Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 60. (Read 120014 times)

Those two statements don't really connect logically. Segwit is definitely not conservative - it's a re-org of the entire block structure, support software, and the underlying bitcoin protocol. It's a major deviation from Satoshi's vision.

Also, I see forcing people to second-tier/off-chain solutions as radical. Second-tier and Lightning are an unproven concepts and they're unnecessary at this time.

The conservative approach would've been a 2MB hard fork two years ago, before we got into this high-fees and unconfirmed transaction mess.

Bitcoin Core is just being conservative. They don't like radical change and they believe everyone should just activate SegWit.

They also appear to favor off-chain scaling and are very concerned about the centralization risk of on-chain scaling as well as the risk of community fracture that comes with any hard fork.

We need to remember to be patient here. Consensus is very hard and takes time as does testing and vetting of code. Bitcoin itself has no inherent value. Its value comes from the consensus network of individuals that transact in and use it. Fracture that network into pieces and the value of the parts will not add up to the whole as scope of possible economic interactions will narrow.

Think of the internet. If the early internet had fractured into a western hemisphere internet and a competing eastern hemisphere internet that used incompatible protocols the overall value and usefulness of the internet as a global communications medium would be reduced.

A fractured bitcoin would damage the core of what bitcoin is. Bitcoin is an overarching consensus system organized around the concept of sound money. Those voluntarily participating in this consensus are required to behave transparently and do work with the ultimate aim of ensuring all network participants abide by the greater consensus. Nodes who choose not to follow the protocol, miners who submit invalid proof of work, and users who try to spend bitcoins without verified private keys, are simply ignored by the greater consensus.

Bitcoin is a form of group selection and group selection entails that group behavior be referenced to something outside the group. This something outside is the concept groups cohere and organize around. It is what they cooperate to promote. In the case of bitcoin the referenced object is the conceptual idea of a sound and ideal money.

The external concept of bitcoin as a sound and ideal money would be significantly damaged by a contentious hard fork that caused a network split. Damaged in such a way the two broken pieces of bitcoin would be worth less then the original as their fundamental essence would now be called into question.
 

Interesting. It's surprising to see Core taking such a hard-line stance, as Bitcoin's market share erodes more daily.  Obviously Shillbert is working fist in glove with Blockstream/Core, so perhaps the goal of this whole "debate" and "agreement" is to shift the center of the debate toward Core more. It's just politics, which won't change the technical and economic realities for anyone who is thinking objectively.

Since UASF is essentially suicide, I don't think Core really has any negotiating leverage. They're just not in the position they think they are in...

Interesting Article on Coindesk regarding this debate

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-core-developers-react/

IMO ... The issue isn't as much as a differing opinion as much as, literally, pasting a post as a "reply" to a rebuff of the 1st time he posted it. As in:
I say 2 paragraphs about "x"
You say " that's not correct because of ....."
I copy my 2 paragraphs and repost them....

People are allowed to be anti something if they want to. That is what freedom of speech is. Segwit, ideas, opinions isn't objective like 2+2=4 that we all can agree on. Many people have voiced their opinion on segwit and don't like it. That's their right to do so. Making threats to ban someone with opposing views, only serves to reinforce other people that you are potentially covering up something... just like politicians.

The stupid forum keeps showing you new posts even for ignored users.

Off-topic: When you put someone on ignore, does watchlist still show new post for the ignored user's posts? If not, I think I may have found my 1st person to ignore.  

Really? Explain how franky1's endless anti-core, anti-segwit, anti-blockstream mindless diatribe that is debunked over and over has anything to do with the miner agreement this thread is about? Don't worry - you can read thousands of his posts on anything to do with the above in thousands of other threads here if you're that way inclined.

@Franky1, your posts are not welcome on this thread and should you continue to post you might qualify yourself for a well overdue ban the global mods seem reluctant to give you that you so rightly deserve.

Oh come on... that doesn't help.

I believe the implication was that Bitcoin needs segwit as humans need air (equating segwit with air), not that s/he equated BTC with air. Albeit that I agree with the rest of what you said.  

The fact that you equated BTC with air is stupid. Without air, we will die. Without segwit, we will NOT die. Your attempt to promote Segwit through fear was laughable.

Nonsensical comparison. Litecoin pools do not need to prioritize these transactions as there is enough block space as is.

Prioritizing lean transactions does not accomplish anything when the average transaction size is much higher.

Wrong. Learn how Segwit works.

I debunked you so many times that it's starting to become pointless. You need to be banned from this forum.

Ck, I agree. You should delete all his posts on sight.

That should read:
Just sayin'....

BTC SegWit is needed as air, at the moment the transaction fee is too high, the transmission timeout is too long. BTC urgently needs to activate SegWit as soon as possible for the sake of the future BTC.

The central definition of "community" is like-mindedness. The fact that competitors are opposing forces doesn't negate that they have certain like-minded goals, aspirations, and views. While the ecosystem may involve you vs me, we share the same interest that we want Bitcoin to be a success. To that end, we do what we must to do what we want. Not all compromise is collusion (which by definition involves secretiveness and/or deceit).
Even when our goals, aspirations, and views are not like-minded, we are in the community of those who wish to use Bitcoin, see Bitcoin succeed, and/or wish to make Bitcoin better to further either the former or the latter.

It's FUD that I've debunked long ago. If miners want capacity, miners prioritize: native -> Segwit and Segwit -> Segwit transaction. Simple solution to the non-existing problem created by Franky1.

Correct. As it currently stands, we do have sidechains but they are either *private* or federated/permissioned. Bitcoin needs Segwit and some new OP codes for decentralized sidechains (not that I see anything wrong with the current model if only used by companies).

---

Can we agree that the non-compatible Segwit deployment from this proposal is a bad joke at best?

Well, I fail to see the difference between the "community" largely opting for a forked coin, or largely opting for another crypto.

The only way in which a "forked" coin becomes the original one, if it is a non-contentious fork, that is, 95% or more of the "community" switches to the new one, and the old chain simply stops.   It is indeed somewhat silly to claim that the old, non-existing coin is now the original one, and the new coin is a new crypto currency, no, one MODIFIED the original coin (my idea is that such thing is almost by definition impossible in a truly decentralized system where no collusion occurs between entities).

But apart from "we all agree to modify something and we won't continue to do it the way we did it until now", bringing out a modified version of a coin NEXT TO the original coin or bringing out an entirely NEW COIN, or having people that were using the old coin SWITCH TO ANOTHER (existing) coin are very similar acts.

I fail to see the difference in principle between:

A) I create a totally new alt coin, "bitcoinNew" (with a new genesis block), and most of the people holding bitcoin fall in love with it, and sell their bitcoins to buy bitcoinNew ; but a minority continues to use bitcoin

B) I fork off a totally new alt coin, "bitcoinFork", (which forks off from block 500 000 onward, and, say, has a different PoW scheme), and most people holding bitcoin and hence also bitcoinFork, sell their bitcoin to buy more bitcoinFork, but a minority still continues to use bitcoin

C) I don't do anything, but most people holding bitcoin sell their bitcoin to buy, say, Litecoin, but a minority still continues to use bitcoin.

What does that do to the original bitcoin, except suffer competition ?


EDIT: BTW, I think that in a decentralized system, one cannot talk (by definition) of a "community" because we are supposed to have an eco system of non-colluding entities, contrary to most open source software, for instance, where "community", "cooperation" and "leadership" have a meaning.  The whole idea of a decentralized system is to have antagonist entities that cannot collude over any change, because any change is in the advantage of some and the disadvantage of others, given that it is a system with on-purpose scarcity and competition.  You cannot have a "community" in a competitive free market either ; every form of significant collusion is called a cartel.

Still spamming for ''key-pairs'' FuD...i told you there is nothing wrong with it.

Segwit is the best possible update Bitcoin can have, followed later by a hf. After that sidechains, that will make Bitcoin mainstream.