Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 75. (Read 120014 times)

There's no "other options".

All we have is people copy-pasting 99.99% of Core's hard work, then adding some changes on top and calling it a dev team. And the irony is, once they add that 00.01% of new code, things go south (see Buggy Unlimited faulty code that lead to constant exploits).

BU is not even on the picture anymore. UASF has defeated BU, and if miners don't wake the fuck up and activate segwit before august 1, you know what's coming.

But again, hopefully we can reach a proper 2MB HF agreement before UASF kicks in.

It's nice to know that I'm not the only one that calls it "Twatter".

We all need more details why invite then disinvite, then invite, then and so on. This sounds too bizarre and rather irrational human action. I fear there is more info not yet revealed.

So we can assume that you've thoroughly tested every other option to be qualified to make such an assertion? 

How large would blocks be under the current segwit plans plus the 2mb block increase plans?

How large would the blockchain grow each year for this implementation of Bitcoin?

I would like to remind everyone the single greatest barrier for someone wishing to participate in our decentralized network is the size of the block chain and the time it takes to download and the bandwidth to continuously sync.

If all you care about is the price of Bitcoin and not its decentralization then you will lose both and deserve neither.  

We should not let accountants, PR heads or sales reps decide whats is best for our network.

Hubris and greed will be our downfall.

The most important thing in a coin is the software being solid, and Core devs have proven time after time for years, that they are the best in the game.

Mining is an easy task, anybody can do it.

We should in any case, find some common ground and try to reach an agreement that will NOT cause 2 freaking coins. Let's not kill the current amazing uptrend with drama (and a lot of people has commented this so I think there would be a big correction if we don't do it without drama)

Let's find a way to get segwit it with no drama and we'll be sitting at $10,000 easy by next year.

Segwit soft fork now, 2mb hard fork later, Core devs in charge of the code. Can't lose.

The frankenstein segwit agreement needs to be replaced with a BIP that looks like what I said and we'll be ok. There are people working on this already. Then we could avoid going the UASF route.

Thank you for being the shining example of:

1965 is over and we've about reached the end of Moore's law. 

Why are you keep repeating yourself? I am pretty sure you said the same thing more than 3 times in this thread now. I haven't answered intentionally but it seems you are having a hard time to understand...

1-If they hack it again, PoW algo can be changed again also.

2-I don't give a rats ass if people invested billions of dollars in ASICs. I simply don't care. They shouldn't have been there in the first place so nobody will miss them when they are gone. Your hardware becomes obsolete in a year or two anyway. I guarantee that you won't miss them neither. 

The real problem with asic mining and its centralization, is that PoW mining is also used for consensus building (= decision power over the protocol and the history).  One should have kept PoW for mining (that is, making new coins) ; but one should have used PoS or a variant of it for consensus.  Then, there wouldn't be that difficulty that those with a lot of mining power are also the masters of the consensus (protocol) ; the stake holders would remain master.

In fact, ASIC-optimized mining has the advantage that after a while, all technological advancement has been squeezed out apart from overall technological advancement (say, Moore's law).  As such, a certain amount of PoW starts to represent an incompressible economic cost.

This is my favorite way for automatic value capping of a crypto currency, by allowing emission of just as many coins as you want that have been burned with an incompressible amount of economic waste.  It would do what the FED is doing, but automatically, and make a real, near-ideal currency (in the sense of Nash ideal money).  Of course it would be inflationary with technological progress, so one should program in a difficulty rise of the order of Moore's law, instead of the difficulty adjustment to keep the coin emission rate on a curve, one should keep the coin *value* on a curve and regulate the emission.

In other words, instead of a difficulty adjustment every 2016 blocks, one should have a difficulty adjustment following Moore's law, and let people make as many coins as they want, until the coin value drops below the cost to make it, at which point it stabilizes in value.

More likely, he'll just quietly spend his billions and call it a day.

What would happen if satoshi logs in to the board and says that he is supporting UASF?

Would that be enough for you to name that minority chain as "bitcoin"?

I feel like we are taking bitcoin to the point of near destruction and just before 3-4 different bitcoins appear, satoshi will make a comeback and settle things once and for all. (I hope he re-sets the rules and removes ASICs all together)

Sad how much of this thread points out the real problem: Most people that have an opinion don't even know the underlying factors of their own opinion (much less the opinion they oppose).  

Again, nobody CAN lose a coin just by running or not running a particular non-mining node.  That's trivially obvious.


Why ?  After all, each time you make two coins, they are evaluated in the market.  If most users find the improvement much better than the original, they will put all the market cap on the new one, and none on the old.  In PoW, the miners follow the market cap (in fact, they follow the block reward in $$ but if the rewards are comparable, the miners follow the market cap).  So if users decide to buy up the new coins, and dump the old ones, the market cap of the old ones goes to 0, and the market cap of the new one takes over all of it.

If the users are divided over the utility of the modification, two coins emerge with comparable market cap, mostly half of what used to be the original coin, which is a good thing too: it means that essentially a useless modification was applied, at least as evaluated by the market.

I would think the multitude of different coins a good thing ; but actually, one doesn't need to fork off bitcoin to do so, one can also start a chain from scratch.  That is what about 700 or more other crypto currencies have done.   The more the market is varied, the more different coins there are, the better the experiment, and the more fluid the market ; the better the outcome.    Monopolistic markets are a bad thing.  Variation and choice is good in my book.  I think bitcoin has been having a monopoly for far too long a time, and finally, other crypto is being considered somewhat, even though in a crazy speculative game.

If there is a strong majority forking away in bitcoin, the slow difficulty adaptation in bitcoin will simply kill the small minority chain: its block rate will be ridiculously small.  So any 10/90 % split in bitcoin will result in a 0/100% split almost directly by the miners, and no miners are going to stick with the slow chain ; that was the difference with ETH/ETC.

Note that you are contradicted that every hard fork needs to lead to two prongs in reality: most regularly hardforking coins like ethereum, DASH, monero, .... are in any case so much centralized on their "Core" dev team, that only in very contentious cases, two prongs emerge, as was the case with the winding-back HF on ethereum.


Yes.  That's good in my book.


The funny thing is that a UASF is exactly the same.  You make two coins if the soft fork chain is minority, even though it is a soft fork.  UASF is asking users to only consider a segwit-only chain, and hope that a minority of miners will make a segwit-only chain that those UASF nodes will accept (otherwise, they stop).  But the old majority chain continues of course.  We ALSO have a fork and two coins: don't call the new one "bitcoin" in that case, you might confuse people.

However, this kind of fork is extremely dangerous.  Because the majority chain may be orphaned after a month or so if they don't transform it into a bilateral hard fork.

Great.  I'll tell pepole who lose their coins that you have chosen a different name for it, so it must be OK.

Yep, so you will make two coins.  And if you were to do that for every minor improvement, we would have more than 20 different bitcoin blockchains already, and most people, including me, would see it as a failed experiment.

More than just restrict activity.  ANY soft fork is automatically imposed by a >50% hash rate collusion over the soft fork.  If tomorrow, >50% of miner nodes decide to impose segwit, then segwit will be.  Other miners have no option.  They will get orphaned all the time according to their own rules.  Because all nodes will accept segwit blocks like "legacy nodes", including the non-segwit miners.