Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 67. (Read 120014 times)

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.

Or we could just have the tinfoil-hat brigade stop spreading FUD of imaginary conspiracies about things they can't prove....

The real irony is that 99.999999% of the people spreading imaginary tales of anti-ASICBOOST woe don't even know how ASICBOOST works (because they've never seen it in action) or what it is (because they didn't even read the public whitepaper).  

Like I told someone on a different thread, with all this bullshit, I'm not sure how it ever got over $1,200 to begin with.  

We just need segwit via softfork to kill covert ASICBOOST, which is why Jihad Wu is doing everything he can to not activate segwit by softfork. He tried BU, failed, he tried segwit+2MB all in one HF mess, failed.

Now he will either accept defeat and activate segwit via SF or he will go bankrupt via UASF.

People talking about UASF POW change and the BTC price plummets... coincidence or not?

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.

They can wander off and do their own thing by all means. Everyone else will carry on trucking. It's no longer contentious, it's a weird little offshoot.

A large backlog will be the least of our problems if we end up with two evenly split chains. It'll be Ethereum all over again, but even worse. Imagine the effects. Huge price fluctuations, many bitcoin sites glitching out, older applications breaking, incompatible with the two forks, and the struggle of bitcoin to gain recognition as a single entity, rather than two.

What will the new, ASIC-free, non-Bitcoin altcoin that they're wanting to turn Bitcoin into be called and what symbol will it have (since Bitcoin and BTC are already taken)? 

UnApplicable Satoshi Fork (UASF) will lead to anti Satoshi PoW and unsecure hash power / ranting chain split.

I fear that s not Satoshi bitcoin...

In fact, Ver and Wu's coin have more chance to ever be called "bitcoin", because the *actual bitcoin miners might decide to give up on the original, and switch to the new one, abandoning the original one and lowering its hash rate*.  However, with a PoW changing HF, all the current bitcoin miners will continue to mine bitcoin, with the same hash rate.  Because that's all they can do with their hardware !

It would BTW be funny to see the new bitcoin and the amount of PoW that goes with it.  Bitcoin has been marketeered as super more valuable because it had the most PoW and was the safest chain (this is somewhat bullshit, but it is part of the bitcoin dogma's and one of the reasons why bitcoiners think bitcoin is for ever superior to any other crypto currency).   If you invent a totally new PoW scheme, of course, in the beginning, there won't be much proof of work as compared to the original one !  If it is a GPU based algorithm, chances are that it will be largely inferior in cryptographic security than the original chain.  How to convince people to leave  behind "the  most secure chain ever", to jump to some totally new thing that could be 51% attacked at any moment (for instance, by ETH miners).  What if someone (bitmain) has actually an army of ASICS that haven't seen the market and takes over all the hash rate ?

When Asics took over from GPU and FPGA in bitcoin's history, the chain wasn't worth as much as today, and code was centralized on Core.  Can you imagine the impact if there's essentially a hardware monopolist that fully takes over the new chain ?

In fact, you could do such a fork, and "true bitcoin" might not even be aware of it !  There's strictly no reason to suddenly start naming the original bitcoin, which happily continues to function, something else, because someone forked off an alt coin.  Ethereum was different, because the Ethereum Foundation has its name in a way, and because ethereum didn't change PoW, the original ethereum miners that were mining the original chain (ETC) abandoned largely the original ethereum (ETC) to go to the new one.  Nobody thought that the original ETC would continue to exist, but it did.
With bitcoin, that will not be the case, because *all* bitcoin miners will continue mining bitcoin like before.  The chain will not stop because someone decided to make a different coin.

But all this is theory.  I would like to see the UASF with a change in PoW pulled off and watch what will happen.  I think I know what will happen, but it is always better to do the experimental test.

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").

Fine, believe what you want and I'll chalk it up to faith and put you back on ignore.

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.

*still
^ Since Bitcoin isn't the changing one.  

I hear that the Pope was going to run for President of North Korea. 

No son, it is you who does not understand. When the PoW algo changes, those of us using Bitcoin won't even notice your insignificant blockchain fork.

Yeah, but it doesn't take in-depth research to discern the most likely outcome.

https://twitter.com/Egon_01/status/868162037142224896

So I heard code was being worked on for this proposal. Great news.

Let's revisit where this branch started, shall we?


As the data shows, it has the largest signaling support. Ergo, it is quite central to the ongoing debates.

Any actual proof of that would also be actual proof of his identity.
Because the community, at large, allows them to be; it's not because they have any authority.  

With as many people that don't understand hardware vs software, I'm thinking that it should be if it isn't.