Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 38. (Read 120014 times)

No. 148 will become irrelevant once segwit is activated by segwit2x. After that there is the segwit2x hard fork component and then there may be a different split that has nothing to do with BIP148. Hopefully some kind of compromise position happens before that hard fork component preventing a split but at this stage there is none on the horizon.

nope
best to store funds your worried about losing on private keys you control.
even if there is no network splitting altcoin creation, your still at risk of the "we been hacked" retirement plan which many exchanges have

So if I hold BTC on Bittrex and Poloniex I can be sure they'll be the same BTC a year from now? The BTC we see now will be 148 by default and the fork Bitcoin will be nuBitcoin?

148 will be 141 which will be 91 which will be bit 4 which will be bit 1 which is NYA.

In other words, there will be no 148 as a separate coin.

luke JR is grasping onto straws
arguing about version numbers of 1.14.3 vs 0.14.1 is meaningless social drama. there was a 1.14.1 which was 'like-for-like' but then it had some alterations and now its 1.14.3 naturally. you cant change code but stay with 1.14.1. but to be honest due to a baseblock HF it should actually be x.15.x
maybe if core added in some segwit2x code to core's 0.14.3 (not released yet) and then.. (drum roll) make a 0.14.4 that has everything and more, core can then regain leadership of the minor version number then he cant cry and cause the social drama of version numbers because core is ahead.

as for testnet5 hmmm he needs to explain to himself why last year segNET first then established testnet second... instead of straight to testnet last year and why he prefers other implementations to start their own separate testnet first to prove its not a testnet killer before joining a established testnet. (arguing with himself will give himself the answer)
(hence im laughing that btc1 is doing exactly what he wanted last year)

i have to agree the sigop limit is stupid to increase. .. yes increase the blocksize but dont increase the txsigops
that said a raspberry Pi could handle more than that but dev's went anal by going ultra safe
devs now argue about using raspberry pi as the 'min specs' goal but fail to keep legacy txsigops and maxtxbytes low to make it workable.
its as if they want to cause quadratic sigop issues again just to cause drama. so strangely i see luke JR doing the right thing for once and asking to keep txsigops low.

then he rants about the 80% block activation.. yet its him that decided only pools should vote.. yep his idea back in late 2015 with his pool only shortcut(going soft) to avoid a full network of symbiotic pool and node consensus... only going for pool consensus was his own fault and why 95% would not have worked. due to his, at the time mindset that he was creating a shortcut which backfired.. yet he was ok with 95% but now strangely against 80%... (facepalm)

as for the bit4, well he was arguing for it as it helped dns seeds/nodes to identify different versions, aswell as arguing for different servicebits too..
but now grasping at straws...

strange that he thinks segwit2x will stall segwit.. lol actually it will cause segwit to activate sooner. but atleast luke is now admitting that segwit is cludgy
"As for the hardfork itself, it includes an 8 MB max block size limit (with the code obfuscated to make it look like 2 MB), a 160k max block sigop limit (obfuscated to look like 20k), and an 8M max block weight limit (ie, typical block size around 4 MB). To address the sighash scaling issue, a new 1 MB limit is imposed on each transaction’s non-witness data"

oh well luke does love his drama.
segwit2x and the NYA has nothing to do with bitmain. infact barry silbert pays lukes wage not bitmains.

This is almost scary enough to make me consider going into FIAT until 148 is buyable.

Either these guys are incompetent, or they don't really like the decentralized nature of Bitcoin. Core is right on that one.

I already mentioned in my older messages that PoW change is inevitable and will take place but PoW change has its own disadvantages. If the PoW algo changes, nobody will ever make huge investments into mining hardware. Bitcoin will be a joke either way.

The thing is, dev team were too slow to act.

1-They should have changed the PoW algo just after it got hacked. They failed this.
2-They had another chance when ASICBOOST was revealed.

They missed the first chance and I can forgive them for it because they may have thought, "there will be many competing ASIC manufacturers, it will be ok" But it didn't go like that. Bitmain came with a patented software and they became the only ASIC manufacturer. The one and the only hashpower provider.

Now letting that happen was a mistake. Huge one.

Disagree

The more the effect you're describing escalates, the more incentive there is for the Core developers to take the nuclear option and hard fork to a new proof of work. That would be the definitive move, as users would be very enticed by the CPU mining goldrush that ensued.


It doesn't matter what way you slice or dice it, the expertise behind development is what makes Bitcoin what it is. The smart money will always follow the coding talent, and the coding talent will always follow the smart money. The suits can wail and gnash their teeth as loud and hard as they like they cannot stop decentralised cryptocurrency, it is a fait accomplis. We want it, and we will get it

It will be a disaster.

The merchants and the community will have different opinions too. Merchant A will say "I only accept bitcoin bipXXX" and Merchant B will say "I only accept 8mb Bitcoin" There will be countless versions of bitcoins. The majority chain won't always get the 100% support. Once we get into the Hard Fork business there will be no end to it.

Come to think of it, I am actually surprised we made this far without getting forked.

R.I.P. Immutability.

I disagree.  All those people would have Bitcoin, but the majority chain would end up having the merchants and economic support.  There is a kind of herd movement, and that majority chain would still be decentralised just like the original Bitcoin has been for the past nine years.

Every time a bear market is looming (like it could be now), you'll see plenty of people creating reasons for why this, in particular, is dead or not worth as much as it is now.  Personally, I think that it's mostly wrong and that in a few years we'll be on a new problem that doesn't matter either.

The funny thing is that all those people who "called" the bear market will say "I told you so" when it starts going down... but they'll act mysteriously silent when it starts going way up again.

The bottom line is that the end is not going to come for a very long time, and that these are early days.  We're all waiting for something to happen, and something will either happen or it won't but either way, most of us will end up following along with whatever happens instead of confining ourselves to some little chain with 10% hash rate.

Decentralization will be the end of bitcoin it seems.

Everybody is free to propose anything. If 80% of the miners decide to fork off, they'll have bitcoin. If %10 of the miners go UASF, they'll have bitcoin either. If %10 the miners do nothing, they'll also have bitcoin.

Bitcoin.com will say theirs is the real bitcoin,
Bitcoin.org will promote their code,
And so on...

The end is near. Abandon ship.

But how do we exactly measure user support? Is it just node count? but node count can be easily faked.

Is it twitter polls? I don't think that counts.

I just don't see a proper way to measure how many users want Core and how many want to hardfork into Garzik's coin.

My fear is that the bulk of the bitcoin users are so dumb technologically that they will just use whatever Coinbase and the other big websites are using. Then you have all those sites and 80% of the hashrate (according to NYC agreement) approving Garzik's coin code... isn't that a problem?

Important tl;dr:
Quite old review considering the ever changing specification of this client.

Who exactly are you referring to?

I m really getting pissed how much bs comes up i.o. to achieve personal agendas.

Define: Users, miners, coders, economic majority, spam,... FIRST and without doubt before you try to split bitcoin community into fractions and start fighting 'the other side' with what s just 'wrong' compared to your own wakyshaky undefined standpoint.

We really need to come back to think about satoshis consensus and working auto correction of 'wrong'  (who knows in front in that complex env?) implementations through the game theo aproach / Nash equilibrium.

Example: If majority of all will come to conclusion, that entire bitcoin IS too much centralized ( attack might come up), adoption and price will drop -> correction needed ( last option split chain  or go altcoin ). consensus will auto follow best and highest adoption.

Relax and stop stupid splitting and FUD spreading.


Edit.

You might ask me to define FUD:

To me, FUD is:
Fear, that anyone could change the 21 Mio, if we allow two much flexibility ?
- no, its Definition of bitcoin and socially enfocred by all players. Attackers are minority

HF fear, feature fear, spam fear, centralization fear
- go away, bitcoin is STRONG it can take lot of things and Yes we need to do lots of mistakes and correct, but that s normal evolution. i have no fear bitcoin will go bust here. Lots of people will fix and get it work again.

https://medium.com/@lukedashjr/the-segwit-2x-beta-review-and-thoughts-ca480694a8c7
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-March/013923.html

Correct.

They are just signalling their intent to support it.

They haven't properly considered how consensus works. Right now, there are 0 users running 0 nodes with that code. I don't expect this to drastically change even after the code gets released (unless someone creates a lot of fake nodes). They somehow seem to think that the users must fall in line and accept their fork.

I've thought about this kind of outcome. But I now consider it unlikely.

I think the main goal of the miners is that users accept them to have influence over the development of the reference client. As they have identified the Core team as hostile to them, their desire would be an own implementation - what now begun as Segwit2x - to slowly become the reference software.

A "turning back" just before the Segwit activation would be counter-productive to this goal. In this case, they would give Core and the surrounding "small blocker" fraction the opportunity to accuse them to behave in an unstable and untrustworthy way, breaking their own agreement. In this case they would never have chances to convince enough users to download and use their implementation.

Instead, if they move forward with Segwit2x, they can present themselves as "the guys that ended the scaling war and the blockchain congestion" and offer an implementation (the 2MB hard fork) that assures that there won't be congestion again for a couple of years.

segwit2x is a false flag of 80% to then start orphaning off the other 20% to then get above the 95% to activate the bip9 from the pools prospective
(afterall the code is not even released yet the flagging has already started (facepalm))

the part about the 2mb involves usernodes actually running code to accept >1mb blocks. which we have yet to see the node count actually get established to be ready to accept >1mb blocks

so all that is 'possibly' guaranteed is the segwit tier network aspect and not so much the >1mb block aspect

SegWit alone does not have such support, not even close. The same can be told about blocksize increase. Only because these two are bundled, it is acceptable solution, but even this cannot get 95% levels. Thats why it was decreased to 80% when activating both, SegWit and 2M. While 95% levels would be preffered, it is unrealistical here. Not only about 85% miner support is guaranteed to activate SegWit2x, but also acceptance from the majority of Bitcoin economy, including exchanges.