Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 52. (Read 120014 times)

all blocks which are signal for BIP141 (SegWit) are 100% BIP148 blocks already because BIP148 full nodes will only accept these blocks on their Bitcoin blockchain after 08/01/2017.

they are among us.

There are? Care to link to one?

there are BIP148 blocks already. the difference is that they are part of the main blockchain until 08/01/2017.

https://slushpool.com/stats/?c=btc

Barry tweet on segwit2x progress: https://mobile.twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/873167754685292544

I doubt they'll even mine a single UASF block. UASF is a smoke screen for the people who want to ram Core's agenda home via a "compromise". It's just an idea to make the Core roadmap seem less radical - all technical people know it can't actually work.

There's indeed not much "user" in UASF.  This is why I would like it to get pulled.  It would finally demonstrate that.

Very good news. 

Love them, but they're tiny. I have a few Canaan contacts and I asked them for an official position too and they seem to have decided to not have a position at all...

Poor Canaan, so forgotten and unloved. 

You're describing the current state paying no deference to intent. BU has not been "gaining power" for months - the hashrate has remained the same based on pool support all that time and variance is the only reason % changes. It's been dead in the water since this "miner agreement"; the pools just haven't changed from what they're currently signalling since they have nothing new to signal yet and every time they change their mind and signal something else they're effectively going back on their previous allegiance.  PoW is here to stay, yes bitmain makes all the hardware but changing PoW would actually be the death knell for bitcoin. Bitmain doesn't have as much power as they think they have - the response to Jihan's call to arms was proof of this, even if they make all the hardware. Except for Roger Ver, whose motives might be related to raising the value of altcoins in preference to bitcoin, the miners aren't willing to destroy their own industry just to spite the users. That they came to an agreement of segwit+2MB is evidence of that fact already. Core is basically working on giving them what they want now which also suits users, core, exchanges and businesses so what disaster do you actually perceive here should PoW remain and bitmain continue making most of the hardware and we don't get a user forced minority MASF (which is what BIP148 is doing)?

I agree with you.

I do some modest mining, but before you guys start insulting at me...
Current transactions are crazy, miners should be able to make the better chunk out transactions when we get closer to the end of the coinbase system in 100 years not now. Something must be done to avoid the Tx-feest we saw in May. It was bad and damaging for bitcoin despite the opened champagne bottles that some miners might have uncorked during that frenzy week.

a hardfork is absolutely tragic for every one. it´s very hard to build confidence out of ignorance about this magic geek money among the general public that doesn´t need to know anything else than it's a good asset tool. Building confidence in bitcoin after a hardfork and a much announced devaluation it would be close to impossible, it would give the perfect excuse for monetary authorities all over the world to legislate against bitcoin based on the money lost by millions that started to flock in this scheme as it will be declared. the tulip metaphore will come back to refer to bitcoin. in the best case scenario it would take decades to build up interest to recover the price as we have it today.
No one will profit from this.

I do hope some compromise is found.

Let me also add something, to my own embarrasement even, I was voting in my pool for Core version - do nothing about anything. The reason for it was that me, as many others, especially the biggest part of those starting in the last year attracted by the good rates, we know about mining, a bit, but anytime I try to read a BIP stuff, with barely no pictures in it, I get dizzy. It might be that, other than the big players, many new miners do not quite get the full consecuences of going for BIP148 or BOP33. The importance is relative maybe based on the voting power of plebeian miners but I also think that the big miners are not the only problem in the mining community stubornness. I think that many many miners lack the information to make a sensible decision on this matter. Anyhow, this last piece is just an impression of mine.

Don't you ever get tired of spreading delusional lies and myths? 

How can you be so sure? Bitcoin is doomed with Bitmain and the current PoW method. Bitmain is the only ASIC producer company which sells miners to home users. I check the pool numbers from time to time and BU supporting pools gain power with everyday!

https://blockchain.info/pools

AntPool: %17.5
BTC.TOP: %11.9
BTC.com: %8.1
Bitcoin.com: %0.9
ViaBtc: %4.2

Total: %42.6

And you say this is perfectly fine and safe?

Bitcoin is a protocol; it's never "done". Even if everyone in the world left Bitcoin tomorrow, the protocol lives on through infinity (because that's how protocols work).

well in my opinion when bitcoin forks, its done. no one will trust bitcoin anymore.

One thing about the bitcoin network is its resilience against being forced to change. The consensus system has proven itself time and time again. It's my opinion that you need not worry as any group trying to force change will fail as has been demonstrated in the past. UASF via BIP148 will be a spectacular failure and consequently the enthusiasm for UASF will likely dwindle along with it. I'm pretty sure that if support stays at <1% hashrate on August1, and pools running UASF will frantically pull out to avoid mining on a dead end chain. Additionally the miners won't be forcing a hardfork as they haven't even begun doing any code, nor have coders, for their Silbert fork. At this stage I'm willing to bet segwit2X will be the way out. There doesn't seem any significant opposition to it any more.

Again, you're arguing the minutia of an off-topic specific use-case addition of a single opcode.

It's really not and it's really not.
I can falsely advertise my dog as a cat, does that make it relevant in a cat thread?

Your argument amounts to: "All trail-mix is bad because BrandA uses hazelnuts, instead of peanuts, and I don't like hazelnuts."






For the record, anyone trying to sell someone else on the co-joined merits of LN/segwit as a "package" is attempting to make an "appeal to emotion"; they are hoping that the want for LN (usually due to over-hyped mis/disinformation), or some alleged result of the two combined, will sway opinion to a pro-segwit point of view.

But it is necessary for the security of the channel to set a high enough number, so that during this time you can:
1) observe that your counter party has been cheating on you
2) get the punishing transaction into the chain before it times out

10 blocks, if ever you computer goes down, or there is a serious spam attack, you will never catch the guy sending a scammy settlement.  100 blocks means that you have to check a few times a day that your partner has not been scamming you, and hope that you will get your punishing transaction in fast enough that it gets in the chain before time-out.  1000 blocks is probably safe unless you go on a holiday, but your funds cannot be touched for a week.


It is relevant in as much as segwit/LN is proposed as a solution to scaling.  It seems that you are missing the consequences of having to commit funds in a channel, before you even want to spend them.  The committed funds are locked up in the channel until you can settle, pay the fee, and wait for the time out to occur.  It is exactly NOT like offering you 100 000 BTC.  It is rather like a real bank account: I have to commit my money to that bank, and I'm depending on that bank, afterwards, to be nice enough to do the payments I want to do with my money in that account.  True, contrary to a bank account, I can eventually get my money back out of the account, but it takes a settlement, and a lock-out period.

This is why my argument was that you don't commit too lightly your funds to just any dude on the internet, and why it is better to use a "big, trustworthy partner" in LN links, rather than just any "Joe" on the internet in a P2P way, because even though if you are vigilant, that Joe cannot run with your money (he can only run with your money if he sends a scammy settlement, and you didn't catch it within the lock-out period), your funds are nevertheless at his mercy of permission to transact, and are out of your ability to get them back for a given lock-out period.

I think you may need to reread the paper again (you seemed to have missed both the word "example" when you read it the 1st time).  If you don't want "some defined number of blocks" to be 10; 100; 1,000; or 10,000, then don't set ""some defined number of blocks"" to be  10; 100; 1,000; or 10,000 when you create the parent transaction.
I'm still not sure how your argument is relevant to this thread, or Bitcoin, but I am sure that your being stuck on this "example" number is like you offering to pay me 100,000 BTC and then getting upset because I want the 100,000 BTC.  

But you CAN spend it the next block.   While after settling, you can only spend it after, say, 100 blocks or (in the original paper by Poon) after 1000 blocks - whatever was the "timeout" security set by the channel.



I'm actually favourable to something like the LN, even though I think it will not work as we think.  But ONLY on a chain without limits, because the whole security of the LN system resides in the guarantee to be able to settle and to "punish" within the time-out period.  Without that guarantee, the LN is highly unsafe.  And I'm fully against pushing people OFF the chain with artificial limitations of the chain capacity (which, at the same time, makes the LN ultra unsafe).

However, I know that bitcoin's design runs into problems with unlimited blocks.  But that's because bitcoin's design is fundamentally flawed (which Greg Maxwell discovered too).  However, bitcoin's flawed design will only screw it up in the long run.  For the moment, it is better to keep it running the time it lasts and to kill it artificially with very small blocks for wrong reasons is, I think, a bad idea (however, it is the current design of bitcoin which contains this limit).