Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 39. (Read 120014 times)

More shite code that is destined for the rubbish bin. Do people really think the miners are dumb enough to trust this "Segwit, then hard fork in 3 months agreement with no Core support"?

The miners will signal for Segwit2x until UASF loses all of its steam, then they'll go back to status quo 0.12.1 or whatever. Or maybe BU or a new 2MB hard fork proposal...

The more people f*ck with the miners and try to steamroll them into Segwit, the more likely they'll ALL band together and fork to something that will stanch bitcoin's continuing loss of market share (the elephant in the room).  

The facts that people are compiling and running a non-Core release and that Core doesn't even have a seat at the negotiating table shows just how much their influence has waned.

And just lol at the "decentralized" rhetoric floating around. At this point it's obvious that the word decentralized has lost all meaning other than good/Core and the word centralized only means bad/miners in this echo chamber. Supreme irony given the centralization of Lightning and the draconian tactics Core/Blockstream is using to ram it down our throats.

It seems to me that the way that segwit would be implemented would allow for mechanisms that achieve the 95% consensus levels of segwit (bip 141 and bip 9) through bip 91 reconciliation, but that reconciliation does not have the same kind of 95% level to achieve for either the 2mb limit increase or the hardfork. 

So in that regard, there seems to be some tension regarding whether either of those 2mb increase or hardfork are going to achieve 95% consensus..   Of course if those two do not receive 95% consensus then they cannot be hardforked as a non-contentious kind of thing that is within the already existing framework that is requiring 95%, of course unless that threshold gets lowered below 95%. 

Currently, the hardforking threshold for the contending group seems to be at changing the consensus to 80%.. so maybe if the consensus were somewhere between 80% and 95% then there could be a hardfork because it is not sufficiently over the 95% in order to achieve current required consensus.   And, then at that point there would be two bitcoin forks and a need to chose which one to support

 If businesses, miners are willing to hardfork off and to continue to follow the hardfork based on 80% consensus, then that would be a change in the governance rules under the new hardfork and maybe the new bitcoin would then begin to have 80% consensus?   And, maybe thereafter consensus would be achieved at 80% rather than 95%, which would make bitcoin relatively easy to change rather than hard to change.

It seems that there are theories that making bitcoin easier to change would take away disputes about bitcoin, but probably, making bitcoin easier to change would cause more disputes rather than fewer, until bitcoin's value is diminished down to make it no longer distinguishable as an immutable secure and decentralized value storage system?

I have my doubts about whether the following would continue to be that strong and even sustainable up to 80% regarding the idea of a 2mb increase and hardforking, especially once segtwit is locked in... .. So this is likely going to continue to be contentious with continued plays to hardfork, unless the support for that 2mb and hardforking position dies down to very low levels (like way below 30%), which remains uncertain at this point.

I see what you're getting at, but neither example seems to fit the scenario we're in.  


If you walked into a random construction site for a building that isn't yours and you've made it abundantly clear you wouldn't willingly choose to live in it given the option, but still thought you'd chime in and tell the builders how to do their job, that would be analogous to what's happening here.  Silbert's group can build whatever they please, just as Core can.  Neither gets to tell the other what they can't or can't build, or how to build it.




And for representative democracy, again, Core have every right to dictate what their own manifesto should entail, but they don't get to dictate how the other candidates run their party or what policies they can or can't campaign on.  It just doesn't work like that.

I also thought 2 megabyte improvement and segwit are the same offers. If they're separete, how can they be implemented into blockchain evenly?

Its misunderstanding to think SegWit and 2M are separate things. These have to come together, its the only reasonable way how SegWit could get 95% and some base blocksize increase implemented. SegWit2x is acceptable compromise for many, and the 2M part going to happen as well. The only question is whether there going to be significant split of Bitcoin economy ignoring the change, which I doubt.

If you hire a collection of people to build your house, you're going to moan if they start trying to build an extension you didn't want.  You'd say, "why didn't you just build the extension I showed you?"

Sure, you wouldn't be capable of building it yourself, but you know what you want. 

Another example:  you have a representative democracy.  You're not capable of doing everything related to running the country, but you still advocate certain policies and oppose others, which is how people get elected and how they get somewhat influenced by the views of the public.
It's not like there are no devs willing to work on Bitcoin or something... it's just saying "you should do x instead of y", and even if one specific group won't do it, it's possible that another will if it has enough public support.

If public opinions are regarded as futile, then no one would know what they actually want in the first place.

I'm just pointing out the futility of complaining about the quality of any work that you aren't willing to do yourself.  It doesn't achieve anything.  In effect, you forfeit the right to moan about how you would have done it better if you clearly have no intention of doing it to begin with.  If anyone would like to see SegWit2x completed to a higher standard, "put up or shut up", basically.  I'm not saying it would or should be in Core's interest to actually go ahead and do it, just that there's no point in pretending their input is of any consequence if they willingly remove themselves from the equation.  By all means critique the intended goal of the code if you have justification, but if you aren't part of the creation process, all you can do is express a meaningless preference on what that creation process should be.  That's the extent of your influence on the matter.

Core are free to churn out whatever code they like, however they like, via any process they like.  If anyone else disagrees with how Core go about their business, they're free to express a meaningless preference or try to create something better.  The same applies to Barry Silbert's group.  If you think you can do SegWit2x better, by all means go for it.  But beyond that, it's just posturing.

Why is F2Pool not signaling anymore ??

Has anyone information about this?

Pretty much this.

Everybody's playing the Mr. Nice Guy till we get segwit, when it comes to 2mb fork, cancer cells will get dumped to the trash can and we'll move on.

So just imho to review what this all means

1) using the segwi2x agreement....segregated witness is implemented.

2) the 2mb part of the above is still up in the air, due to bitcoin core making no comment on adoption

Result:  We get to do this all over again with the 2mb hard-fork controversy in 3 months or so.

Does that about sum it up?

The code is already tested for two weeks on testnet, and 2-3 more weeks available before real signaling begins.

SegWit2x Calendar:
https://segwit2x.github.io/

July 14 - Agreement Participants Install and Test Milestone
July 21 - Nodes Running & Signaling begins

I'm not competing with you... just attempting to have a communication and to attempt to clarify various assertions... and I suppose we have accomplished enough clarification for the time being.

No, it's like you saying:

I'm too tired for your silliness .... I concede; you're 100% right, I'm 100% wrong.... Take the "win" and go on about your merry little way.  

It's like arguing that I have failed to read encyclopedia brittanica because all the answers are in there somewhere, and without specifying where or what I am supposed to look for.

I think that I am sufficiently educated about whatever we had been talking about.  You are the one making vague accusations that are not really backed up.. I am supposed to educate myself about your vague accusations and you don't even tell me what I am supposed to look for, besides core members being a bunch of tyrants?




Yeah, but you did not back up any of that with any kind of evidence, so it is really not helpful and it seems to have slid mostly into non-relevance because you cannot even show how it is even remotely relevant (except for the point conceded by everyone, including myself that an overwhelming majority of Core devs wanted to have seg wit implemented), when it appears that we are going to get segwit consensus from 95% or more of the hashing power, and not all of those miners and various community supporters who are facilitating the achievement of 95% consensus are not core, are they?

@JayJuanGee
You're right, there's nothing left for you and I to discuss (especially since you seem to keep wanting to go on about things that you don't want to educate yourself about and, based on that, you confuse facts with "unnecessary negative accusations").  




P.S. - it's not an "unnecessary negative accusation" to assert the fact that Core's main obligation is to Core and the collective beliefs of Core.  

I don't have to read some amorphous and non-specific "logs" in order to know that a large number of core developers have been passionately pushing for the signaling and support of segwit since at least late 2016 - probably before the ability to signal the code was even released.

So, I don't understand why you would want to argue about whether I understand that particular point that Core is pushing for segwit.. that is a given, no?

Signaling of segwit has been largely between about 24% and 36% for many months before this segwit2x and New York agreement came about.  So, even though core devs largely did not participate in the NYA or even agree to various terms of segwit2x, it appears that segwit2x is going to provide some momentum to accomplish consensus at the 95% level, which certainly seems to be what a large number of core devs (maybe all of them) wants.

Like I said before segwit is not a done deal, so we will have to see how it plays out and make sure that the 95% consensus evolves through these various signalings and running of various codes.

Regarding your assertion that there is some kind of fatalism or that seg wit is going to get done no matter what, you seem to be overstating the case. Sure there may be other cards up the sleeves of core devs to play in the even that seg wit were not to get activated through this segwit2x thing-a-majigie, but that does not seem to matter too much, if we get seg wit prior to the need for them to play any such other cards, if they were to exist. 


So, again, I am not sure about the direction in which we are going in this conversation, now, because you seem to want to make amorphous claims about the alleged corruption of Core devs while not dealing with certain actual facts, including that seg wit is likely to be activated in the coming months, implemented and locked in through the efforts of a broad swath of the community - and that is how 95% consensus is looking to be possible through the various proposals that have been made (including BIP9 and BIP148 and BIP141) and how they have been reconciled through BIP 91 in order to get us a decent likelihood of segwit getting locked in - apart from unnecessary negative accusations about Core, right?

So, segwit is the first part, and seems to have been agreed to, and then the other parts might be a bit more difficult and ongoing regarding 2mb increase, hardfork and/or attempts at changes to consensus.  What else do we have to talk about?  Some of this is playing out, and you seem to just want to attack core, and I am losing track of what additional points you want to make maybe in regards to these other aspects, besides the segwit portion?

That is the crux of the topic, and the part that you fail to realistically grasp. There is no "if", "maybe", or "likelihood"; Core wants segwit, thus Bitcoin will have segwit (if Core didn't want segwit, then Bitcoin would never have segwit*).


*Again, as reference/"evidence" I direct you to read the actual logs of Core discussions on how things are adopted into/by Core

At this point, we are not getting anywhere and you are not even engaging in substantive discussions of the topic.

You want to bash on Core, and that does not even seem to be the topic of this thread.

We have a very likelihood that seg wit is going to pass and get locked in, but surely that is not a done deal yet.

You seem to have a beef about the 2mb portion, and the hardfork and the changing of consensus.  Those are issues that are going to go into the future, and you are suggesting that core is obstructing such, but really without giving evidence, except for saying that I should read the github and not even describing what I should look for, except maybe just to try to find some kind of evidence of an oligarchy and connections that are not allowing the presentation and serious consideration of proposals.


Anyhow it seems that we are on a decent track with this segwit portion, and maybe we are going to be able to resolve some of these other matters over the coming months too, otherwise if we cannot reach sufficient consensus on the other items then the status quo will carry on, no?  And you will complain about the status quo, without really providing specifics accept for asserting that the system is somehow biased against you and people with proposals like yours?

@JayJuanGee
I love how you attempt to invalidate what I have to say about Core by attempting to say that it's wrong for me to say that you should learn about Core through the direct words/deeds/beliefs of Core. You're right, I should just do like you did and cement my base beliefs on what I've read from 4th party interpretations.  

Desperate times need desperate measures. People were getting fed up with sky high fees and extreme delays in confirmation time. Everyone was looking for some sort of solution, and back then BU looked like the only viable resolution. That's why people like me initially supported the BU.