Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 64. (Read 120014 times)

I disagree with this last point. A truly decentralized system is not entirely immutable to change it is just immutable to controversial and contentious change. It becomes immutable to change without true and honest consensus.

To argue for immutability is to argue that it is impossible to achieve consensus at all in a decentralized system. I see no basis to make this claim.

Consensus is achievable in a decentralized system if the interest of all participants broadly align in favor of change or more abstractly if the organizing principles of the participants are harmonious.

This is an extremely important observation.  The difficulty resides in the fact that if there is a de facto software monopolist, his software (his client) is at the same time the protocol definition.  What we are observing, is that this monopolist is losing its ability to dictate the protocol and its changes.  The protocol being confused with the software written by one entity, and hence, entirely centralized, is becoming detached from it, and hence, is slowly gaining some form of decentralisation.   Not quite yet, because for the moment, there seems to still be only one *trusted* piece of software out there, but the deciders in bitcoin (the mining pools) seem to have decided not to follow blindly the implicit protocol changes any more that the software monopolist is shoving them up with.

I like to compare bitcoin to a parliamentary monarchy, where the King is the only entity able to propose and modify laws (the software monopolist is the only one able to propose modifications to the protocol, by including it in a new version of the software) and the parliament (the mining pools) can vote over it (by adopting them or not: that is: by signalling for it, if the King has foreseen this, or by upgrading/not upgrading if the King didn't leave an option in the new version).

Decentralized, not at all.  You can hardly think of something more centralized than this.  That said, it worked well, because the King was "good".  Nothing works better than a monarchy where the King is an enlightened being with good intentions.

The troubles we are seeing, is that this entirely centralized monarchy is losing its grip and decentralisation is slowly gaining field, and the King doesn't know any more how to restore his absolute power.

If the system is truly decentralized, the protocol should become entirely immutable.

But was it not always the situation since the past releases? What has changed now and why is there a portion of the community afraid to get Segwit activated?

I ask you personally, without the politics, just the technicals. Do you think Core 0.13.1 is a good version of Bitcoin?

For what it's worth, I quite like the combo of 2MB base size and segwit, just not the miners' agreement's alleged planned execution of it. It still only smells of a bargaining tool to me and hopefully that's all it will end up being (see chest thumping.)

Because, sadly, semantics matter (especially when it comes to dispelling myths. I don't deny that segwit would produce more transactions per block; however, when the sticking point is more and bigger, what constitutes "bigger" maters. Without that distinction, I fear it becomes sewit, 1 MB continued, and a year or two from now we go through this all over again (except with the claims that "we gave you 'bigger' blocks already" from one side and "see, segwit didn't help anything" from the other). There's no reason that a broad compromise can't lead to a new starting point, rather than something that will put us right where we are now.

But, what do I know, I'm still stuck on trying to explain the difference between a client and a protocol to people (just as I did back in the MSNChat/IRCX days).  

Why must you debate semantics in a biased manner? Yes the core block size doesn't change, but with segwit it will fit up to 4x as many segwit transactions as we can currently fit legacy transactions. Pedantry over defining block size and papering over that fact at the same time is hypocritical. Be pedantic but be consistent.

This endless debate over definitions is a complete waste of time and has been done to death on every other thread already and I'm not interested in yet another fucking discussion regarding why everyone's side is better than everyone else's. Can we stick to the miner agreement for this thread at least and how the fuck we'll come to an agreement? I want to see no fork and both sides mildly satisfied and mildly dissatisfied at the same time if that's what it takes, provided we end up with one good bitcoin blockchain only.

As for the UASF graph showing over 40% support that seemed to be an anomaly and it's back around 11% so it remains unconvincing for now.

With the new, ASIC-free, non-Bitcoin altcoin that they're wanting to turn Bitcoin into, wallets would go back to being "miners" (i.e, low diff and gen=1 in config). It's kinda sad that they don't even know that what they "don't want" is actually exactly what they want. 

" They are only miners"? then you're into UASF? We all know miners are so important, except you. If they are not important why do they still need to confirm our transactions, with that one proof, miners is really important.

You Lukejr kool-aid drinkers really don't know how stupid you literally sound when you spew this Corestream propaganda. We appreciate the warning, however, so we know when not to engage with people who have no idea what they're saying.

unfortunately no one is paying me for my efforts.  but if you check my post history i was calling for bigger blocks for years.  long before Mr Jihan was a public figure.

pot. kettle. black.

slush. groppel. snowflake.

-ck as one of the few grounded people involved in this dispute I select you as my representative to the to the rarified circle of pool operators and developers.

You have my support in whatever measures are needed to move us to a halfway point we can build consensus around.

Thank you for your efforts.

Yes this is not only true but utterly obvious.
However, we are dealing with human nature here.

We are currently at the chest beating stage of the consensus process (see link below for details)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EAkxix31aJI

Yeah, no.
If you have 1 pound of crap in a box, 1/4 of which is dry, and say "I'm only going to weigh how much crap is dry and put it back in the box", you still have 1 pound of crap in a box (even if you pretend to take away that 1/4 pound).
Segwit gives the illusion of "bigger block size" by redefining what "size" is, not by actually adding size. At some point, one would hope you'd stop being a Core fanboy long enough to at least understand what you're a fanboy of. 

Segwit comes with a bigger block size but since you are a paid shill of Jihad BU, you won't mention it.  

Anything, but anything comes out of your mouth is a lie. You and your kind is being paid by JPM in order to destroy bitcoin.

Not if your goal is to create a new altcoin (the new, ASIC-free, non-Bitcoin altcoin that they're wanting to turn Bitcoin into) and scam people into thinking it's still Bitcoin.

I don't see why a chain split is to be avoided ; I would say, on the contrary: the more it splits, the more different versions can compete in the market, and the better the outcome will be.   Yes, of course, speculative value will get lost, but speculative value is what kills this environment in any case, so the more speculators can bleed, the better, I would think.  Real usage is what would thrive it, speculative "to the moon" considerations is what is killing it.   I think real hard fork splits are the best way forward, to a myriad of different branches, with miriads of different properties.  In fact, in a certain way, alt coins do that already, but I think that it would be better, instead of starting new chains all the time, to fork off from existing ones, to have initial distributions which mean something.  After all, to get something going, it is much better to hand it out to a large existing audience than to try to win a new audience.

I think most real users want bigger blocks and the benefits that come with it (lower fees, faster confirmations).

UASF support is fake/astroturfing.

But maybe there will be a network split if some miners insist on it.

What I really don´t get.

Shouldn't avoiding a chain split be the absolute top priority?

I cannot really see a scenario where both coins combined (after a split) will be worth the same as the single coin before.

So users and miners should do everything to avoid that.

ok i c i though they could make the essentials compatible ...  i don't think anyone has to ride anyone just comes down to how many miners run the mm insatiation.