Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 46. (Read 120014 times)

Will the other miners who signal Bip141 join the party?

I'm not sure if I understand the full implications what you are saying -ck.  

This is like an ambiguous compound question, and not really a package deal, right?

I think that I agree with you that there is a less controversial part of the compound question (which seems to be a kind of softfork implementation of segwit) and a more controversial part (which seems to involve both 2mb upgrade and the idea of a hardfork that might be attempted to employ with less than 95% consensus).


Now if the less controversial part of segwit goes through and begins to be used by anywhere between 80% and even more than 95% of the network, at some point, that usage would become a kind of permanency, no? , especially if the hashrate goes over 95% and is sustained over 95%?  

So yeah, we are already seeing that folks seem to be jumping onboard to the concept of getting segwit activation, but surely some of those who are currently jumping on board might feel that they are being misled if they think that either the 2mb upgrade or the concept of an actual hardfork would be automatically implemented, merely because the segwit portion was implemented - because even the language of implementation requires that the 2mb aspect be tested first and the 2mb aspect reach consensus (I am unclear if 80% would be sufficient or probably 95% would be sufficient, no?).  

I really don't think that 80% is going to be enough for either a hardfork or 2mb upgrade, but maybe I have an incorrect understanding about what is going on and how these implementation matters are triggered and at which points hashing power might be pulled out of the project after we thought that we had a permanent resolution (or at least a partial resolution - and that is the segwit part of the implementation).

So, there seems to be two fairly obvious ways that the 2mb part of the implementation can fail.  1) fail to pass tests and 2) fail to achieve consensus ...

so we already got a lot of folks out there screaming that segwit2x is a kind of package, when the first part of segwit seems to be agreed upon; however, the second part of the deal (the 2mb aspect) seems to have contingencies.  So, if it ends up that the second part does not go through, then then a large number of folks will be whining that Core broke the agreement, blah blah blah.. and the 2mb aspect was supposed to be "guaranteed", just like (and maybe even worse) they were mischaracterizing and whining about the Hong Kong agreement. 

Where am I going wrong in my thinking, here?

It does mean both indeed and it is just a vote not a signal at this stage, however it does mean there is enough commitment for segwit to get activated. I don't really understand the sentiment of "If core was any good" when segwit not getting activated by the original mechanism was for social reasons, not technological, and ultimately miners will be activating core's designed and implemented segwit technology through this, just through their own signalling mechanism which was a disastrous incompatible design originally and James Hilliard made it compatible through the multiple bit communication mechanism.

Once segwit activates through the convoluted bit mechanism, all the user nodes out there will still be accepting and activating segwit through the original BIP141. If the users don't move off core nodes, that's when the real battle comes indeed because without core code supporting the 2MB hard fork we'll be really facing a split. Let's worry about that hurdle when we come to it.

As I've said before, I'm not personally against a 2MB base blocksize increase either, I just believe that any split can only be bad for bitcoin. Having to force someone's hand to adopt a position is again purely for social reasons and it would be nice if people just agreed but that's fairytale thinking now. The stakes are so high and everyone doesn't want to relinquish what control they (think they) have.

Except NYA coinbase signal means both BIP141 and 2MB base blocksize. The point of the SegWit2x is prevent the possible Aug 1 Bitcoin split and the code is similar to what was expected from early 2016 HK roundtable meeting between Core representatives and miners. If Core was any good, we would already have SegWit activated 6 months ago and the 2MB base blocksize later this year as well. But whatever, it works without Core as well, which is positive signal to me.



Why the excitement about the NYA coinbase? SegWit2x code not fully tested yet, so expect true activation next month. Still the hard part comes when 2MB base blocksize becomes active in few months - time for bit more drama probably.

Up to 78.5% over the last rolling 24 hours now.

No, the initiative to SegWit2x come from Bitcoin business, miners and individuals:
https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77

Miners would not activate SegWit2x if there was not clear support/acceptance for it from Bitcoin business, including exchanges.

You're almost to the point where you're no longer putting words in my mouth.  
I never said, or implied, that Core devs are beholden to "bosses" or some "centralized" anything.
Core devs (and by this I mean the ones that "matter", hold the most "control" over what Core is/does, and derive a "living wage" from it) are beholden to Core (and the "living wage" they get from it).
The more wallet choices that exist is the less relevant any one wallet is.
Core (and the devs that derive a "living wage" from it) must maintain the historical relevance as well as the relevance of Core in the future.
If Core (and the devs that derive a "living wage" from it) do not maintain future relevance, Core's "power" in/over Bitcoin will become something of only historical value (and the devs that derive a "living wage" from it will no longer do so).
Core (and the devs that derive a "living wage" from it) must maintain the perception of "innovation" (even in the absence of any).
Core (and the devs that derive a "living wage" from it) cannot survive the future, intact, if Core ever looses the foothold control of being "the" maintainer(s) of the protocol.
Core (and the devs that derive a "living wage" from it) must look out for Core (and the devs that derive a "living wage" from it) first, and foremost.
Core (and the devs that derive a "living wage" from it) must maintain the status of Core and "if that happens to be good for Bitcoin as a whole, great; if not, meh"....

aliens https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=197593

For those non-developer non-miner folks like me who found the the bit signaling thing to be confusing here is a nice write-up that explains it pretty well.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bip91-segwit-activation-kludge-should-keep-bitcoin-whole/

I don't see any purpose in describing the situation as some kind of competition.

If in the end, some variation of segwit is implemented first because we achieve a higher consensus with that, then why would core be against that, unless there is some fault with the variation of seg wit that is going to be implemented.  Sounds like something that they were agreeable to  in the first place, and sounds like some of the miners are coming around , maybe due to threat of UASF and also some of the ridiculous Jihan Wu (bitmain) bullshit that was being proposed.

I noticed that you had nothing to say about most every rebuttle I made except one that you found a tiny hole in. I'll take that as near-total victory.

You haven't paid me so I don't see why I'd be inclined to do that research.

However, I'll concede that you didn't make the direct link in this thread if you can concede that this is the common link people make. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you feel the problem is more widespread than one company. Hopefully you can see that so, too, are the core devs.

I speak to several of them on a daily basis and keep up with the linuxfoundation devlists. In doing so, I see more infighting between them than I do agreement by far. If they were financially incentivized to do something for their bosses, you'd expect to see more agreement on the attack against decentralization/freedom. That is actually pretty rare and I only tend to find argument about how decentralization can best be acheived.

Edit: I don't see any other teams around here even fighting towards that goal so why would anyone consider any team but the core devs?

So, when you write your paid writings, do you use any journalistic integrity or do you just make stuff up like you do in this thread? Since you're a "journalist", I'd like for you to cite a single source where I've ever mentioned a singular relation between "Blockstream" and "core devs"....Or are you actually so misinformed that you think that Blockstream is the only source of financial backing into Core and conflate the idea of "income" and "Blockstream" into one word?  

I'm sure someone will slam me for "semantics"; however, you do realize that, since Bitcoin is a POW system, there is no "blockchain" without "blocks"*, right?  




*you know, "those things that are only produced by miners"

I really don't understand something. Will only miners take the most important decissions about bitcoin and its future? This is purely stupid. I think miners are seeing themselves as the ruler of blockchain, this is terrible.

I'm not sure if it's sad  or cute  that you (and your ilk) actually believe that. 
Perhaps one day you'll even learn the difference between a "developer" (dev) and a "contributor"  ; if that day ever comes, perhaps you'll be able to be a proactive part of this conversation. 


(emoticons for requested effect)

It's far sadder to explain to your sub-atomic mind that the core devs are in a decentralized, open source github project, which you yourself are welcome to join and that far more of them are volunteers, not working for any company.

I'm continually surprised by people's incredibly manufactured (in China) stance on Blockstream. Most claims made about the whole company are completely baseless and appear to be FUD produced by someone (in China) to perpetuate the block size debate. I invite you to look deeper into them yourself.

Some points I've found:

1. Blockstream isn't even the company with the most bitcoin devs in it. 100% of Chaincode's devs are Bitcoin core devs: http://chaincode.com/#team

2. The 'corporate money' that blockstream accepted, AXA, is just a French investment bank, not goldman sachs. Very few in the US has even heard of AXA. But more importantly, there was no contract stating that AXA could direct blockstream's efforts or leadership in any way, much less any of their partners. (The paperwork isn't available, but no one who saw it made the claim that it does. This must be treated as baseless slander.)

3. Adam Back is one of the most well-documented Cypherpunks on anyone's record. Before he wrote Hash Cash, which brought proof of work to where it is today, he worked on the systems that underlie TOR and Bittorrent. Now he's full time on bitcoin. Why in the hell would anyone assume that someone who spent decades working on at least three of the most important decentralized, cypherpunk projects ever be trying to harm the latest one by centralizing it? That's compelling evidence alone, if not proof, that Roger's off his rocker for all those baseless accusations he makes of Back on twitter.

Ex: The TOR whitepaper referenced him directly: https://svn.torproject.org/svn/projects/design-paper/tor-design.pdf

4. At Blockstream, every developer is HIGHLY incentivized to make bitcoin's price go up, thus incentivizing working against the vision you seem to believe they are following. At hiring $10,000 worth of bitcoin is purchased (part of their hiring contract) and set aside for them, and they can't touch it for the first year. After year one, each paycheck is paid in it for four years, equally distributed over that time. This is well documented. If developers there saw plans to harm bitcoin, then they'd likely fight those plans to keep their paycheck valuable.

5. Scaling off-chain is, as you know, required for bitcoin to be used in daily payments. Blockstream hasn't stated their price sheet yet for liquid, nor their version of the Lightning Network, but yet they are attacked for thinking about it. These are just two of the projects they are working for towards scaling anyway, and they don't make up a large percentage of their other projects that do not involve scaling.  Meanwhile, why penalize specifically Blockstream for trying to make a buck from off-chain scaling when we can name at least 10 other projects/companies trying to do the same?

6. The most 'valuable target' in bitcoin core for any infiltrating source would naturally be the Commit keys, which allow the Wladamir-led team of core code cleaners the final say on what becomes bitcoin and what doesn't.

Today there are 4 bitcoin developers who work at Blockstream. Sipa is one, and although he has a commit key, due to the scaling debate he has publicly sworn off using his key for scaling changes. Maxwell used to have the 5th key, but he actually gave it back a year ago because of the scaling debate. He doesn't even have the access he used to anymore.

So if blockstream was trying to take over Bitcoin or lead it's governance in any way, they've not only failed, they've hobbled themselves so badly at it that it's now impossible.

P.S., Not that it should matter, but the argument against Back being a cypherpunk because of his being missing for the first couple of years in bitcoin makes me laugh out loud every time... Are we really supposed to penalize someone with Satoshi's skillset who was missing while satoshi was present, for not being around with satoshi at the right time?

Maybe, like Clark Kent, it's his glasses that make us so against the idea that he could be satoshi?  Lulz...

How ridiculous the face saving code has become is nicely summarised by Samson Mow.

Instead of just signalling BIP141... One day history will look back upon our blockchain and facepalm. Heck I think it already is.

Meanwhile support just hit 64% over the last 24 hours.

  These kinds of false dichotomies are everything that is wrong with trying to have any meaningful discussion which would yield any actual long-term solution.  

(emoticons for requested effect)

In the real world, it is entirely possible to be against the beliefs and/or actions of Core devs and be against the beliefs and/or actions of those that the Core devs have led you to believe are their "enemies" (and/or the "enemies of Bitcoin"). It truly baffles me how people with your narrowness of thinking are even capable of being taught how to tie your own shoes.   (emoticon for requested effect)

It's sad that I have to explain to your little mind that the Core devs professional income revolves around Core being relevant and, despite their repeated claims on medium which they or their fanboys control, that is entirely no different than Bitmain needing to stay on top of the miner/pool business (I'm sure the people that spoon-feed you everything you know have given you a list of justifications of how I'm wrong, but justifications don't change base-level facts). Bitmain and Core are the equally-toasted, equally-sliced pieces of bread (from the same loaf) that make up the shit-sandwich that is Bitcoin.   (emoticon for requested effect)

Some day, one can hope, you'll stop living your life based on what someone on social media says, do some reading, do some actual research, learn a thing or two, actually have an original thought of your own, and realize that it's actually possible to have a disagreement where upon both sides are wrong (and being a fanboy of either side doesn't change the fact that the group you're a fan of is wrong).   (emoticon for requested effect)

It is indeed possible to generate blocks that are valid to both those proposals. As well as XT, Classic, 8MB, ...

Thank you.

And yes, I'm already married; in a monogamous relation that is, should future questions arise