Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 4. (Read 120029 times)

As far as I understand it, the "BIP-91" technique is a technique invented to abuse of the "95% consensus soft fork rule" (BIP 9), and enforce it at any level, between 50% and 95%, without having to write explicit code for that and altering BIP 9, and hence, rendering BIP 9 moot, and using the "pure hash power majority" effect that imposes a soft fork on all miners if a hash rate majority adopts it.

Reminder: without any self-restraint, any soft fork that reaches 51% of hash rate can impose itself upon everyone, without inducing a chain split.  In order to render soft forks not so "dictatorship of the hash rate majority", but "full hash rate consensus", BIP 9 was introduced, that only activates proposed soft forks if they reach 95% consensus.

Of course, in reality, you better have some safety margin, because if your hash rate drops below 51%, you may see non-soft-fork blocks appear again in the chain (by the non-soft fork majority if they didn't adopt the soft fork or reverted back from it) which can be a huge mess.

BIP-91 style technique reduces BIP 9 back to potentially 51% majority over minority.

It goes as follows.  Pick your "safety margin for majority" (say, 80%, or 55%, or 75%...) A.   
Program the "real" soft fork under BIP 9, with 95% consensus needed to activate.

Propose a "meta" soft fork, by requiring signalling for the "meta soft fork".  The meta soft fork is simply a fork that doesn't do anything particular, except requiring signalling for the real soft fork.  If your meta soft fork reaches A, apply it (it is not difficult to apply it, contrary to the real soft fork which you leave to real devs: you only need to check on the signalling bit, and reject the block if it doesn't signal, that's all).

==> your A-level soft fork (not BIP9, but easily implemented) now requires that all blocks signal the real soft fork.  If A > 51%, this meta soft fork is IMPOSED upon all, so the surviving chain is the one with 100% signalling for the real soft fork, which now activates because 100% > 95%.

In reality, the real soft fork has been imposed with A-level majority, not with 95% consensus, but you made the software believe that you had 95% consensus, because you applied a non-BIP9 soft fork (the meta soft fork).

In other words, this kills the idea of BIP9, while keeping it still running.  Soft forks can now be imposed by any majority, even 51%, like soft forks do work.

The game is to withdraw early adopters holding a lot of bitcoins and to cause a split or hardfork. The only unknown variable  for me if our beloved Chinese friends want to participate in that game and control a new bitcoin world. It is not up to developers or so called miners owning one or two miners 10-20 T:) For me it will happen sooner or later it is a matter  of time. So I am going to sell all of my BTC very very soon
Just my two cents
Genaraly speaking people with a lot money and power want to fuck the ones with less money and power
For me BTC idea is dead unfortunately. Whole BTC thing is becoming a bug busness which is not my game

Bitcoin protected by many people:
1. Miners (not only mining pools but miners itself, miner select pool with policy he accept)
2. Exchangers (at now main giver of price to Bitcoin)
3. Mining pools.
No one of this people want bad for bitcoin.
Not trust to bitcoin-core developers and use bitcoin-core of 2014 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v0.9.1
And wait until everything will clears up.

The best advice I can give is "don't listen to Tone Vays". Seriously, he is one of the biggest idiots in the whole bitcoin scene. His defense of Segwit in a debate with Roger Ver was a huge embarrassment, both due to his lack of technical knowledge, and his poor understanding of economics. The only humor of his idiocy came from Brian Hoffman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edav-9pvpNs

Even if the 2mb thing is another cluster and problematic in a few months....this agreement allowed All to 'at least' have some cover and climb on board and make segregted witness
legit and in play for all.

That is not after 2 years of 'haggling' insignficant

(unless it takes another 2 years to solve the next btc crypto issue) ACK!... scared self!

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

Still, think the 2mb part of this is the 'line in the sand' for the miners etc.... imho again....bitcoin core has all the clout on HOW to make this 'robust' and work in the best manner

they do that with a level of testing that just not tosses it out there...bitcoin core contributes their expertise....and bitcoin core could gain a lot of creds...moving past this 2mb addition

and on to other endeavors of coding for Bitcoin beyond the 2mb in-fighting..

the verifiable and prudent manner to add features via soft forks and testing on test net etc..... Anyway, my view, move past it and code it correctly ...regain some cred imho

(again I know zip..just how I see their options at this point....polish the turd if that is what they think it is....and move on afterward....reputation and coding standards still intact)

Your last sentence contains very wise sense:  Custom Software


That's what we need to head to.


Gedankenexperiment:

Do we need software at all?

Think of the Monopoly Game -  The rules a very simple written into a White Paper

Who / what  enforces the rules?  > there is no tech impl needed!


There is just a strong agreement needed between more or less equal players that will all benefit when all play to this 'mental' rules.

You trust old big player a bit more since they keep the game on track.

It there is a single one getting too big -> all others will exit this game.

So players see them getting too big , needs to shrink i.o. the keep the game up and running into eternity...



>>>>


The tech code we need could be a very very thin one -> minimum protocol level

You make no sense...

No one is going to agree to be a lemming and to walk over a cliff just because all the lemmings in front of them are going over the cliff, right?

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? 

There's no code to follow or review, so there are way too many ambiguities in the supposed agreement.  And it is not even bad faith to have a different way of interpreting what it requires.

Bitcoin is not centralized, and sure if you are trying to find negatives about lack of efficiency, then you will find that.  On the other hand there are systems that are in place that allow for almost anyone to participate.

I believe when nutjobs attempt to participate in a decentralized system, then they try to impose too many of their own values and have difficulties allowing the system to play out and attempting to find value in the already existing system and attempting to fix issues in incremental rather than drastic means?

Hopefully, we are all learning.

I am not a technical person, but I have learned quite a bit in the past three and a half years that I have been following bitcoin matters.  Sure I get tricked into frameworks or tricked into misidentifying issues - and I am sure that core participants go through similar situations and maybe even sometimes get jaded or have to step back for a bit when they are getting too caught up in certain aspects whether that is politics or just what seems to be wheel spinning endeavors.

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.

No - I've no correlation to anyone .

I KNOW a lot of software, economics + game theory, industrial style projects, change management .... -> and RISK + REPUTATION issues.

Bitcoin has all of that and needs more discipline or it stays nichy - I guess you can follow?

I like to see some legend open a 'Lesson Learned' thread - or I do that. This should get the bitcoin project here up to NEXT LEVEL -> Scaling is one, Reputation is far more important.

Think of a  perfect scaleable system it can do all you want > If only stupid freaks leads and sell it - who wants that ?

Thanks for that further clarification, and some times it feels like we are beating a dead horse with some of these matters and the repetition of various themes.

And, sometimes I cannot help myself by using denigrating language to refer to some of these big blocker folks - but the fact of the matter is that they cause their own ambiguity seemingly on purpose and then try to take advantage of the ambiguity.  They fail and refuse to follow various formal practices or to follow through in such a way to cause clear and unambiguous mechanisms.  They likely realize that the more clear they make it or the more formal they make it, then they will lose a large number of followers because they are missing mechanism to trigger or to formally achieve their goals - so they resort to various passive aggressive tactics and reliances on nuances, rather than following established systems and protocol... or otherwise proposing reasonable and acceptable ways to tweek standards and protocols.. so yeah, I see what you are saying with the lack of triggering mechanisms that seems to cause quite a bit of their own problems and ambiguities.

You write like you are a nutjob hv_..... ... Is that you craig?  roger?  Jihan?  Which one are you?      Actually, I have seen videos of craig and roger, but I have never seen jihan talk so I am not sure whether he talks as crazy as those other two.

You are writing as if you are victim and that you already been fucked and you are writing as if you are in some kind of superior position at the moment because you have the New York Agreement.  Apparently, the NYA is Hong Kong agreement 2.0 in which you and your big blocker nut job buddies  continue to assert that the agreement was breached and read whatever the fuck you want into the agreement... such as the locking in of 2mb hard limit increase.  It is like you do not understand nuance and think that if you just keep repeating your view of events (no matter how detached from reality they are), you are going to get your way.

The reality of the matter is there is no fucking mechanism that forces the 2mb upgrade or the hardfork... no matter how frequently you repeat it as if it were some kind of real and concrete thing.

Segwit2x does not have a valid BIP. Miners were meant to signal their intent to fork with segwit2x by adding NYA to their coinbase. BIP91 was proposed by James Hilliard as a way of making segwit2x compatible with BIP141 (the original core segwit activation). Thus it does not have anything to do with the 2x hard fork component in the future. The only thing that says miners are for both is the presence of NYA in their coinbase, which doesn't even activate anything in particular, it's just a comment, along with the continued signalling on bit 4. You can see why the hard fork is precarious in light of this.

They just cannot stop fighting - this is sad.... but I hope all understand that there is nothing for free. SW2x is a trade off to keep bitcoin un-split. Hope even the dumbest will learn this on soft way now.

I fear if that stupid fighting comes up again and NYA agreement will be broken - we are doomed and split?

I believe that a layman's explanation is that BIP91 facilitates (or forces) the locking in and activation of segwit.  The beginning of the forcing of the signaling of segwit (through BIP141) will start after the 350 block grace period that already started.. which is really in a few days, but will cause the 95% locking in of segwit, which will thereafter cause segwit to activate in the terms of BIP141 , which locking in about mid August .

BIP91 also causes some attention to a possible 2mb blocksize limit increase through a hardfork - however, the language of BIP91 does not seem to mandate those further steps regarding 2mb increase or the hardfork (as mentioned by -ck above).

So the more important thing about BIP91 seems to be providing a vehicle or a channel to activate segwit - which also nullifies the activation of BIP148 (User Activated Soft Fork) that would have gone into effect on 8/1.. but is now unnecessary because of this whole matter of seg wit already going to be on the path of activation, which is what BIP148 would have attempted to cause.

Can anyone say more than that regarding what BIP91 actually causes?  Maybe causes a sense of comfort in the markets to have some kinds of resolution and direction of the segwit portion of the bitcoin fundamentals matter.


[woops I edited some of the above text, and then I saw below that -ck had responded & cited the earlier version]

The NY agreement stipulates that the two are tied together; that by signalling bit 4 they are voting to activate segwit AND the hard fork down the track. They did this in the hope they could get their (useless) block size increase after activating segwit. However there is absolutely nothing that guarantees the lock in of the hard fork 3 months from now based on bit 4 being active at the moment. There is nothing stopping all the miners from simply dropping the btc1 fork code and just using core after segwit is activated, and not all pools actually signed the agreement. Heck there's little sign anyone's actually using the btc1 fork at the moment. Likely they're all custom patched with segsignal just for BIP91 as my pool is.

Well ...supposedly.....seg witness is now incorporated into 'everyones' type of bitcoin protocol

what about the other shoe to drop here in a few months....ie .....2mb hardfork

the next bit of thought on this thread I guess  ...in that it is SegWit2x +2mb fork ...as I understand it

my own view is....this is where the miners have 'drawn a line in the sand' and won't budge

if my 'likely wrong' viewpoint is correct and I was bitcoin core

I'd go along with the hard fork and get bitcoin core reputation back by making it 'iron clad' with

what the miners want and whatever bells and whistles the coders could drop into this ..now that it

is a done deal........then again..that is just how I'd play it as a bitcoin core dev/assoc etc

(then again the last thing I coded was a 1980 Apple // with BASIC..so I know zip )


Others...how do you think it is gonna play out?

I'm also not 100% sure, but maybe this makes sense?



https://twitter.com/pierre_rochard/status/888163762850717696