.... are you fucking stupid...No fucking sane person....
A whole 21 pages before ^^ that happened; color me shocked. 
Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 66. (Read 120032 times)
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.
You're so incredibly brainwashed by Blockstream/Core who are the true enemies of bitcoin and have been preventing scaling for years. Wake up. Fegwit is the banker takeover and big blocks are the true bitcoin freedom movement.
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.
Seriously.... are you fucking stupid. If 100K in 5 years then no one will be blocking segwit.
Evidence? No fucking sane person is going to suddenly believe that. You are talking like a man about to die and pleading for your pathetic life. However there is public evidences of Blockstream and their partners.
A debate on the technical merit of whatever improvement bitcoin need is one thing. A series of outlandish lies made up on the hoof is another. Are you so shallow and fucking desperate for segwit, as if segwit is the last drop of water on earth.
I like the word 'squishalised'. But I do not think that word means what you think it means.jpg. Just now:
Signalling makes you look all cool and powerful. When it comes to actually forking, your knickers suddenly fall around your ankles.
When put on the spot, almost every single economic actor of importance wiped their posterior on the idea of an Unlimited chain being acceptable.
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.
Whats the meaning of this? The beginning of Centralized bitcoin? I feel bad about this 
No the activation of segwit on bitcoins blockchain will not makes bitcoins be centralized that is one of solution for block size problem on bitcoins,
many people think about bitcoins will be centralized but i am doubt about that
it is just wrong understanding to the segwit. http://news.8btc.com/the-misconceptions-about-segwit
Does anyone know if this segwit version is ASIC boost compatible?
No it is not.....^^That's rhetorical, since we all know it's the latter^^
I believe you dropped this:
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.
Does anyone know if this segwit version is ASIC boost compatible?
Since no pool provably uses ASICBOOST on the main network, it's a moot issue. And since there's a near 100% chance that no one in this thread knows the inner-workings of ASICBOOST, there's a near 100% chance that you'd not get a factual answer even if it wasn't moot.
Does anyone know if this segwit version is ASIC boost compatible?
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.
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.
People talking about UASF POW change and the BTC price plummets... coincidence or not?
The Bitcoin price right now is almost completely unrelated to anything. It's mostly just long-term speculation and, in some cases, failure to do long-term speculation. It hasn't even fell in the past week or two, it just rose so much that it had to correct itself.Bitcoin's price is, from the very beginning, completely unrelated to anything. Bitcoin's price has almost NEVER been driven by 'demand for usage'. It has always been long-term speculation ("moon when all people will buy their coffee with bitcoin, and I'm an early adopter").
When I said "long-term speculation" I was talking about the trend of just buying in and almost ignoring fundamentals, which is more of a trend in the last month or so than beforehand.
And when people are trying to focus on fundamentals it often becomes a game of newbies attempting to day trade, causing immense volatility.
The reason that this trend of disregarding fundamentals won't last is because:
1. In a few months the fundamentals are likely to get better.
2. Long-term speculation is very good for Bitcoin if it continues because it can reduce day-to-day volatility when there are more people in it already. It ends up taking a lot more to move the market and then people become more confident in it and give up on the philosophy of just selling when it gets a bit higher.
3. Bitcoin will receive a lot of frequent buyers as it increases its prominence in technology and other niches. This is already beginning to happen IMO.
I like the word 'squishalised'. But I do not think that word means what you think it means...
The UASF signalling chart is irrelevant - it's a one line change in a config file to signal for it. Consider that some people are signalling for it but don't want it... LOL.
You think people are uninformed about Segwit, imagine the people cheering for UASF - they're advocating an idea that CAN'T WORK and could cause serious issues for anyone foolish enough to try it.
You think people are uninformed about Segwit, imagine the people cheering for UASF - they're advocating an idea that CAN'T WORK and could cause serious issues for anyone foolish enough to try it.
In fact, it is so easy to sybil the number of nodes signalling something, that if it had any meaning to signal something as a node, proponents of this or that side would already have been running tens of thousands of nodes signalling whatever they think. But it could also be a way to signal, as you point out, the opponent's view, so that people get tricked into believing they form a powerful crowd, and when they "put their money where their mouth is", get the carpet pulled from under their feet.
The UASF signalling chart is irrelevant - it's a one line change in a config file to signal for it. Consider that some people are signalling for it but don't want it... LOL.
You think people are uninformed about Segwit, imagine the people cheering for UASF - they're advocating an idea that CAN'T WORK and could cause serious issues for anyone foolish enough to try it.
There isn't any working code for UASF, and it likely won't work at all even if somebody starts writing it.
So go back to bed, put your little UASF hats on, and keep dreaming, you UASF-tards.
You think people are uninformed about Segwit, imagine the people cheering for UASF - they're advocating an idea that CAN'T WORK and could cause serious issues for anyone foolish enough to try it.
There isn't any working code for UASF, and it likely won't work at all even if somebody starts writing it.
So go back to bed, put your little UASF hats on, and keep dreaming, you UASF-tards.
Remember that VIAcoin didn't look at what segwit actually does months later after FUDding it. The miners are complete idiots when it comes to technology, all they can do is keep staking fees and keep monopolizing the mining game.
They have been given the option to end the possible clusterfuck of UASF, but they have refused to do so.
Well then brace for impact because UASF is coming. Segwit is getting in like it or not.
They have been given the option to end the possible clusterfuck of UASF, but they have refused to do so.
Well then brace for impact because UASF is coming. Segwit is getting in like it or not.
here we go --> www.uasfguide.com
This is going to be very funny to watch if they pull the trigger. I surely hope they do, because I like this kind of experiments ! BTW, I think the quoted text is very misleading because it doesn't consider many probable scenarios.
The text is thinking that the only economically motivated entities are miners, that are subject to the severity of users and exchanges, but that exchanges are oblivious to making profit from listing both bitcoins, and that users are oblivious to risking their transactions not being valid after a re-arrangement of chains. They believe that no users are going to be willing to buy somewhat cheaper legacy bitcoins from miners, starving non-segwit miners to death ; while segwit-forked users won't be scared to lose their funds if their chain is abandoned.
This is why I really would like this thing to happen: surprises almost guaranteed.
Remember that VIAcoin didn't look at what segwit actually does months later after FUDding it. The miners are complete idiots when it comes to technology, all they can do is keep staking fees and keep monopolizing the mining game.
They have been given the option to end the possible clusterfuck of UASF, but they have refused to do so.
Well then brace for impact because UASF is coming. Segwit is getting in like it or not.
They have been given the option to end the possible clusterfuck of UASF, but they have refused to do so.
Well then brace for impact because UASF is coming. Segwit is getting in like it or not.
here we go --> www.uasfguide.com
Remember that VIAcoin didn't look at what segwit actually does months later after FUDding it. The miners are complete idiots when it comes to technology, all they can do is keep staking fees and keep monopolizing the mining game.
They have been given the option to end the possible clusterfuck of UASF, but they have refused to do so.
Well then brace for impact because UASF is coming. Segwit is getting in like it or not.
They have been given the option to end the possible clusterfuck of UASF, but they have refused to do so.
Well then brace for impact because UASF is coming. Segwit is getting in like it or not.
People talking about UASF POW change and the BTC price plummets... coincidence or not?
The Bitcoin price right now is almost completely unrelated to anything. It's mostly just long-term speculation and, in some cases, failure to do long-term speculation. It hasn't even fell in the past week or two, it just rose so much that it had to correct itself.Bitcoin's price is, from the very beginning, completely unrelated to anything. Bitcoin's price has almost NEVER been driven by 'demand for usage'. It has always been long-term speculation ("moon when all people will buy their coffee with bitcoin, and I'm an early adopter").
For starters I don't think it would be anywhere near an even split. Positions will clarified if it looks like it's actually going to happen. That's what squishalised Unlimited in the end.
There's a world of difference between a HF that keeps the same hardware for PoW, and hence has two coins that compete for the same miner resources ; and a HF that changes PoW, and hence, leaves the full original PoW to the original coin and needs to install *new* miners on the *new* PoW.
A HF can kill the original by siphoning its miners and by overwhelming it in the market if they keep the same PoW.
However, I have to say that I do not see the difference between:
case A) make a HF from bitcoin that is litecoin-bis, hope that bitcoin owners are going to dump all their bitcoin to buy litecoin-bis.
case B) consider that litecoin exists, and hope that bitcoin owners are going to dump all their bitcoin to buy litecoin.
What's the difference ?
There are a few differences between scenario A and B:
1) the moral authority of Core, that is now calling to dump bitcoin and buy litecoin-bis (but why don't they do this for litecoin-original then ?)
2) linked to (1): the belief that if Core is behind it, it will be the valuable thing
3) the fact of organizing this "all together" to make a major dump of bitcoin, and a major pump of litecoin-bis (but then, why not do this with the original litecoin ?)
Jump to: