Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 40. (Read 120014 times)

You seem to be doing your own conflating and trying to act as if you are making some kind of meaningful argument.

You keep asserting your conclusion over and over and over.. that core is not receptive to new ideas and attempting to suggest that they are some kind of unified body that is unreceptive to change.

From my understanding there have been a large number of upgrades to bitcoin over the years, and even in recent times, too; however this scaling debate one has become the most controversial largely because it has been an attempt to change governance... and making threats of hardforking ever since about the middle of 2015 with the introduction of XT.  Maybe there were additional threats at governance changes, but there has been a lot of credibility lost when there are strenuous arguments being made for a technological change that really is not necessary.. and the real objective is to change governance and make bitcoin easier to change...

If some kind of technological change were so benefitial and advantageous, then it will be able to achieve the necessary consensus, such as 95% - otherwise, bitcoin is not broken and it can continue to work as it was desiged to be a immutable decentralized secure means for storage and transfer of value.






Again, there is no need to a bunch of whining masses if they do not understand what they are whining about and if they are making shit up.  If there is no technological need that can be justified by facts and/or logic, then there is no need to make the change, even if the whining masses assert that they perceive there is a problem that does not exist.. or that the proposed remedy creates more problems than it cures.




There is already a system in place for BIPs.




Well if you cannot get enough support for your BIP, then maybe you threaten to fork off and you could either become the new bitcoin or you could end up being an alt.. you are correct.





could be that there is a system and dynamic in place, already, like you suggest.  But since the software is open source, can't you just tweak the software, if you believe that there is a better software for folks to run, and then little by little you become the majority and even the super majority.. If you have some kind of superior plan that is obvious to the people, then what wrong with running and attempting to promulgate that better plan (running software for example?)  Oh you want it given to you?  You want your new software just to be accepted because a bunch of people are whining but they have not yet written the supposedly superior software?





Yeah, right.  A sign of a disingenuous argument is to suggest that you know something that I don't know but refuse to describe what that supposed something is?  The fact of the matter is that we cannot know everything and participate in everything, but we can still have opinions based on what we do know.  From what I understand, in bitcoin the status quo is represented by the software that is being run, and if you want to change the status quo, you have the burden of production (regarding evidence) and the burden of persuasion (regarding logic) if you want that status quo to change, otherwise the status quo stays in place.  Yep, there is some advantage in the status quo, but merely because it is not changing does not mean that they are reluctant to change or that they are not receptive to change, it more likely means that the ones attempting to change the status quo to something else have not met their burdens of production or their burdens of persuasion.. therefore the presumption of the continuation of the status quo continues... that is where we are at in bitcoin.  

Now currently, it appears that there is a certain level of consensus that is building around seg wit and it is likely to meet its burdens in order to get adopted into bitcoin in the coming months.  

1) the 2mb blocksize limit does not seem to be close enough for implementation, 2) the hardfork does not seem to be close enough for implementation and 3) changes in governance does not seem close enough for implementation - however, in the future, some or all of these matters could change, and maybe they will be more readily be at the point where they can reach sufficient consensus and be implemented into bitcoin?

Well, i dont kiss Core's asses i just want the best for Bitcoin. a HF need full support with a working code. ( Lightning needs bigger blocks anyway in the foreseeable future)

I was ok with BU at the start but when i realized that BU was bugged i didnt supported it anymore, i was stunned how many guys where ok with that

Oh... I almost forgot that it was going to get released today. How many days it will take to find the bugs, if there are any? Honestly, I hope that no major bugs will be found. But considering the fact that this was rushed through, I am worried.

The main problem with having any sort of conversation is that you're conflating the idea of "difficult to change by design" and "difficult to change because a minority refuse to allow a change to be made". The difficulty in all of this is finding a change that is needed and Core (deemed the "official devs" by the masses that they ignore the wishes of) is willing to accept.
In a "perfect world", the protocol moves forward because Core is willing to allow the changes needed to the existing platform rather than creating a separate platform; sadly, we don't live in that world. Sadly, we live in a world where Core does what Core wants, the rest of us can be damned, and any changes have to be approved by Core or risk becoming an altcoin.

The issue isn't one of being hard to change by protocol design (current or otherwise), the issue is that it's hard to change because of mass adoption of Core wallets early on (so any protocol change must also include non-protocol conformity with Core software in order to survive). It's quite sad to see your mind miss out on the scope of all of this.

The fact that you haven't, renders your opinions moot under the weight of actual facts.

I think that you are in-line with the thinking of most of the core members, Paashaas, - so that might mean that you are part of the oligarchy? 

The new definition of oligarchy, according to ComputerGenie, seems to be that if you share similar ideas as core, then either you are one of them and part of an oligarchy or you are a "fan boy."

Segwit2x code will be released today, let's see how that works out. I'm still getting a headache about that rushed HF.

Imo, we need Segwit and pump every singel potential out of it before considering a HF.

First, this is not a democracy, meaning majority rules.  If majority rules, then bitcoin would truely get destroyed, no?  One of the whole points about being difficult to change is that we are starting out with a system that is not broken, and is disruptive and there is a lot of incentives from status quo govt and financial institutions to destroy it.

Second, what evidence are you suggesting in terms of Core conversations are meant to support your supposed oligarchy assertion?  You want me to read the whole thing or is there some summary of it?  What kinds of points are being made to cause it to fit a definition of "oligarchy?"  Are there some folks who are actually wanting to contribute and that want to get in that cannot?

I'm not sure if you're intentionally being obtuse or if you're just that dense.

• In a decentralized system, the major majority isn't just "any tom, dick or harry". Because, English.
• In a centralized system, the major majority is ignored by the oligarchy. Because, English.
• Please, explain how the thousands of hours of Core conversation logs isn't "evidence" of what happens to/in/with Core....

ComputerGenie is asserting, without evidence or logic, that Core is an "Oligarchy." 

This is not a new idea - but it is a repeated accusatory theme that big block nut jobs want to assert because they want to change bitcoin governance and to make bitcoin easier to change by reducing consensus down from 95% to 80% or some other convenient number in order that bitcoin can be taken over by any group of folks who can muster up 80% by hook or by crook.

There may be circumstances in which a softfork can be made or some kinds of changes that are likely to be non-controversial and low consensus to get the ball rolling.. .but as soon as we start to talk about making significant and controversial changes, then we better be looking at really high levels of consensus, and 95% seems to serve pretty well for such.. maybe that can be tweaked, but does not seem to be a bad thing...

My understanding is that making changes to bitcoin should be fucking hard, and that is why we are not going to get too many changes that are going to be able to achieve 95% consensus.. That is a feature, not a bug, as big blocker nutjobs frequently erroneously argue about wanting to make bitcoin "more flexible."  Yeah, let's make bitcoin so fucking flexible that any tom, dick or harry can take it over, that would be good, right?  Is that what you want ComputerGenie?

Actually it is (144 * 90) blocks, or around 3 months.

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/blob/segwit2x/src/consensus/consensus.h

And just to move away from the political discussion for a moment and discuss the topic at hand, it appears they're finalising details of the 2MB hard fork.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-June/000060.html

According to this, the hard fork will happen only 3 months after segwit gets activated.

The first beta is being released tomorrow.

My evidence is the thousands of hour of logs that Core has made public.

You wax on about how "anyone" can "submit" "anything", but you conveniently ignore that submitting something is meaningless.
I think you need to click here and learn this word.

You suggest that I am some kind of fan boy of core, and where's your evidence?  I am describing what I see as facts and dynamics and speculation about outcomes and not taking sides.

The irony is that you are attempting to make core out as if it were centralized and it is not...  where's your evidence?  Anything convincing in that regard?

Anyone can submit whatever the fuck they want for consideration to the core github in order that their BIP can be considered based on logic and facts.

It should be pretty clear that there is really no need for 2mb or a hardfork or a downgrading of consensus guidelines, and those propositions are supported by evidence and logic.  

So the fact that a bunch of nutjob core folks happen to agree with those points and principles does not make them centralized.  Helrow?  

You argue that core folks are centralized or they have some kind of common bias?  and where the fuck is your evidence?  Some are getting paid?  So fucking what?  Is there some kind of connection that shows they are controlled?  They can express whatever ideas they want and as individuals they seem to agree that there is no need for a 2mb upgrade, there is no need for a hardfork and there is no need to change consensus... Those are ideas that they seem to agree upon, at least at the moment, and each of them seems to be free to change his opinion in that regard, if he feels like it.

I think those kinds of claims about centralization of core are nonsense because they are not based on evidence or logic but instead some scant conspiracy theories.  You have any convincing evidence or logic in support of the supposed centralization of core?





Again, more nonsense from you ComputerGenie.  The core individuals can do whatever they want.  There is no religion involved.  If you can convince them to change their minds based on evidence and logic, then that would be great, rather than just asserting that they have some kind of unbreakable alliance.. which is nonsense... stick to the substance of arguments, please.

That's possibly the best non-delusional comment ever I've read on the subject of Core. Core will never go against Core, not even if 99.9999999999% of the rest of everyone using/involved in Bitcoin sees something different.

There's a perverse irony in your fanboy "argument" to his claim. You do get that your claim is that a decentralized Core will not follow the will of the decentralized majority, in any instance where they personally disagree with the decentralized majority, and that makes them not centralized, right? 

Core following the beliefs of Core makes Core a "centralized entity". There's a reason you can only be a Catholic priest if you're Catholic, and it's much like how one doesn't get to be a true Core dev* if one doesn't hold a specific belief system.





*the guys that get paid for working on Core and can, literally, control what Core is/does; not the "contributes" who have deluded themselves and others into thinking they are "devs"

What you are arguing seems to make little sense, or possibly I do not sufficiently understand your point?

Core is not some kind of centralized entity, but if consensus within that group is to push for segwit without a 2mb increase because as individuals each of them believes that there is no fucking justification for actually adding either a 2mb upgrade or especially attempting to accomplish such in terms of a hardfork, so why would any specific one of them (of course any one of them is free to do what he wants) just concede and write some stupid ass technically unnecessary code?

Furthermore, it seems that this segwit2x, as flawed as it may be, may well end up being a vehicle that catalyses the activation, implementation and locking in of segwit - without the dumbass 2mb or the hardforking parts. 

So fine and dandy, we are going to get a bunch of whiners down the road, who are trying to argue that the 2x part was already agreed to because of NY agreement and because segwit2x code, but why would core jump in and concede on that 2x part (or the hardforking part), when it is not agreed to and is not technically necessary, at least at this point and even more once segwit is actually locked in? 

Furthermore, why would core agree to concede to any kind of change in governance to allow for 80% consensus when it seems to appear that there are vehicles already in place, including BIP148 and BIP91 that seem to have considerable incentives to cause a movement from 80% in order to achieve the necessary 95% consensus which they had outlined in BIP9.  O.k. maybe down the road there will be some BIP vehicles that allow for other kinds of changes in governance - at least in terms of how to reach consensus, and what kind of thresholds might be sufficient - but at this point it is looking like 95% plus is going to be a pretty safe accomplishment and it looks pretty probable to be achieved in the near term, at least with the segwit portion, no?

While it would certainly be better to have everything out in the open, the simple fact is, Core could be producing this code themselves.  It's merely that you choose not to because it conflicts with your preferred vision of development.  It's easy to sit there and complain about the manner in which they're going about it, but we could avoid all of that if you offered everyone a choice in the code they choose to run.  If you were to release another version of Core which supports both SegWit and a 2mb base, then you can have a say on the process used to create it.  Plus it would be far more constructive than sniping.

From gmax's listserv post:



Exactly what I was saying about signalling - very different from actually running code and actually orphaning blocks in as a little as 2 weeks...

And the code just officially dropped today? This is highly suspect. I still don't see Segwit activating.

Perhaps one or two key Core devs are feeding the Segwit2x code to a third party who is "not Core", so Core doesn't have to bear the brunt when nobody hard forks in 3 months? 

I think that this article is in sync with what is being said here regarding time line.

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-scaling-project-segwit2x-release-new-code-tomorrow/

Segwit2x tested for two weeks, and then maybe go live at that point, and then the real test is regarding how many miners are actually running it, rather than merely stating an intention to run it?

At that point, would it be fair to add up those running segwit2x and those running BIP141 in order to achieve 80% under BIP91?  and then once BIP91 80% requirements are met, then it becomes a requirement to signal segwit or otherwise become orphaned... which would cause more than 95% and then the activation of BIP 141.   

There seems to be a kind of loophole here, because BIP141 is currently at above 44%,  but if that percentage is added together with whoever is going to run segwit2x, then only 36% would be needed in order to trigger BIP91 - which would pretty much make segwit certain thereafter?   

Perhaps if Core pulled the cobs out of their collective asses, let uses drive the protocol, stopped playing the centralized Gods of Bitcoin, and modernized Core (in general), then people wouldn't feel the need to "go around" Core?