The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 65.

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: CoinCube on May 28, 2017, 04:11:22 AM

I would not sell yourself short. 0.1% is still 1/1000 of the network. Also you have both the history and technical background that makes you very relevant to this discussion.

From what I have read about thus dispute I agree with your bolded analysis above. That offer will almost certainly be rejected but it is still progress.

Honestly I am somewhat optimistic that some general consensus will come from this. It really is in everyone's best interest to reach a compromise. If you love big blocks then 2Mb is insufficient but still a step in the right direction. If you hate big blocks then SegWit a a step in the right direction and 2Mb represent a finite threat with limited fallout.

Thanks. As I said earlier I've already predicted what I believe will be the outcome, it's just how we're going to get there that's left to determine.

Quote from: -ck on May 26, 2017, 08:24:20 AM

The halfway point is core agreeing to their current segwit implementation AND a 2MB base blocksize hard fork that they implement - it's my gut feeling that's what we'll end up with but there needs to be a lot of rhetoric, chest thumping and circle jerking in the interim.

Gyrsur

legendary

Activity: 2856

Merit: 1520

Bitcoin Legal Tender Countries: 2 of 206

let them get their ChinaCoin! here we go with uasf to SegWit --> www.uasfguide.com

EDIT: the reference implementation is the heritage of Nakamoto. Core manages this heritage very well. miners are service providers for the network. for their services they are getting a compensation (blockreward + fees). but they are never allowed to define the strategic direction. this is power abuse which they blaming Core for.

CoinCube

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1055

Quote from: -ck on May 28, 2017, 02:11:02 AM

As a first step, let's see if lowering the threshold to 80% is enough for them to consider BIP91. Without clear explanation of all their motivation it's hard to know exactly what they'll agree to. Offering 80% is to see if it's the prohibitively high 95% that is one of the major stumbling blocks to segwit. The fact they've included segwit at 80% in their own proposal makes it a clear match for that part of their conditions. However I'm inclined to believe they only care about their 2MB base size hard fork and are agreeing to segwit only to barter that in and won't agree to just changing the activation percentage. Additionally different pools have different motivations and flexibility - btcc and f2pool have already said yes to 80% but then they were already signalling segwit...

Alas my own pools amount to less than 0.1% of the network hashrate so what I have to say makes no difference to anyone or anything, though there are hundreds of PH now running my pool software...

I would not sell yourself short. 0.1% is still 1/1000 of the network. Also you have both the history and technical background that makes you very relevant to this discussion.

From what I have read about thus dispute I agree with your bolded analysis above. That offer will almost certainly be rejected but it is still progress.

Honestly I am somewhat optimistic that some general consensus will come from this. It really is in everyone's best interest to reach a compromise. If you love big blocks then 2Mb is insufficient but still a step in the right direction. If you hate big blocks then SegWit a a step in the right direction and 2Mb represent a finite threat with limited fallout.

We don't need to make a final determination between on-chain and off-chain scaling at this time. Kicking the can down the road by allowing both to be tried in parallel under the vetting and safety provided by the Bitcoin Core team sounds pretty good to me.

Plus though it is not the primary concern here it is worth mentioning that a successful consensus solution to this problem would likely be very good to everyone's pocketbook.

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: jubalix on May 28, 2017, 03:50:27 AM

Ok I have posted this a few times....

Why can we not merge mine segwit, BU, and whatever else with BTC as it stands now, with the same distribution of coins, and just let the market decide which one has more value,

every one wins!

No matter how many threads you post it on, it still remains nonsense.

Merge mining and forks simply don't work that way. Merged mine coins do so voluntarily on the back of a real coin that has a high degree of compatibility. Segwit and BU would be completely incompatible and obviously neither would want to ride on the back of the other.

jubalix

legendary

Activity: 2632

Merit: 1023

Ok I have posted this a few times....

Why can we not merge mine segwit, BU, and whatever else with BTC as it stands now, with the same distribution of coins, and just let the market decide which one has more value,

every one wins!

mindrust

legendary

Activity: 3276

Merit: 2442

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjZk7N7RXfA

"Miners' work only has value if users value it."

It is coming. I suggest you Bitmain's paid shills to accept the reality. UASF is far more superior to Cartel's HF agreement because they have no base. They are only miners. They are not special snowflakes. Users make bitcoin valuable not miners.

UASF > Cartel HF

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: -ck on May 28, 2017, 02:11:02 AM

Alas my own pools amount to less than 0.1% of the network hashrate so what I have to say makes no difference to anyone or anything.

Alas, it was only recently that I learned that the only votes that really count are those of the miners. And to think that I used to hold a single-digit percentage of the entire system hashpower. And I abdicated my authority. Not realizing what I was casting asunder.

Respect for you fighting for what you believe.

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

As a first step, let's see if lowering the threshold to 80% is enough for them to consider BIP91. Without clear explanation of all their motivation it's hard to know exactly what they'll agree to. Offering 80% is to see if it's the prohibitively high 95% that is one of the major stumbling blocks to segwit. The fact they've included segwit at 80% in their own proposal makes it a clear match for that part of their conditions. However I'm inclined to believe they only care about their 2MB base size hard fork and are agreeing to segwit only to barter that in and won't agree to just changing the activation percentage. Additionally different pools have different motivations and flexibility - btcc and f2pool have already said yes to 80% but then they were already signalling segwit...

Alas my own pools amount to less than 0.1% of the network hashrate so what I have to say makes no difference to anyone or anything, though there are hundreds of PH now running my pool software...

kellogsblocks

member

Activity: 77

Merit: 10

https://twitter.com/eric_lombrozo/status/868695832257843200

I like the core devs. It's up to Jihan...

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on May 27, 2017, 09:55:42 PM

Quote from: mindrust on May 27, 2017, 03:50:30 PM

Quote from: coinsmanager on May 27, 2017, 03:31:08 PM

Does anyone know if this segwit version is ASIC boost compatible?

No it is not. That's why Jihan fanboys are crying out loud. Their hackwares will be useless after UASF/Segwit activates.

ASICBOOST and Bitmain + Ver are the main enemies of bitcoin. If we succeed to get rid of them and activate SegWit, bitcoin has the potential of going 10k$ in a year and 100k$ in 5 years.

But Bitmain/Wu/Ver are doing everything to block the development. I have serious suspicions that Bitmain is actually getting funded by JP Morgan. (the biggest scam banking company ever) Because if we can't develop bitcoin further, only bankers like JPM will benefit from it.

wrong on everything.

Segwit doesn't do a thing for Asicboost because no one is forced to use it. Since its a soft fork, a miner using asicboost can just choose not include segwit tx.

It is even more complex than this. Even segwit blocks can use asicboost. It only becomes less profitable to do so.

I found a good explanation here:

https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2017/04/10/the-relation-between-segwit-and-asicboost-covert-and-overt/

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: jbreher on May 27, 2017, 10:09:25 PM

Quote from: gentlemand on May 27, 2017, 05:10:44 PM

Signalling makes you look all cool and powerful. When it comes to actually forking, your knickers suddenly fall around your ankles.

One does not simply
Undecided

Prematurely e-fork-ulate

We're just biding our time waiting for the scales to drop from the eyes of the indoctrinated masses.

Quote

When put on the spot, almost every single economic actor of importance wiped their posterior on the idea of an Unlimited chain being acceptable.

Well, apart from a measurable plurality of miners, and and unknowable but certainly not insignificant proportion of hodlers.

Forking with a minority of hashpower on an anyone-can-spend chain is retarded. Anyone who understands this understands that UASF is just a bluff.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: gentlemand on May 27, 2017, 05:10:44 PM

Signalling makes you look all cool and powerful. When it comes to actually forking, your knickers suddenly fall around your ankles.

One does not simply
Undecided

Prematurely e-fork-ulate

We're just biding our time waiting for the scales to drop from the eyes of the indoctrinated masses.

Quote

When put on the spot, almost every single economic actor of importance wiped their posterior on the idea of an Unlimited chain being acceptable.

Well, apart from a measurable plurality of miners, and and unknowable but certainly not insignificant proportion of hodlers.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: Qartada on May 27, 2017, 03:05:49 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: gentlemand on May 27, 2017, 08:21:49 AM

That's what squishalised Unlimited in the end.

I like the word 'squishalised'. But I do not think that word means what you think it means.jpg. Just now:

[fancy image]

BU still #1 in miners signaling support.

True, but misleading. All of the pools signalling for each proposal are fairly stubborn about their stance, so those levels of support have remained the same for quite a long time now.

A compromise is fully necessary if there are two solutions with neither willing to conform to the other side's ideas. Whether this is the right one is another matter, but I'd call Unlimited "squishalised" until it's broken out of the position it's been in for a couple of months now.

So then The Segwit Omnibus Change Set is squishalized-er?

Incidentally, the post to which you have replied has been purged by the thread starter -ck. I certainly feel it has direct bearing on the veracity of the claim of ">80% miner agreement". Because 100% - 80% would be a max of 20% for everything but this new proposal, and BU has >40% miner support. As measured. Verifiably encoded within the blockchain.

You can find more on this at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/posts-that-ck-inexplicably-excised-from-the-barry-silbert-segwit-agreement-wit-1936835

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: mindrust on May 27, 2017, 03:50:30 PM

Quote from: coinsmanager on May 27, 2017, 03:31:08 PM

Does anyone know if this segwit version is ASIC boost compatible?

No it is not. That's why Jihan fanboys are crying out loud. Their hackwares will be useless after UASF/Segwit activates.

ASICBOOST and Bitmain + Ver are the main enemies of bitcoin. If we succeed to get rid of them and activate SegWit, bitcoin has the potential of going 10k$ in a year and 100k$ in 5 years.

But Bitmain/Wu/Ver are doing everything to block the development. I have serious suspicions that Bitmain is actually getting funded by JP Morgan. (the biggest scam banking company ever) Because if we can't develop bitcoin further, only bankers like JPM will benefit from it.

wrong on everything.

Segwit doesn't do a thing for Asicboost because no one is forced to use it. Since its a soft fork, a miner using asicboost can just choose not include segwit tx.

CoinCube

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1055

Quote from: Searing on May 27, 2017, 05:05:32 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: gentlemand on May 27, 2017, 08:21:49 AM

That's what squishalised Unlimited in the end.

I like the word 'squishalised'. But I do not think that word means what you think it means.jpg. Just now:

BU still #1 in miners signaling support.

If this chart holds, we still have stalemate. Just flipped on who blocks whatever is
Proposed.

Hope I won't still be pointing this out 4 years from now.

Yes there is fundamental disagreement in the community regarding on-chain versus off-chain scaling. Best hope of a breakthrough is a half-measure that allows both sides time to show what their solution offers.

Personally I hope to see some variation of Barry Silbert segwit agreement coded up vetted and released by the Bitcoin Core team as this is the only option on the table that appears to have any chance of achieving consensus.

ComputerGenie

hero member

Activity: 1092

Merit: 552

Retired IRCX God

Quote from: Searing on May 27, 2017, 09:02:21 PM

Quote from: coinsmanager on May 27, 2017, 03:31:08 PM

Does anyone know if this segwit version is ASIC boost compatible?

Doubtful...

In other words, "I don't have the vaguest idea about either one, but I still have an opinion on both." Roll Eyes

Searing

copper member

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1465

Clueless!

Quote from: coinsmanager on May 27, 2017, 03:31:08 PM

Does anyone know if this segwit version is ASIC boost compatible?

Doubtful. If it was we'd likely imho have a soft fork seg witness consensus.

Also, imho, we will continue to not have consensus due to bitcoin core never
going to accept hardfork on block size. Again, imho we have more than a couple
years left in this swamp.

Just no downside for bitcoin core to continue as is, with their view of btc mainly
as a store of value, especially if btc price continues to rise.

Thus stalemate. I'd get used to this, galling though it may be. 😩

ComputerGenie

hero member

Activity: 1092

Merit: 552

Retired IRCX God

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 27, 2017, 08:48:13 PM

That did not really answer the question. I was asking if Core 0.13.1 would have been good as a general "upgrade" rather than a scaling solution.

My bad, even though I quoted it, I think misread it as "would it still have been". I think not only was it marketed wrong, the idea was wrong, and a lot of the resentment comes from the fact that segwit is forced on people (even if you don't want it, you're stuck with it if you want to use a version of Core that's more efficient than the older versions and contains bug-fixes). If you want Core, your only 2 options are something that Core knows is shit or forced segwit. Undecided

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: ComputerGenie on May 26, 2017, 10:49:12 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 26, 2017, 09:54:56 PM

A question for all of you. If Segwit was not "marketed" as a solution to scaling, would it have been activated by the miners? There other upgrades in there that does make the protocol better.

I wasn't activated, nor would it ever be with a 95% clause; that's the reason for trying to rewrite history and/or do end-arounds to get it in at "80%" (which is still ridiculous).
99% of the FUD and paranoia is sown to herd sheep into joining the "well, everyone else is going to do it so I should too" mentality (kinda like back when you asked new signups on MySpace why they joined and their answer was "because everyone is on MySpace").

That did not really answer the question. I was asking if Core 0.13.1 would have been good as a general "upgrade" rather than a scaling solution.

The One

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ComputerGenie on May 27, 2017, 08:05:30 PM

Quote from: The One on May 27, 2017, 07:37:55 PM

.... are you fucking stupid...No fucking sane person....

A whole 21 pages before ^^ that happened; color me shocked. Shocked

Not in a habit of swearing..... but that grade A idiot pissed me off. I do allow certain degrees of stupid illiterate posts, after all, people can make mistakes. But mindrust IS the most stupidest person ever.

Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 65. (Read 120032 times)