Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 42. (Read 120014 times)

A good and witty summary


https://www.quora.com/Why-is-everyone-talking-about-how-something-significant-will-happen-to-Bitcoin-on-1-August-2017-What-is-it-that-will-happen-to-Bitcoin-then

When we are talking about the future, nothing is 100% certainty until after it happened.. but then that is no longer the future.

Again, if we are talking about segwit being implemented within 2months, maybe we are talking a decent 90% chance or more, so it seems. 

And if it's not clear, the whole point of this thread is to try and figure out what it means for all of us, I don't want to hype this fucking PoS. I've been trying to be relatively neutral with my reporting and shoot down the occasional trolls who've derailed the discussion. The fact is it's here and it's a tidal wave and we need to learn how to best ride the tidal wave rather than pretend it's not happening and be wiped out in the process ignoring it or trying to swim in another direction.

If that's what you really think, why do you keep feeding the publicity drive for this 2x proposal? You've been doing nothing but talk up it's relevance since it appeared, and yet you're conceding here that there are withheld details that will be imposed (or at least expected) once Segwit 4MB (i.e. BIP141) is activated.

You should make your position clearer: do you think mystery clauses in contractual agreements a good idea or not?

IMO, no matter what your personal belief is on the subject, anyone that hasn't already accepted that segwit is a 100% certainty is either in denial or delusional. It's been quite a while since the only questions that remained were "when?", "what comes after?", and "...and what else?". 

You've misunderstood what I'm flabbergasted by. I never said the whole thing was settled; not even remotely. How many times have I reiterated that what remains a complete mystery is what happens after segwit gets activated when we're staring down the barrel of the 2MB base blocksize (an 8MB overall block weight hence why I add the word base in there). The guy I just put on ignore seems to think this coinbase intention to signal of 85%+ is no guarantee that segwit will get activated and that the BU coinbase signatures used by Jihan and his minions are relevant to that.

It's the most relevant point in this thread for a while

When lies, deceit or manipulation are used to prosecute a certain developmental direction in Bitcoin, people get pissed. That's where the emotion comes from.

And this Segwit2x thing started as a deceit and is going to continue as one also. The idea is to change the total blocksize to 8MB (not 2MB, as it was rhetorically mislabeled at first), then to move that size to 16MB only 1 year later, then more doubling the next year to 32MB (and so "2x" is a good description of this plan, in fairness). Until Bitcoin is under the centralised control of the miners.


So, don't allow the miners to do this, that's my recommendation. Your money will be turned into centralised fiat, the opposite of what Bitcoin was conceived as.

Why? I think the guy has a point... For instance, if- when- and after SegWit gets locked in (and thus would make BU incompatible with it), there is no guarantee that the whole thing, to some degree, is 'settled'... We have seen many ideas addressing the scaling issue, yet we have also seen neither sides playing it nice. SegWit, Segwit2x, BU, UASF or whatever other proposal which can be labeled as a (temporary) 'answer', is addressing scaling; yet what they all lack, is addressing the emotions that have came along with them... Logic, basic or not, isn't applicable in that case, as logic simply cannot reason with emotions, the same as emotions cannot reason with logic, as in a way they're complete opposites of each other...

I know it's a bit off topic, but I think emotions play a major (if not the biggest) part in this whole scaling issue, and thus should be reckoned with; logic or not... 

Bitcoin users will know more once SegWit2x signaling moves a step further.
In the meantime, the network reached the 80% signaling threshold. If signaling moves forward,
BIP148 might become redundant as well, but this is not yet certain. Users must keep on monitoring the situation,
consulting reliable sources.

I tried. You seem incapable or not interested in understanding so I'll just add you to my list of "faith" people incapable of understanding basic logic worth putting on ignore (done).  You don't like this forum? Great! Go elsewhere and find the wisdom you seek which will support your faith. I suggest r/btc .

Mining pools are not idiots to agree to sonething that will compromise the crypto currency that their making profit with the planned implementation of segwit im sure they're also thinking for bitcoin's some part of our decentralization might be sacrifice but it is worth the risk to forward from the scaling solution and this one will benefit us in all long term. Some mining pool have already activated it with no reported bugs or flaws, i forgot the name i think it's bit4 or something and this has been implemented also in an altcoin called altcoin but it wont be implemented unless all options has been exhausted let's wait and see.

Yeah, which have virtually no similarities in implementation or outcome?

Who else activates anything besides users? It's a euphemism pretending to support Core's holy grail - "decentralization".

OK well then maybe you can explain to me how Segwit2x will be adopted with 40% BU/EC miner support?  And 37.5% of the blocks supporting EC? And no outreach to the public whatsoever? With complete silence from Core devs?

Next, what's to prevent Core fanbois from convincing everyone to run the hastily prepared Segwit2x, then after Segwit is adopted, drop another release that doesn't hard fork to 2MB? Do you think the miners will fall for the "bait and switch" tactic used in Hong Kong again? Finally, what makes you think that the miners won't just flag this Segwit 2x support in their headers (it took 10 seconds of work) until the UASF guys lose all of their steam?

I'm starting to think this forum is just an echo chamber for bickering... there must be a better source of information elsewhere.

There is plenty of need to correct you on this since you're completely wrong.

You're really missing the significance of segwit2x. There is no doubt that the main players advertising segwit2x will adopt it. The code already does exist and is complete and they're calling it alpha simply because it hasn't undergone full testing yet. There is at least one pool that has activated its segwit enabling component from the code and is signalling bit4. There is no reason to believe they will back out now barring a major bug showing up. The reason for the rushed schedule for the segwit component is that they're determined to undermine BIP148 from functioning which is why they all start signalling one diff period before BIP148's activation date. Lukejr's army is a mixture of people who actually believe in BIP148 being a workable mechanism and people who just know they must keep pressure on to not let the miners back out of the segwit component of segwit2x.

Core is going to get its BIP141 original segwit activation through a fucked up convoluted secondary and tertiary messaging approach invented by the mining consortium so saying "waiting forever for segwit which will likely never come" is completely missing the point of segwit2x since it definitely WILL come and almost certainly hopeful thinking from a BU supporter. The fact you're reproducing my words for what the significance of BU is in light of the current situation and applying them to segwit says it all. Thinking otherwise now is nothing short of faith against all logic and reason. Either way if you keep believing otherwise you can see for yourself come mid-July.

As I said before, what core IS facing that goes against its plans that they have no contingency for is the 2MB hard fork after segwit activation months later. I have no idea how that's going to play out. A fixed 2MB hard fork in the segwit2x code however goes against EC as well so if you still think EC is relevant based on the 40% coinbase signatures at present then you're saying they will adopt the emergent approach to block size after 2MB is locked in to allow even larger blocks, or maybe switch back to smaller ones. Not sure why they'd bother with a hard fork to 2MB if they planned to switch to a flexible block size hard fork as well... Furthermore once segwit is locked in, the code is completely incompatible with BU.

Yeah, who would have thunk that acronyms discussing two concepts in user activated forking of a protocol would be similar, with the exception of the one dissimilar word they have in concept/function?  

I'm trying to summarize what's happening with this Shillbert/NY Agreement/Segwit2x and the current bitcoin landscape. Please correct me if I'm wrong anywhere.

* There IS code for Seg2x, and many miners and nodes are signalling support for it, but only with a header (not actually running the code)
* There are MANY proposals to scale the network and break the Segwit deadlock and scale the network, but none have majority support
* The mempool spamming has stopped, either due to high fees or another reason (perhaps it was price-rigging, which correlates with a drop in BTC/USD price?)
* Bitcoin has completely lost crypto market dominance in terms of transaction volume, and ETH is rapidly approaching BTC's daily total fiat volume
* Core devs are still not supporting any proposal that has a majority level of approval based on votes and/or signalling
* Various fringe factions have announced radical fork proposals that probably can't work, but are creating lots of buzz and uncertainty (UASF, UAHF, changing POW etc.)
* Tension seems to be mounting for an August 1 showdown
* The mainstream public seems clueless about the conflict behind the scenes
* There are essentially no public opinion leaders on the topic of scaling and the best path forward

From my perspective (no need to correct me on this), it seems that the well-funded actors in this drama are sticking to their guns. Core/Blockstream is stuck on "waiting forever for Segwit, which will likely never come", Bitmain is advocating for "increase blocksize or else", and the Lukejr army is opting for "we willz force Segwit through no matter what". Unlimited is quietly chugging along with 40%+ support, with no recent major drama.

The huge number of proposals to fix scaling is interesting. I believe that no one wants to do the hard work to push forward a proposal that doesn't get activated, so many of the proposals are just white-board mockups. Also, many of the proposals are actually just political demonstrations of power, designed to sway the debate in one way or another. Note the naming similarities and that they are similarly radical concepts of UASF and UAHF, neither of which will likely work, but both of which are contentious and dangerous.

At the end of the day, I still see a Nash equilibrium - no changes to the protocol.

Lol. No. Segwit2x is probably the third worst proposal that I've seen (right after EC or Jihan-Activated-hard-Fork). It's a kludge of various code, has no technical specification (keeps changing) and has almost zero community support (then again, the software isn't ready anyways).

No. You are confused. The images that I've posted clearly show that they are no longer signalling NY. This is how signalling looks like (blocks with red in the middle and Segwit2x text), and it seems that both have returned to doing this:

Lauda:  Aren't you saying the same thing as me?  You can hover over each of those blocks and several of the pools are signaling in various ways that probably show that the mining pools are currently hedging their bets, no?

You know that I was alwas arguing against SW and many others still do. Idiots can be very clever or even genius so I take this as merits.
If core was about to 'step' with this I can only see it was a step into a splitt of our community where you had some merits for as well.

SW2x gives back of some of the community and also some freedom and opens door for compromis and more user == decentralization. More decentralization that you might ever be able to proof having strict small blocks ( and small community support and fewer idiots).