I'm still hoping for a soft-fork-based 2MB+Segwit solution. That could be the holy grail and I'm sure it could also achieve 80% acceptance - even if some hardliners on the BU side probably wouldn't support it.
You can't have a soft fork and 2 MB.
Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 57. (Read 120030 times)
You can't have a soft fork and 2 MB.
at the moment it's just a vote and on 08/01/2017 it will become a separated blockchain.
Technically, it will not become a "separate" chain until the 1st segwit signaling block is found on/after 08/01/2017 (it becomes a "stopchain" instead of a blockchain). If no such segwit signaling block is found on/after 08/01/2017, it just stops at the point where the existing chain was and "orphans" all of the new non-segwit signaling blocks in it's own mind.Well, as I understood, some minority fraction of miners was supposed to fork away on a pure-segwit chain on 15/11. In fact, the 8/1/2017, nothing particular will happen if I understood well. I think one explained to me that the UASF nodes will not STOP on a non-segwit block, but will simply "not count" it in their percentage of segwit signalling, tricking themselves in thinking there's 100% segwit support, even though they accept non-segwit blocks too in the chain.
What was less clear to me was whether these nodes will also not consider *transactions* in these non-segwit blocks, or whether they will pretend that those transactions never occurred.
Well, there remains something unclear about this, and when I ask, I get alternating answers
The explanations I heard before were these:
explanation 1:
---------------
On 1. August 2017, UASF only CONSIDER segwit-signaling forks on the main chain (but for one or other reason, they don't mind them being successors to non-segwit blocks). In other words, there is still only ONE CHAIN, but the UASF node "picks out" only the segwit signalling blocks.
This gives the *impression* to the node, that all blocks are segwit-signalling, and hence ACTIVATES segwit on 11/15/2017. From that point on, it wants a REAL SEGWIT-ONLY chain, and maybe some miners will fork off to make one, different from the main chain. So the real forking only happens in November.
explanation 2:
---------------
On 1. August 2017, UASF activates segwit, and doesn't accept non-segwit blocks. The only chain it can receive at that point, is a segwit-only chain, so maybe some miners will make one forking off on 1. August 2017. (in other words, what is happening on 11/15/2017 in explanation 1, is already happening on 8/1/2017 in explanation 2.
I don't know which one corresponds to what is BIP148.
at the moment it's just a vote and on 08/01/2017 it will become a separated blockchain.
Technically, it will not become a "separate" chain until the 1st segwit signaling block is found on/after 08/01/2017 (it becomes a "stopchain" instead of a blockchain). If no such segwit signaling block is found on/after 08/01/2017, it just stops at the point where the existing chain was and "orphans" all of the new non-segwit signaling blocks in it's own mind.if the first UASF/BIP148 block is found on SlushPool on/after 08/01/2017 the chain will spilt. with this low hash power and the high difficulty the next UASF/BIP148 block will take a long time until the "wrong" difficulty is adjusted. but chain spilt will happen in every case on/after 08/01/2017.
But will this second block be a direct successor to the first block (a different prong) or will it just be, say, the 50th block on the unique chain, but the node not taking into account the 49 non-UASF blocks in between, but accept nevertheless the header chain ?
the second UASF/BIP148 block will be a direct sucessor to the first UASF/BIP148 and it will take a long time to find it because the difficulty is to high for this particular hash power on this UASF/BIP148 chain. --> this is the miner part with a UASF/BIP148 node.
the full node part with UASF/BIP148 will just see transactions in the UASF/BIP148 blocks on/after 08/01/2017.
So the requirement is that some miners start making a DIFFERENT chain from 8/1/2017 onward ? I thought it was only from 15/11/2017 onward.
Capacity will only go up if all users use segwit. If they don't then capacity will remain the same and the fees will not go down.
Can you support the claim that fees are proportionally related to size with an equation? 
...Most support Segwit because it would reduce transaction fees...
Can we, please, stop peddling that myth?....
Will segwit reduce the weight of a fee calculation for a given transaction? Yes.
Will segwit reduce the fees someone is willing to pay for a given transaction? Maybe.
Will segwit reduce the average fee when people manually set "high" fees to be at the "top of the list"? No.
Fees haven't "magically" gone up. Each time someone sets a higher than average fee for their transaction, and it gets put into a block, the average moves upward. Segwit isn't going to change logic or human behavior.
Capacity will only go up if all users use segwit. If they don't then capacity will remain the same and the fees will not go down.
...Most support Segwit because it would reduce transaction fees...
Can we, please, stop peddling that myth?....
Will segwit reduce the weight of a fee calculation for a given transaction? Yes.
Will segwit reduce the fees someone is willing to pay for a given transaction? Maybe.
Will segwit reduce the average fee when people manually set "high" fees to be at the "top of the list"? No.
Fees haven't "magically" gone up. Each time someone sets a higher than average fee for their transaction, and it gets put into a block, the average moves upward. Segwit isn't going to change logic or human behavior.
Edit:Even if we had 10PB sized blocks, if 1000 people set transaction fees to pay 0.1BTC per byte, the new average fee would be ~0.1BTC per byte. Block size and fees aren't 100% related outside of propaganda.
...Most support Segwit because it would reduce transaction fees...
Can we, please, stop peddling that myth?Do you really think most users are caring about the details about Segwit? They want Bitcoin to work, period.
If you call min 5$ rip-off fee per transaction or from 20 hours to infinite hours of delay as "working", then yes it is working. (not as intended™)You didn't get my point.
Segwit+2MB solves the transaction fee problem the same way than SegwitUASF does, at least in the short term. Transaction fees with Segwit2x would even be smaller in the mid-term if after an hypothetical UASF there is no 2MB adjustment in one or another way.
That's why I don't think your assumption that the majority users are insisting on "Segwit alone" and are against "Segwit2x", is true. The majority support Segwit, that's clear for me, and not the BU approach. But the details - bit 1 or bit 4 and so on - are really insignificant.
Segwit2x, for me, is not ideal because it involves a hard fork and that should be avoided if possible. But with a large support by economy & miners I think the hard fork would go smooth.
I'm so over FUD and unsubstantiated "shill" claims from people that can't validate their own beliefs with facts and logic. 
i'm not talking about fees but talking about healthy markets. and China has no healthy market with this corrupt background.
You can't have a healthy conversation with that Chinese retard. He is probably working at Bitmain or smth. Just ignore him and don't answer.
He don't even something to say, all he does posting stupid smileys or writing one sentence bullshit which has no meaning and no contribuiton to the subject. > troll
i'm not talking about fees but talking about healthy markets. and China has no healthy market with this corrupt background.
So, in other words, you're all about spreading FUD. ...BUT it seems the only way to hit the "greedy" miners and harm them...
Setting aside the fact that isn't how supply/demand works, ...i'm not talking about fees but talking about healthy markets. and China has no healthy market with this corrupt background.
...If you call min 5$ rip-off fee per transaction or from 20 hours to infinite hours of delay as "working", then yes it is working. (not as intended™)..
See above, Core did that. 
...BUT it seems the only way to hit the "greedy" miners and harm them...
Setting aside the fact that isn't how supply/demand works, another alternative is for everyone to just not pay "high" fees. If everyone stopped paying 300 then 100 would go back to being the new average. Users have raised the average fees, not miners, and the "greed" is designed into Core (i.e., the wallet already mostly scrapes the most profitable transactions first). UASF is not just about upgrading to segwit.
UASF is a civil movement to remind those big companies that they don't mean shit if we users don't support their services. We can remind them they don't own bitcoin, but we users do. (that's what P2P is about)
UASF is a civil movement to remind those big companies that they don't mean shit if we users don't support their services. We can remind them they don't own bitcoin, but we users do. (that's what P2P is about)
Do you really think most users are caring about the details about Segwit? They want Bitcoin to work, period.
But you got something wrong there... bitcoin don't work
If you call min 5$ rip-off fee per transaction or from 20 hours to infinite hours of delay as "working", then yes it is working. (not as intended™)
A chain split is nothing near dangerous compared to what can have with Jihan in the future.
All the exchanges that don't give people the option to freely choose what coin to support will pay the price sooner or later, potentially bankrupting if UASF wins, because all the jihancoins will go to 0 due reorg, and users will rightful be able to blame and sue exchanges that did not give them the opportunity to withdraw them and get their split.
The scale of your 'if' has been altered to more accurately reflect how big an 'if' it actually is.
The more likely 'if' right now is, if UASF results in a minority chain, voluntarily forked away from the longest valid Bitcoin blockchain, then by definition it's an altcoin. That's all we're talking about here unless a significant proportion of users actually start to take any notice over the course of the next < 2 months. Exchanges are free to list whichever altcoins they choose. And if Core developers aren't particularly enthused about it, why should exchanges be? UASFcoin threads might well end up in the 'Alternate cryptocurrencies' subforum after 1st Aug.
Have fun forking yourself off the network.
i really don't want to have a fork on the one and only Bitcoin blockchain BUT it seems the only way to hit the "greedy" miners and harm them because the spilt will have an affect on the price. they have to learn for the first time Bitcoin is not a ChinaCoin.
...Most support Segwit because it would reduce transaction fees...
Can we, please, stop peddling that myth? UASF is not just about upgrading to segwit.
UASF is a civil movement to remind those big companies that they don't mean shit if we users don't support their services. We can remind them they don't own bitcoin, but we users do. (that's what P2P is about)
UASF is a civil movement to remind those big companies that they don't mean shit if we users don't support their services. We can remind them they don't own bitcoin, but we users do. (that's what P2P is about)
Do you really think most users are caring about the details about Segwit? They want Bitcoin to work, period. Most support Segwit because it would reduce transaction fees and some like me (here I already think I'm talking about a minority) because it would enable LN to work. But they don't care about things like the time interval between Segwit and the 2MB hard fork or if we use bit 1 or bit 4 to signal it.
UASF with low support, driven by some small idealist group that even risks a chain split and price turbulences only to "win" in the scalability battle is sacrificing usability. And Segwit2x isn't an ideal solution, but also not that bad and way better than a split.
I'm still hoping for a soft-fork-based 2MB+Segwit solution. That could be the holy grail and I'm sure it could also achieve 80% acceptance - even if some hardliners on the BU side probably wouldn't support it.
All the exchanges that don't give people the option to freely choose what coin to support will pay the price sooner or later, potentially bankrupting if UASF wins, because all the jihancoins will go to 0 due reorg, and users will rightful be able to blame and sue exchanges that did not give them the opportunity to withdraw them and get their split.
The scale of your 'if' has been altered to more accurately reflect how big an 'if' it actually is.
The more likely 'if' right now is, if User-Activated-Stumbling-Flounder results in a minority chain, voluntarily forked away from the longest valid Bitcoin blockchain, then by definition it's an altcoin. That's all we're talking about here unless a significant proportion of users actually start to take any notice over the course of the next < 2 months. Exchanges are free to list whichever altcoins they choose. And if Core developers aren't particularly enthused about it, why should exchanges be? UASFcoin threads might well end up in the 'Alternate cryptocurrencies' subforum after 1st Aug.
Have fun forking yourself off the network.
at the moment it's just a vote and on 08/01/2017 it will become a separated blockchain.
Technically, it will not become a "separate" chain until the 1st segwit signaling block is found on/after 08/01/2017 (it becomes a "stopchain" instead of a blockchain). If no such segwit signaling block is found on/after 08/01/2017, it just stops at the point where the existing chain was and "orphans" all of the new non-segwit signaling blocks in it's own mind.Well, as I understood, some minority fraction of miners was supposed to fork away on a pure-segwit chain on 15/11. In fact, the 8/1/2017, nothing particular will happen if I understood well. I think one explained to me that the UASF nodes will not STOP on a non-segwit block, but will simply "not count" it in their percentage of segwit signalling, tricking themselves in thinking there's 100% segwit support, even though they accept non-segwit blocks too in the chain.
What was less clear to me was whether these nodes will also not consider *transactions* in these non-segwit blocks, or whether they will pretend that those transactions never occurred.
Jump to: