Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 44. (Read 120014 times)

GBminers is already signalling segwit so even if they don't explicitly support segwit2x, they'll be fine once the segwit component activates, as will all other segwit signalling pools like mine. Slush is a quick mover and is offering segwit signalling anyway as one of his options and is currently talking about considering signalling segwit2x as well on his feeds so there's no way he'll be left with orphaned blocks come the actual activation time. That only leaves a handful of smaller pools that aren't signalling anything yet. No doubt once segwit is being signalled they'll simply see they have no choice but to come on board.

Forget about 80% consensus, we are now nearing 90% support, with SegWit2x being supported by 89.6% right now. In just around 24 hours, the support levels have increased from less than 80% to around 90%. Among the major mining pools, as far as I know only Slush Pool and GB Miners are resisting the implementation of SegWit2x. 

theres many aspects to it.. theres many reasons for having a distributed decentralised network of nodes.
things like (using torrent as an analogy)  if your connected to 8 seeds and need to sync(your the leacher for now) and the seeds have 4 nodes of 485,000 blocks but another 4 nodes have 484000 blocks. your going to grab data from the 485,000 nodes as you define that as the most complete list.

however you find out that the 485,000 nodes are on the old rules you end up orphaning them blocks and banning the nodes.. leaving you only seeing the 4 nodes with a height of 484,000(new rules) as that becomes the new visible highest height (complete chain)

so its not the case of just relying on one source of data... nodes prefer to have multiple sources that way if one source is 'wrong' they can grab data elsewhere..

so its important there are multiple sources of data, and that the majority of those multiple sources have the same rules as you do..

thats why its best that there are more then just 70 nodes all run just by merchants. but there are 'backup's too. which helps put less strain on the merchant nodes needing to be seeds because people can grab data from other locations, should a merchant get shutdown or ddosed or just over strained by too many leachers trying to connect to merchant nodes.

..
once you grasp the need for the decentralisation of the data.. you then can move on and grasp why its best that those decentralised diverse brand nodes also agree to the same rules as a majority, to avoid orphan drama.

..
once you grasp that. you realise by having your node agreeing to the merchant rules you can spend with that merchant because they see your tx. also to flip the argument, if the merchant see's its only getting bad data and the majority of the community is agreeing to other rules.. the merchants would treat the most popular chain as the main chain. and the bad data least popular nodes as the alt.

thus its not a sheep follow merchants who follow pools.. its about symbiotic relationship of consensus of everyone finding something agreeable.
..
having grasped that..you can then move on and grasp that bitcoin is revolutionary because it doesnt rely on everyone just leaching off of one pool of data but each node validates independently which makes the network stronger and less vulnerable to central-point-of-attack vectors. it also allows sharing of data to not put a strain on a central point..
it also ensures no central point decides the direction..

..
things would /could go very wrong if everyone was a leacher to just lets say 70 nodes all colluding to a single cartel. and this is why consensus only moves the network forward when independant people agree that the new rules that are in benefit to the community.. by the community having nodes that have the most reliable chain that is acceptable to the majority.


signing a PDF is one thing.. changing a few bytes in a flag is one thing.
but in the end the nodes should only flag when they actually have the code to handle what they are flagging. otherwise its an empty gesture that falls flat on itself when 'activation' occurs.

EG lets say 80% want X and flag it,, but 75% actually are running A. X gets activated(false pretence). but then a clusterf**k of orphans because 75% are rejecting the activated rule. because they dont have the code to handle the new rule. they just waved a flag.

You talk about importance of node numbers enforcing certain rules not for the first time, but how you know what nodes are economicaly important and what are basically worthless? Or you really believe 1 node = 1 vote

The only support/acceptance I find reliable is the statements from companies, and there seem enought SegWit2x support/acceptance from the important companies to guarantee 2MB. The only question remains whether there going to be split if 1MB gets enough holdout support.

I'd recommend.  I feel he's more ranting and overdoing rather than 'trolling'. Some USAF guys are 'ranting' same manner and we should be able to filter that kind of porn by ourselves - otherwise I read on reddit/bitcoin if I cant stand that kind.

 

If you guys tell me he's not trolling any more I'll reconsider.

segwit2x does have a codebase
https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/blob/segwit2x/src/consensus/consensus.h
segwit2x now has code for a 2mb base block
33    if (!BIP102active(nHeight, fSegwitSeasoned))
34        return MAX_LEGACY_BLOCK_SIZE;
35
36    return (2 * 1000 * 1000);
37    }
...

which activates 3 months for th 2x after segwit
13    static const unsigned int BIP102_FORK_BUFFER = (144 * 90);

..

but not really a Release Candidate so its highly possible the pools flagging for segwit2x are not running the codebase
so all the flag waving of blocks is still kind of 'sybil' (empty/fake gesturing). so things are still up in the air.


the hong kong/ late 2015 consensus round table meetings  funded and sponsored by barry silbert.. is the same 'agreement' as segwit2x
but atleast there is some code available.

now we just have to see if we can get nodes to download it (once its finalised and reviewed for RC) to then get a NODE consensus... for pools to have confidence that if they made such blocks.. the nodes wont still be running old code to reject blocks bigger than (1*1000*1000).

what people seem to forget is its not simply about waving a flag in a block.. its about consensus of nodes actually running code rules that allow bigger base blocks and consensus of pools creating bigger base blocks.

at this moment the empty sybil flag waving will just cause segwit to activate, but no guarantee of base blocks over (1*1000*1000) being accepted because from bitnodes stats, it shows no one is actually running the segwit2x (btc1) codebase to enforce it

p.s only reason i rant/repeat myself. is due to the biased censorship deleting my posts to hide the facts, so i end up having to repeat things just for the hope that some posts get missed out in the deletions so that they actually get read.. because alot of the facts just get deleted. i would repeat myself alot less in topics if it wasnt for moderation deletions

Actually it doesn't really matter what he says any more since I told him he is forbidden from posting on this thread and I have him on ignore so I can't even see what he's posting, just that he's posting and delete his posts on sight. He's done too much trolling for too long on too many threads to be able to redeem himself as far as I'm concerned. He is the no. 1 reason I made this thread self-moderated.

Maybe if you quit posting dumbass comments like that, then you'd stop pissing off the guy that can delete them? 

Since the pro-segwit crowd did such a great job in convincing people of the myths that LN is a great thing and that it's actually part of Bitcoin, 2x is the "next step". LN has plenty of commercial applications, but the average user will rarely, if ever, use it (and even when they do, most will find that the end-point number of transactions in the mempool for "average" users isn't as reduced as many have been led to believe). Yes, segwit will add to the number of available transactions in a given block, but it's far better to be in advance of the need for change than be behind trying to play "catch-up" like we are now.

Think of it in terms to running a mining farm (yes, I can hear the anti-miners groaning already). If you have a hashrate of x, then every 2 weeks you'll need to have x+(x*0.06) to earn the same income as you earned the day before. Your income becomes less impacted if you bring that +6% online before the next diff increase than it does if you do it after. The 2x is no different, it's better to have a ton of available empty space than be right back here ever again.

The 2x might buy some time to prepare next scaling steps. Not sure if community is prepared better if this is needed in some years.

With the segwit component assured now, indeed it is at this point, until we get to the 2x part of it. That's when the next battle begins.

The clock is ticking for miners.  If they've already agreed to activate SegWitx2 when they can, they can't really back out of it.  People would get pissed off and UASF would look a lot more realistic than it did before.

EC/BU is irrelevant because support has flatlined while SegWitx2 support is now soaring.

Well this is good news for a change!

You know, at this point Segwit2x is better than a chain split. Let's hope for the best.

So... forget Segwit then? After all, it's also a defunct attempt at a takeover from the past that never activates... UASF is crap, and Segwit2x doesn't have a codebase or dev support last I checked.  Unlimited has both of those (inb4 "but it's buggy", etc.).

People seem very confident about what will happen based on what people are saying. Remember that miners don't trust Core at all after they breached the Hong Kong agreement. Miners are perfectly within the negotiating rules to say whatever they want. What they (and the other players in this game) will do is another matter entirely.

83.3% support now with NYA in their coinbase so it's reached activation levels. This has been helped by bitclubnetwork joining them, however they've also actually started the real signalling on bit4/1 that activates it in mid-july. The reason is that the admin of that pool is the one that defined BIP91 and wrote the code for it so he's the first to use it as more than just proof of concept.

Well, we agree on that much. 

I want Core to be in authority because at this juncture they are the least bad option. They will exercise a higher level of restraint (lower overall control) then other contenders for authority while preventing chaos from destroying the system (I hope).

I believe I referred to them as a dirty shirt in the laundry basket immediately upthread so I can hardly be accused of dressing them up in a pretty pink tutu. That said the Chinese miner shirt looks much dirtier with something of a foul smell so for now I will stick with Core.

If the Core shirt gets a lot uglier with time aka corrupt or if some magically clean shirt comes along like transparent and fair AI I would jump ship but neither of these appear likely in the immediate future.

The goal is to maintain self-organization while minimizing control. Thus I am here in this thread for the sole purpose of encouraging Core to use their control to grant concessions where possible to the miners because ultimately this both secures Core's authority while minimizing it which is good for bitcoin.

I'm not saying that "someone" shouldn't be the "authority" of the protocol, or even (in this particular instance) that the "someone" shouldn't be Core. I am saying that many of the "arguments" I read (and the relevant picture they paint) is akin to saying "I'm going to eat tomato ketchup so that I'm not eating any tomato products". 
If you want Core to be in control, because you think Core can be the best control, then fine; however, don't dress it up in a pretty pink tutu and blow smoke up my ass about it. 

Some level of top-down control is necessary to maintain self-organization in complex systems. This is a uniform truth that holds for all systems. The goal is to minimize the control while simultaneously preventing chaos from destroying the system.

If you are interested in a deeper analysis of this point I looked at the mathematics in the context of life and mutation rate here:

The Math of Optimal Fitness