlining various possibilities including some possibilities that are not anticipated?

Assuming the software is released before July 21. Then whic days are relevant to measurement?

July 21?

July 22?

July 23?

It is not all relevant in terms of one specific date is it? At some time around the end of July we would be able to verify whether segwit is locked in? but we could be left in a state of uncertainty regarding who is signaling what and how the math plays out, and which BIPs are triggered?

The Chinese miners expect the NYA (New York Agreement) to be honored. All you have to do is read Bitmain's published articles to see the roadmap. Bitmain wants miners to switch from Bitcoin Core to the new btc1 client which will enforce SegWit2X. If 80% of miners switch over starting on July 21 as they have promised there will be no hard fork. The deadline for switch over is July 29. Bitmain has also promised if UASF gains any traction they have a hard fork planned to wipe out UASF.

Sounds a bit pie in the sky to me, so I guess the period of July 21 to 29 may be interesting to verify what the fuck is going on besides merely stating an intention... and do you not think that some kind of poll could be helpful to see what members think will happen? I personally don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable to understand even how to frame such a poll.

BitcoinNewsMagazine

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1164

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 08, 2017, 05:53:00 PM

Quote from: BitcoinNewsMagazine on July 08, 2017, 05:38:52 PM

July 21 is a critical date for the future of bitcoin. That is when 86% of miners who have already signaled support for SegWit2x (by putting NYA in the coinbase) are supposed to switch their mining nodes to btc1 software. It will be easy enough to see if they do at bitnodes or Coindance.

Maybe we should have a poll or a bet that describes what percentage is doing what, while outlining various possibilities including some possibilities that are not anticipated?

Assuming the software is released before July 21. Then whic days are relevant to measurement?

July 21?

July 22?

July 23?

It is not all relevant in terms of one specific date is it? At some time around the end of July we would be able to verify whether segwit is locked in? but we could be left in a state of uncertainty regarding who is signaling what and how the math plays out, and which BIPs are triggered?

The Chinese miners expect the NYA (New York Agreement) to be honored. All you have to do is read Bitmain's published articles to see the roadmap. Bitmain wants miners to switch from Bitcoin Core to the new btc1 client which will enforce SegWit2X. If 80% of miners switch over starting on July 21 as they have promised there will be no hard fork. The deadline for switch over is July 29. Bitmain has also promised if UASF gains any traction they have a hard fork planned to wipe out UASF.

ComputerGenie

hero member

Activity: 1092

Merit: 552

Retired IRCX God

OK time for a reality-check for those that are just that bad at math:

When Joe Schmuckrok in Bumblefuck, Arkansas can buy enough miners to have a 90 day repayment rate and a $30K monthly income, Bitmain doesn't "want control of Bitcoin". If Bitmain wanted "control of Bitcoin", Joe Schmuckrok's 1.2PH/s would be in some nondescript bunker in the middle of China (along with about 3EH/s of miners that cost Bitmain about 10% more than they charged Joe Schmuckrok for his 1.2PH/s) running through a few dozen solo mining servers (each limited to under 20PH/s). Because, math!

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 11299

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: The One on July 08, 2017, 05:49:50 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 08, 2017, 05:09:04 PM

[edited out]

It is not an appeal to authority. It is simply a matter of following the objective of Bitcoin as outline in the whitepaper. If you don't like it then bugger off elsewhere or start your own shitcoin. Bitcoin wasn't a theory in 2010, it was a functioning software, the theory was pre 2009.

Why should I bugger off?

When any concept is put into action, there tends to be lots of ways to interpret and a history that develops.

You likely lose a lot of credibility when you attempt to insist on only one interpretation of text and maybe even to cite that text without attributing proper context, and maybe even failing to recognize that the conclusion in time 1 did not consider events in time 2, time 3 and time 4, so the conclusion may have even changed, if it had accounted for subsequent events, no?

you just want to insist on a black and white reading and assert that Satoshi said? Kind of seems like an appeal to authority to me.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 11299

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: BitcoinNewsMagazine on July 08, 2017, 05:38:52 PM

July 21 is a critical date for the future of bitcoin. That is when 86% of miners who have already signaled support for SegWit2x (by putting NYA in the coinbase) are supposed to switch their mining nodes to btc1 software. It will be easy enough to see if they do at bitnodes or Coindance.

Maybe we should have a poll or a bet that describes what percentage is doing what, while outlining various possibilities including some possibilities that are not anticipated?

Assuming the software is released before July 21. Then whic days are relevant to measurement?

July 21?

July 22?

July 23?

It is not all relevant in terms of one specific date is it? At some time around the end of July we would be able to verify whether segwit is locked in? but we could be left in a state of uncertainty regarding who is signaling what and how the math plays out, and which BIPs are triggered?

The One

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 08, 2017, 05:09:04 PM

Quote from: The One on July 08, 2017, 04:34:33 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 08, 2017, 04:03:42 PM

Quote from: The One on July 08, 2017, 08:21:21 AM

Quote from: gmaxwell on July 07, 2017, 08:15:04 PM

Quote from: ComputerGenie on July 06, 2017, 10:37:27 PM

The contention is "what comes after segwit?" On the Core side is "nothing" (i.e., just segwit)

lol

In fact, the Core has many things after segwit; some of which are already done (compact blocks), signature aggregation, weakblocks, flexcaps, etc.

All anyone else has is MOAR BLOCKSIZE REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES and some heads on spikes.

Yes some nice consequences of having more transactions, greater adoption, lower fees, faster confirmation - no head of the spikes is necessary.

You do realised that Bitcoin is not your toy, such that your personal agenda/opinion/perspective is irrelevant. Only what is best for bitcoin and the users matters.

More bullshit if you are trying to act as if there really is some kind of technical issue in the protocol (beyond segwit and other projects that core is working on and Gmaxwell listed in his post) that would achieve the various objectives that you listed (eg.. more transactions, greater adoption, lower fees, faster confirmations).

The reality is you are attempting to simplify the matter and to suggest that a 2mb limit increase through a hardfork is going to accomplish your listed objectives, but the reality, The One, is that a central goal of big blockers is emotional, namely the heads on spikes thinking.. which just is conspiratorial fantasy to keep asserting ill will of core and the various members and that core does not have the best intentions of bitcoin in their multiple disjointed heads.

What you and small blockers don't understand is that for Bitcoin to become more widely used, it will need bigger blocks to accommodate more transaction. Even Satoshi understood that. Sticking to small blocks isn't go to cut the mustard. That's the reality.

Who says anything about sticking to anything?

There is merely a point that if something is currently not needed, such as increasing the block sizes, then why implement it if it is likely bringing more problems than it resolves.

You act as if bitcoin is broken in some kind of way in some kind of technical level, and it is not.

And, your appeal to authority is utter nonsense.. who the fuck cares what Satoshi thought in 2010? We gotta role with the times and understand bitcoin for what it is rather than what it was theorized to be in 2010, no?

It is not an appeal to authority. It is simply a matter of following the objective of Bitcoin as outline in the whitepaper. If you don't like it then bugger off elsewhere or start your own shitcoin. Bitcoin wasn't a theory in 2010, it was a functioning software, the theory was pre 2009.

BitcoinNewsMagazine

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1164

July 21 is a critical date for the future of bitcoin. That is when 86% of miners who have already signaled support for SegWit2x (by putting NYA in the coinbase) are supposed to switch their mining nodes to btc1 software. It will be easy enough to see if they do at bitnodes or Coindance.

Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 30. (Read 120029 times)