Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 35. (Read 120014 times)

1) Look up the btc1 fork, already in progress.
2) Say what you will about Craig, he's still a mathematician, the math checks out.
3) You're speculating that everyone went to New York, signed another agreement, only to wait for Core again, because "they are not f**king running the software yet".

It helps to look more than 1 step ahead.

The Core fan boys are counting on UASF.

But node count doesn't matter, edge count matter. (Edges being the connections between nodes)

A new Bitcoin tx reaches 99.98% of hashing power within 2.3 seconds because of the connections between main nodes.

Your Raspberry Pi getting it 20 seconds later is irrelevant, because you were never going to add them to any blocks anyway.

There are 1.2mil edges in the Bitcoin network. (Edges being the connections between nodes).
The entire UASF pool only has 36k edges. That is only 0.3%.

UASF is irrelevant.

They can mine the wrong chain, that's fine.

We had all this with BIP-66 two years and one day ago.

What are miners doing all the time?  Do they use bitcoin ? Do they decide what tx they pick ? Do they give us all hashpower & safety? They do use bitcoin -code and run the mining-nodes, and I'm pretty sure thy also run some storage / connection nodes. So what distinguishes them from 'the user' ?  May miners hold bitcoin ? Trade them ?   What do you do as a 'user' ?

WTF

So what, if miners ignore your tx, you have nothing.

Yep.. you assume the facts about alternatives being available and you assume that intentions have more meaning than actions... pure speculation, and you are very likely to be wrong because too much speculation assuming high probability to low probability items.



Wow.  Relying on another insecure and emotionally laddened nutjob Craig Wright is going to bring you a lot of credibility.

This may be the first thing you've said that has any grain of truth.

https://medium.com/@lukedashjr/how-you-can-help-ensure-bip148-is-a-success-2fb63bf5114f


Your talk of 'critical mass' is just gibberish and shows you do not understand bitcoin.

Miners have no say in these matters.

Users do. We can flood you with more transactions than Bitpay ever made.

Go away and learn bitcoin. Then go away again.

btw, before you start, I am one of the least 'pro-Core' people on here, but I am even less of a fan of nChain, the fake satoshi Craig Wright, matonis, DCG and all your gang of scammers.

Go away and learn bitcoin. Then go away again.

I see Captain Obvious is now adding "f**k" to every line like a frustrated monkey trying to solve a Rubik's cube. Maybe you need to eat more books.

You should read that agreement again because you have trouble accepting what's happening:
1. The critical mass have stated their intention.
2. Some have publicly laid out their plans, you can even see some of their progress online.
3. Core is still going against the intention of the critical mass.

So Core has two choices:
1. Follow the rest to stay relevant.
2. Continue to ignore the critical mass and become irrelevant.

Captain Obvious here kept ignoring new developments and kept re-framing the issue to what software is currently running.

But the key here isn't what's currently running, that was never in question.

The key here is Core is still going against the critical mass.

So what Captain Obvious should be asking is:
"If Core continue to go against the critical mass, and there are alternatives, is the critical mass still going to wait for Core, or are they going to ignore Core and move on."

I am saying people are going to move on, because they have waited long enough, have already shown strong intentions, have the plans, and are making the tools to do so.

By the way, UASF is mathematically proven to be irrelevant, as Craig explained at the 2017 Future of Bitcoin Conference.

Even if Core buys a million new Raspberry Pi and run UASF tomorrow, they still have no game.

yeah.. just like a troll to give assignments.  Why the fuck do I need to read your bullshit framework materials? 

You try to reframe the situation by relying on hypotheticals and refusing to recognize the parameters of my rebuttals.. which has to do with running the fucking software rather than merely stating some kind of bullshit and amorphous alliance...

There is no such alliance that says, we hate core.. and we want to change governance, even if some of the movements within the group are truly hating core and trying to change governance because they are emotionally rather than logically focused.



O.k... you think that the contracts and alliances are relevant, and I think that the running of the fucking software is relevant...

they are not fucking running the software yet.

Yeah, right you can argue until you are blue in the face about some kind of alliance that supposedly exists, and I am saying that the facts are not yet out and we have to see who the fuck is going to run what software in order to potentially trigger various bips.



where do you get that from?

you are mixing up stated intent with actual hashing power.

If you get 90% hashing power, then you can feel pretty good forking off with those kinds of numbers, but we are not there yet.  From my understanding a large fucking percentage of miners and nodes are running core software they are not running NYA software or segwit2x software because that software is still being tested until about July 21 or something like that... so let's see who runs what software once they have those new variations of software available to run.

Do you have some hashing power evidence that you would like to share that rebutts my understanding of what is being run?



The nature of the world is that dynamics are always changing, so why the fuck do I care?  I make my investments based on what I think are probabilities and directions.. .. and at this point, we have uncertainties, but we still have folks running core software, no?



are you being patronizing?  We can agree to disagree because we are not resolving or clarifying anything, here, except that you have an obsession with core and are fantastically pie-in-the-sky hoping their diminishment and demise and wanting to persuade others about your fantastical nonsense.  We seem to differ in our perspectives, no? And you also seem to be unwilling or unable to focus on the topic of this thread, such as discussing actually running segwit2x software beyond erroneously relying too heavily on the mere signaling segwit2x  situation, right?

Read the new agreement again, and read who's supporting it.

You're rejecting something that is already happening.

Though seeing DCG being described as "big blocker nut job whiners" is somewhat amusing.


1) 90% hashing power and most of the major companies are not going to wait if Core continue to stall.
2) Core can still have a seat at the table if they play ball, but things are no longer the same as before, there are now alternatives and Core can't go against everyone the same way ever again.

Just which part don't you understand.

What does this have to do with me? 

Core has a shit loads of contributors, and you are obsessed with them... seems a bit like mumbo jumbo to me.





yeah right.  You are talking in the hypothetical.

The world does not want 2mb, and the fuck the world wants is bitcoin to work and to keep their money secure and to have some certainty about its direction.

Market's prefer certainty.

When there are a bunch of whiners making up shit and spamming the bitcoin network and trying to act like they are going to hold the world hostage unless they get their way, then we experience uncertainty.. and the world does not like that - unless they are trying to sabotage bitcoin.

By the way, you noticed the past couple of weeks?  Transactions have been amazingly fast and hardly any fees.  Go figure?

Yeah, some of the big blockers nutjobs seem to have turned off their spamming machines.. at least temporarily.

Anyhow, we can see that technologically, there is no need for an increase in the blocksize at this moment.. and the blocksize bullishit arguments are merely a guise for another agenda... which appears to be about hating core.. but really, core is too decentralized to hate, so the big blocker nut jobber whiners merely want to disrupt and maybe are like the dog trying to catch the bus, because they don't know what the fuck they are going to do if they actually catch the bus.



Yeah, right.. try to distract by continuing to suggest that I am a core fan boy, merely because I continue to reiterate what is the central obsession and goals of a variety of big blocker nut job whiners.. attempting to change bitcoin's governance because they want changes to be made more easily.. blah blah blah.. and really they don't know what the fuck they want because they tend to be too emotionally attached to negative feelings toward core, rather than really engaging with technological matters about what is really reasonable and practical.. neither a hard fork nor a 2mb upgrade is reasonable nor practical.. and changes to governance is unnecessary, too.

The fact of the matter is that bitcoin is not broken.. was made in a way that there is a fear of centralization.. so it is purposefully difficult to change, and those difficulties to change, contrary to the wishes of the big blocker nutjobs, governments and financial institutions is a feature of bitcoin and not a bug... so in that regard, I look forward to those changes in governance not being achieved by you and your distracting nutjob ilk.



I doubt what you are saying is true, because I think people want seg wit.. but anyhow, this is not some kind of democracy system or majority rule system.. blah blah bah..

If bitcoin is not broken, then it is already in place and disruptive and immutable  secure and decentralized storage and transfer of value.. so we don't want some majority or some super majority to change bitcoin.. we want overwhelming consensus... then changes can be made... and it is looking like seg wit is going to achieve such overwhelming consensus.. but we get dropping off when we attempt to measure those other matters, such as 1) changes to blocksize limit to 2mb, 2) hardforking and 3) changes to governance... we are not receiving consensus regarding those matters, so it seems.... but let's see how it plays out when it comes time to run the various software, because that is the real test to verify whether there is going to be sufficient support and running of the software that will allow implementation of certain BIPS... 91, 141, 148, and segwit2x.. let's see.



O.k.. we can agree to disagree about various facts and logic and conclusions... no problem..

It seems that our topic has been deviating somewhat from the topic of the thread because you seem to want to delve into attacking core and prematurely predicting their demise rather than talking about more specifics in regards to segwit2x and matters more directly related to this thread topic.

Too much emotional mumble jumbo. You're still not thinking simply and clearly.

When the world wants 2MB+, and Core still goes against it, Core will be replaced.

Just as the world wanted I-Phone, Nokia was replaced.

"Changing btc governance" is just Core fan boy thinking.

This is not about governing Bitcoin, this is about giving people what they want.

Just because you call yourself "Core" doesn't make you the center of the universe.

The world does not wait for Core, the writing is on the wall.

Try get some simple facts straight before puffing up your chest, it's more convincing that way.

Yes, some of you big blocker nutjobs cannot get over some emotional aspects, and really it is likely just a level of disingenuousness and attempts at spin.

If you look at the bigger picture, there has been some excitement and enthusiasm when there are attempts to figure out a way to resolve some of the scaling issues... and this is not about core blah blah blah.. even though many of you nutjobs like to continue with such emotional outburst nonsense...

So the excitement comes from possible resolutions that would allow a softfork and the implementation of seg wit.

As soon as the conversation turns to hardfork and 2mb blocksize limit upgrade and changes to the governance of bitcoin, then the enthusiasm wanes.

So, yeah, let's see how it plays out over the coming weeks in terms of actual support and actual running of software, rather than merely spinning matters.

There can be statements of intention, but if the statements are ambiguous and they do not require an actual running of software, then you can spin that all that you want, but actions speak louder than words and let's see how good is the software and whether support continues at sufficiently high enough levels to run segwit2x variations or whatever software is going to take us in the locking in of segwit direction.

Face the facts, newbie, locking in of segwit seems to be the first next step, and then we go from there.  If you and your whining big blocker buddies are thinking that you have the same levels of consensus for hardforking, 2mb upgrade or changing in btc governance then you are  living in a fantasy.  Sure you want to leverage those kinds of ideas through the support for segwit and try to frame the situation as if hardforking, 2mb upgrade and changes in btc governance are a given, but that part is not a given... so your little fantasy about the demise of core is also a fantasy.. because when it comes to actually running software, we still have to see how that plays out and which software is available and which software is run..


Let's get some popcorn, and watch, newbie.  Ok?  Rather than making assumptions that your baloney framing of facts means more than what it actually means.

Still mumbling and still irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You couldn't make one simple point that sticks, so you throw around words like "newbie account" "moms basement" "your lack of ability" like a little school yard bully, but then you had to turn around and cry about personal attacks like a little girl, because deep down you're just a little loser fishing for respect.

Stop crying, stick to the point or shut up:

Bitcoin Scaling Agreement at Consensus 2017


That was a month ago, the support is even stronger now.

Next you're going to tell me everyone is walking away from Core because they love Core so much.

You see this "Digital Currency Group (United States)" on the list?
That's the big entity behind Blockstream, Core and others.

You know Core's days are over when Core didn't even show up to the party and was throw under the bus by their boss. I repeat, Core didn't show up and is still going against their boss, what does that tell you about Core's future.

The trolls were told to keep their mouth shut by DCG, that's why it's so much more peaceful these days.

Haha. I do not know who are any of these people.

I just think Bitcoin is the single best invention and it takes alot to ruin it. It was well designed and as far as I understand it, Big Blocks were always in the picture. So you can consider I was always for Big Blocks. Often the simplest solution is the best one.

I hear alot of fears of Centralization that sound like propaganda. Bitcoin will be centralized when and if it becomes Legal Tender, and when and if you are obliged to use certain services to access it or fulfill certain requirements to take part of it. Labor cost is not an artificial barrier. It's just an efficiency barrier in every free market. If you can't handle efficiency, go do something else you are efficient at.

The first step for Centralization is certainly artificially make mining more efficient for the average Joe, effectively subsidizing it at the cost of everyone else's value. Socialism... Someone will always have to control it. It is a populist solution under the guise of protecting the small fish. This was the way they shoved false democracy through our throats.  

The non speculative value of Bitcoin is in Hashrate and Usability. You shouldn't fear Centralization in a Censorship Free Market. It just means someone is doing it better than anyone else. You just have to protect the blind mechanisms of no artificial barriers to entry other than efficiency. That way, if someone finds a way to do it better they can.

The bigger picture is many of these companies which many now loathe, were the ones that put their money where their mouth is, and are the ones sustaining Bitcoin's Value, through services provided and hashrate. It is not in our interest to undermine their efficiency.

And bear in mind that anyone can mine as efficiently. The problem is volume reduces variance. So you have a choice, either pony up enough labor (capital cost) today to get a ROI earlier and take this risk, or reduce your energy (capital cost) and accept your ROI is long into the future. Again, these companies put their energy where their mouth is. It is a huge risk they took. They should be rewarded.

The Market will work itself out. The users will put their capital where they think it is more efficiently used. In the end, Bitcoin is the perfect Democracy, as long as it remains a Free Market.

Now, I grant you there is quite a big problem with the real world connection, namely with Broad Spectrum Patents. These are the ones that block innovation and efficiency and create artificial entry barriers in the short term. This problem I do not know how to solve. But we should not decrease the efficiency of the Network just to punish this. If there is enough value, someone will find a way sooner or later.

When you get value for other's work out of your patent, this is effectively Proof of Stake. Do not change Proof of Work. It is perfect.




 

You are playing with a newbie account, and trying to act like you have some clout and credibility with 1) your lack of ability to see the forest for the trees 2) your ongoing practice engaging in unnecessary personal attacks and 3) your seeming tendency to delve into irrelevances.

You have accomplished all of this with less than 10 posts to your total history of nonsense and likely from mom's basement.

That seems to be the direction of my thinking too.. .. that Bitmain is engaging in a kind of gamemanship and an attempt to provide various vehicles of confusion, and I think that they want to create such a state of messing things up that bitcoin governance is changed as a result...

So they could give a ratt's ass about various technical matters if they can make some progress towards changing bitcoin's governance.

Exactly, so when you say:
"Yeah.. goofballs like you devolve into personal attacks when they got nothing but propaganda and spin."
You were really talking about yourself.

What is so difficult to understand.

People are pissed at Core and they're walking away from them.

Miners said so, developers said so, users said so.

You said "isn't there going to be some kind of hesitancy to move away from Core"

So I shown you Apple vs Nokia and the Bitcoin market share drop, there is plenty more information available, all you need to do is search.

What has username got to do with it.

Stick to the point or shut up.

There is no proof Bitmain uses asicboost on live chain. The structure of their blocks indicate they dont.
But I dont doubt they tested/developed it.



In your case SegWit2x is compatible with the UASF BIP148 activation, so your following speculation is moot.

I wonder if you know how to read?

lack of logic applies to the literal meaning of your name.

But you have proven yourself as otherwise unwilling or unable to stick to any topic beyond an ongoing devolution of topics, which certainly is a sign of a troll.. contrary to your nombre.

Questions for you folks:

1) What is Bitmain's incentive to back Segwit2x? Is there a version of Segwit where Covert ASIC Boost mining still works? Referring to this blog: https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/asicboost-the-reason-why-bitmain-blocked-segwit-901fd346ee9f
"Bitmain wanted to push Segwit either through a hard fork, or in Extension Blocks which would be compatible with their ASICBoost. A soft fork of Segwit, which is by far the safest option, isn’t compatible and they would lose their advantage over other miners."

2) If 80% Signaling is reached and Segwit2x (BIP91) is locked in before August 1, and then UASF fails due to this activation (too little hash power support, subjected to replay attack), will Bitmain be able to pull out still afterwards so there will be no Segwit, which will delay Segwit?