Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 49. (Read 120014 times)

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/868896110760181760

"You will find that the canonical block is less than 1MB but your tx fee is so high, after SegWit is activated. SegWit tx is unfairly cheap"
-Bitmain's super clever CEO Jihan Wu.

Jihan is a brainless moron who is after the fee income and nothing else. They want 8mb blocks because there will be x8 more transactions and x8 more people using bitcoin. (in theory) That means x8 more fee income. They are only after that. They think nothing else.

I can't and I will never respect a moron like him.

His moronic buddy Roger Ver is no different than him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIA8w5tfr70&t=2122s

He is a shopkeeper and don't have a basic knowledge about decentralization/economics/coding. A fucking shopkeeper whos after more customers.

Miners are completely fools imo. There are so stupids that they are not only act against their own proftis but against their economical future survivor.
If they had activate segwit bitcoin will be much higher in price and bitcoin ecosystem will ha a huge innovation atm.  And innovation means money to everyone especially startups and miners. They will be even in e much better position for a hard fork future proposal.
But what choose this "brilliant" mind? to stall bitcoin and risk a not consensus fork that will create an economical disaster to the whole bitcoin ecosystem.
Especially Bitmain will hit hard from this economical collapse because is one of the Bitcoin mining startups that are heavily exposed to bitcoin ecosystem. They have invest huge amount of money to bitcoin startups and of course to btc mining.

i am not support UASF if it is a minority. I only support common sense and the common sense says that the most trust scaling solution atm is segwit. A reminder to everyone is that this Miners support until now the most crap software as a solution and replace of core. And i talk about Bitcoin Unlimited.
We all agree that this code is crap. And you talk to me about the intelligent of miners after that? lol

I thought as a community we might have moved beyond this point by now.  Why is it always the first thought that comes into someone's head to insult the miners and question their intelligence?  I don't see groups of miners storming into threads and making disparaging generalisations about node operators and their preferences towards scaling.  It just doesn't happen.  So why do you think it's okay for you to constantly make disparaging generalisations about them?  Either you respect the fact they can choose to run whatever software they like, or you can fork away and "enforce" your preferences on your own minority chain, much like you're probably going to do with BIP148 anyway.  Some would argue that trying to turn Bitcoin into some sort of perverted oligarchy of <1000 nodes is acting against your own self interests and a bit stupid, but hey, whatever floats your boat.  Have fun.

bitcoin market loose share from miners ridiculous actions. Has no logic for them to continue to stall bitcoin especially from miners like Bitmain that are heavily exposed economical to bitcoin space.
For what happen now show and the quality of this guys. There are so stupids that they not even understand that act against their own profits.
In the other hand Garzik segwitx2 proposal seems dead. the project in github is dead for days now.

Traders and exchanges are the main concerned about that fee and the actual stakeholders behind UASF. This poses an unconfortable precedent about bitcoin governance. What is going to be the next occurrence of traders and exchanges?
We should however reckon that 2.5 USD is quite an steep fee for some people and in my view the fees must come down if we want bitcoin to become commonly used in all countries. the bottleneck for this is actually the size of verified transactions flow. Segwit does not tackle this problem. It is just a mean to replace miners.

...
Regarding Jihan and Asicboost, if we are not happy merely by trusting that bitmain is not using it we should agree that it would be completely idiotic of them to use it and make a fuss in the community for no gain at all. They already have a dominant position.

Aha. The fabled scammer nose entrepreneurial pivot.

Come on Jihan - there are plenty of Lambos for the lads on this side too.

Edit: hmm, maybe not. Apparently we are 'lazy', and should be assimilated: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014574.html

Random ~related factoid: Gbminers (2% of the network) just mined a segwit block.

https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000010dd7c2f8762277fe958ac983a4069d7e6767970c45515

Now I'm aware they use ckpool and there's the possibility they simply upgraded to a more recent ckpool which enables segwit by default but they would have to be complicit in using a recent enough core bitcoind which is segwit capable, so I'm guessing it's a conscious choice and not by accident. However they're missing the default commitment suggesting it's not the latest ckpool. They consciously did remove their EC flags in their coinbase which pretty much confirms it.

Perhaps this will be the ultimate answer... after all the shouting and threats and attacks, everyone will one by one simply enable segwit after all...?

As the resident passive-agressive ass of the convo, I'd have to ask:

What exactly is "wrong" with Bitcoin? Is it the fact that transfers are now only 900x faster than fiat? Or is it the fact that transfers are now cost a whole ~$1-2.50USD because BTC is $2,600+USD?  

As an enthusiastic user of BTC, but not a programmer nor able to even come close to CoinCube's observations, should "they" (all of them) fail to reach a reasonable consensus, I am OUT as well.  I will take my BTC and just buy gold, and wait for an "Alt" that maybe has its act together.

And a little better planning for "the next time" might minimize these alarming splits in our community in the future...

[I do understand that the Bitcoin Ecosystem is extremely complex, but if not fixed, THIS non-tekkie is pushing the "AMF" button]

* And that should mean, to any investor with more than a week's experience, that there will be a correction to be vigilantly prepared for.



*(Actually, it went from $1,200 to $2,900 with minimal pushback, but I'll save that convo for another thread.)

I don't understand how you mention making money is like very easy in this crazy crypto market. Bitcoin went to 2.3k dollars from 3k dollars. When you can't react well, you lose your all. Actually in margin trade you would die.

Imo, if you can't make money on a $300 market correction, then you shouldn't be investing (no matter who your adviser is). 

And the inevitable market reaction. I should put this thread on notify. One can make money by simply following -ck posts and acting accordingly.

Yes that is not really surprising. I was not following this dispute until recently but I would imagine that the failed hard fork attempts were preceded by intense attacks on the core-developers. Just guessing I would anticipate accusations of incompetence, evidence free denunciations of conflicts of interest, warnings that the bitcoin network would break unless control was taken away etcetera (these are just guesses based on human nature so my apologies if the community held itself up to a higher standard). Politics is usually a fairly predictable affair and this is essentially a political dispute.

Upgrading the protocol and the politics that comes with it is the Achilles heel of bitcoin. It is the one area where it is not possible to remove flawed humans from an otherwise technically elegant process. What is fascinating is the unique political nature of this process. In essentially all political disputes throughout history success was a function of violence, the threat of violence, or getting majority to vote for something and then imposing that vote on the minority via the police and you guessed it more violence. Consensus governance has never existed before yet here we are.

We are forced to overcome our baser political natures and our tendency to always resort to force or watch the network fracture destroying both network effects and confidence. Our economic interests favor forging a consensus our history favors self destructive fracturing.

My position is simple. Consensus or bust!

I can live with status quo bitcoin and high transaction fees. I would be much happier if the core-developers roll out something safe that we can build a consensus around ideally with a start date in December when the current implementation expires.

People dramatically underestimate the destructive nature of a contentious split. Here is an interview I posted upthread with Simon Dixon where he essentially says he will leave the ecosystem if bitcoin fractures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNGzhWODF2s&t=3761
I know that I would sell my bitcoins shut down my node and exit as well.

To be fair, Barry's a capitalist and not an engineer. He was well meaning but I have absolutely no doubts that he had no idea at the time that what the miners agreed to was completely impossible and in fact an aggressive anti-compromise stance. He almost certainly thought he had become the messiah for the bitcoin world in finding a middle ground between core and miners. All the talk of bits and activation and shit would have blown his mind. Additionally, I'm pretty sure some of the mining entities that agreed to it were equally ignorant. The twitter feeds from various sources made it clear they didn't all agree to what they thought they agreed to. Luke didn't start the BIP148 movement but he's become its biggest champion. His motives rarely make any sense to any objective observation of the world so I feel for the people who got caught up in his latest cult.


Pretty much. Thanks for chiming in.

Thanks, you two.

When uasf fails, poor old Luke-jr will get the blame yet again, but for me Barry's actions in all this have been reprehensible and very telling, and Jihan's unaccountable - i don't get his stance (is it Ver's influence?).

fwiw many of the bitcoin twitterati and reddit influencers wear UASF hats less because they support it than to threaten it to frighten miners into signalling differently before August.

which seems unlikely. so we get this:


Hmm, We need core to communicate with Jihan much more than they seem to do.

Send a diplomatic mission over there to explain the facts of life and find a way for him to come out of this with a seeming win to show his fans and backers. He hasn't got that long after November until Intel and AMD wake up. That could be core's stick, and as for the carrot, well maybe leave Luke with him.

I agree.

The only argument that the USAF can't fail by design is just that it's "failure" is to become an altcoin...  but it's fairly dumb way to construct an altcoin.

For 99% of developers if we wanted to construct an altcoin that isn't how we'd go about it, and for 99% of users if you want to use an altcoin there are already many choices.

Demonization of Core-devs happened first. Cool down man, #UASF is just the reaction.

The photo of the Spartan at war dying while deploying superior violence shouting for UASF is quite telling mindrust.

Regarding demonization of the miners it is a common human failing to try to dehumanize your political opponents as a pretext and attempted justification for employing force against them.