Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 58. (Read 120014 times)

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.   

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 ?  I thought that it was still on the same chain, and only on the 15/11 the real split would take place (where we have segwit/non-segwit blocks on a legacy chain on one hand, and another prong with successive UASF blocks on another prong).

if the first UASF/BIP148 block is found on SlushPool on/after 08/01/2017 the chain will split. with this low hash power and the high difficulty the further UASF/BIP148 blocks will take a long time until the "wrong" difficulty is adjusted. but chain spilt will happen in every case on/after 08/01/2017.

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.

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.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/here-we-go-for-uasf-on-08012017-wwwuasfguidecom-1936235

Bitcoin as it is now, is a provider/customer model, where there's an industry providing a block chain (against fees and block rewards sold for good money) and there are customers using that block chain to put transactions on.   The power model is hence such that the providers depend on the customers to pay them (to buy coins) ; and the customers depend on the providers to give them a block chain on which they can have their transactions notified.  The industry won't continue to make block chain for the customers if the tokens they can sell are too cheap, so the industry depends on the price the customers want to pay for the coins ; the customers, on the other hand, are entirely dependent on the industry to provide them with the eventuality to transact, and hence, the industry has the customer's balances in hostage.    There's not much P2P left in this scenario.

Those having power in this system are those buying coins, and those mining.  Those mining provide the market, those buying coins vote in the market with their money.

The only "UASF" that would make sense, would be a PoS splitoff ; but you would need to be aware that this would be just another crypto currency splitting off from bitcoin, while bitcoin would continue to exist of course.  With a PoW scheme, you always get a split in an industry providing PoW and hence block chain, and customers that need that industry to provide them with a block chain.

So at the moment, it has the same status as those miners signalling for BU, but not forking away with BU, apart from the fact that there's a precise date for the fork, at which point, they can still make up their mind on which of the two bitcoins they are going to mine.

at the moment it's just a vote and on 08/01/2017 it will become a separated blockchain.

Switching from GroupA to GroupB doesn't make one a non-conformist (it just makes them a hypocrite when the call someone in the other group a "conformist").

Like hero worshipping and conforming to Core?

So in your small pea brain mind of yours, anyone using their intellect to arrive at a different opinion/conclusion, that is opposite from yours, is a "conformist."

And when it fails, it should remind you that, without services, your wish is to turn Bitcoin into just another random shitcoin.

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)

A tiny drop in the well can trigger a massive wave, so any support we can get is important.

Do whatever you can. If you can mine, then mine. If you can run a node, then run one. If you can't do both, then show support on forums/reddit. You can even start with not using bitmain services/products, any exchange which is on the same side with bitmain.

Anything positive helps.

Stop being a conformist.

Waiting for the results first and acting after is something only a coward would do.

Point of note: UASF/BIP148 support at Slush amounts to less than 3.5% of ~4% of the network (I'm too lazy to figure out how many 0s are in the decimal percentage of ~7.597 Ph/s). In the grand scheme of things it's barely worth mentioning.

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.

Now they're in partnership with Bitmain to an extent, Bitpay would be one of the very last groups to support a UASF. Positions will have to be taken even if it looks like only a modest amount of support.

Well, Slush Pool istn't exactly the biggest pool out there. So I would not overrate that news.

If the UASF supporters cannot get big Segwit-supporting pools like F2Pool on board (which I doubt) then the whole initiative will fail. Also, they should try to get support from exchanges and from Bitpay - the latter would be the most difficult, as they are supporting the Segwit2x agreement for now.

If there is a broad majority for UASF I would also support it, but not in a scenario where a chain split is probable - for the reasons I outlined in my discussion with dinofelis (usability failure).

This is not a separate chain prong, isn't it ?  This is just a block on the unique chain, piled upon other blocks, and followed by other blocks.

The first BIP148 block is already mined at slush pool while you were discussing what if we do that, what if they do this, and we are 2 months away from August.

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/000000000000000000f288b3ff879d0ef11d3197f88dcdc1e29c3933b9c0e5af

When these blocks number get more and more in time, BIP148 will become thee bitcoin and legacy will be no more, no problem will be left to diskusss.  Enjoy it while it lasts

I also wd prefere the BU version - and yes this thing is already live and running ( still < 1MB and limited ), had its bugs shown up, but as bugs getting less and less with time the thing gets mature and robust.

Also in terms of maintainance over years I cannot beleive that so preferres the SW Spaghetti Wrack to the protocol that is still restricted to few on chain scaling not doing the most important job here.

So next if USAFails we might see a BUAHF...?