Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 77. (Read 120033 times)

Irrelevant. There should be no funding by corporations to prevent centralisation. Corporations do not invest for 0% ROI and not get their capital back.

Unfortunately history will show that humans do change. The words "traitor", " turncoat", etc, springs to mind. I am not saying Back is one of them. Just pointing out that humans do change.

Therein lies the problem. Humans with the best intention are somewhat fraught and their behaviour is now aligned to the rewards you mentioned. It does create certain distortion and can possibly explain why Core doesn't listen to anyone else except themselves. The rewards would also give the false pretence that Bitcoin belongs to them. The psychology aspects can not be rationalised over the internet.

Arrogant assumptions that no one else can code better.

I personally detest any companies being involve in the Bitcoin roadmap and having any powers at all. The only "roadmap" i care for is Satoshi's whitepaper. Peer to peer electronic cash.

Holy shit, they actually figure out what they're going to do. That's nuts!
I'm interested to see the results from the concept testing as we get closer to the forking date.
Wouldn't a lot of it just come down to maintaining the power that devs have in the community and the miners would "benefit" the devs so that there are no real changes to whatever structure makes them the most money? I could be wrong but that's been the kind of vibe I've gotten from what I've heard.

Matt is correct, his going wouldn't have helped anything.

Another thing. Any devs would have Bitcoins already and that incentivised devs to improve the codes in order to improve the value of BTC - that's their reward. Each dev can always ask for donations if they say that the improved codes is done by oneself.

Typical PR manipulation. Honest people would show the date of the conservation. Without the date it is meaningless.

I want to have UASF asap, i'm done with that anoying little brat called Jihan WU.

Anything can be set into rules with a consensus change and fork of some kind. The issue with restrictive changes - as we've seen with 1MB blocks - is that in the future it becomes far harder to undo them again if they proved to be a bad choice and real world use cases change.

Interesting, thanks. Would there be a way to restrict only legacy (P2PKH/P2SH) transactions? In this case, we could leave the way open for Segwit-style transactions with more than 1 MB.


The way the agreement is presented:


what I interpret is:

- the upgrade to the code is done in parallel (both Segwit fork and 2MB HF coded into the same version and with the "timeline" activating at the same block)
- Segwit is activated when 80% of the mined blocks signal it (that could be inmediately)
- while the 2MB hardfork is activated after 6 months.

So in my opinion the most likely outcome is that Segwit is activated nearly inmediately (2-6 weeks) and the 2MB hard fork 6 months after the block where the protocol change occurs.

 

It clears the Mempool backlog, this reduces the total cost of transactions for an individual to send Bitcoin on the blockchain, reducing the friction and barriers to Bitcoin usage high sending costs reduce demand hence organic growth is stigmatized.
2MB temporarily means more users will use Bitcoin again as their primary means of sending value and boost organic adoption.

The high fees we pay in a 1MB block result in less users transacting on the blockchain in the long run and moving to altcoins as the main means of payment.

Paying lower fees but similar amounts in aggregate by increasing the blocksize to 2MB is a stopgap solution to allow people to participate in daily transactions at a reasonable cost.
If 100 people pay $1 to transact and 200 people would be willing to pay 0.50 if the capacity is raised we would see some users who were not interested in transacting at higher fees using it again, plus new users would be more willing to transact, you can imagine that as a simple widget curve an increase in capacity 2MB and a lower price to transact can move demand to a new price equilibrium.

The key point is that 2MB does not change the block reward and will eventually see the same issues reappear at 2MB which makes it a stopgap solution. It's main virtue is to not reward miners egregious sums to confirm a transaction between two users and provide time.

2MB does not reduce usage in the short term as it's primary goal is to keep costs low enough for new users to transact and participate in the Bitcoin economy promoting organic growth for services like Xapo and on-chain games like luckyb.it.

If the usage is limited in day to day purchases because of high fees there is a leakage to another means of transaction such as altcoins, as users are tempted by the lower transaction costs and sacrifice utility,  over time though this increases the value of altcoins and the rising price attracts more services boosting the utility of them all due to Bitcoin issues. Therefore we see some adoption leak to altcoins over time as people move and transact on their preferred second choice coins.

So we either treat 1MB as choking and putting a limiting throttle on Bitcoin growth in the future, or we can transition Bitcoin to an Asset Class and keep the 1MB block turning Bitcoin into the de facto pricing mechanism by which all Altcoins are priced.
The second more popular route at this point is increasing the number of transactions and capacity of the network or I guess to go back to the oldest proposals Blockchain compression and related ideas.


(That brings us back full circle to we can resolve this with Segwit, BU, Hard Fork, spending more time hunting the low lying fruit's all over again etc. as long as consensus is achieved in the end but until then the original is the status quo)

I never understood this argument, say price is related to adoption, and if the blocks become 2x larger, your going to attract >2 x people wanting to send at 1/2 the price.

Adam Back is the biggest mook in the history of crypto.  He was the first person Satoshi emailed and he didn't mine or buy any coins until the price was $1000. True story.

I'm 100% certain that only 1 of the 2 of us is all on about Blockstream. 

I'm 100% certain that hyperbole and delusions don't bolster anyone's case. 

Hmm. I don't like what OP has brought forth, though perhaps it could also be a good thing. The capability debate is far from new and has been going on almost since its inception. The continued bickering, with all it's bright and less bright ideas, has led nowhere thus far in terms of scaling. The network itself is capable, yet almost 7 years later, reaching consensus seems not.
I don't like that. But perhaps it's due time someone stood up to break this impasse, and see where it will lead from there. After all, the Bitcoin is still a project...


Curious...

Lol, the flat-earther-like Conspiracy theories about blockstream core are now, like flat-eartherism, to the point where I can give you all the facts in the world and you'll still just ignore them and plug your ears because you want to believe that Roger is right about blockstream and that your worldview model is not being challenged.

If you had one shred of decency, you'd investigate the following, easily proven or disproven points for yourself:

1. Blockstream isn't even the company with the most bitcoin devs. 100% of Chaincode's devs are Bitcoin core devs: http://chaincode.com/#team

2. The 'corporate money' that blockstream accepted, AXA, is just a French investment bank, not goldman sachs. There was no contract stating that AXA could direct blockstream's efforts or leadership in any way, much less any of their partners.

3. Adam Back is one of the most well-documented cypherpunks on anyone's record. Before he wrote Hash Cash, which brought proof of work to where it is today, he worked on the systems that underlie TOR and Bittorrent. Now he's full time on bitcoin. Why in the hell would anyone assume that someone who spent decades working on the most important decentralized, cypherpunk projects ever be trying to harm the latest one by centralizing it? That's compelling evidence alone, if not proof, that Roger's off his rocker for all those baseless accusations he makes of Back on twitter.

4. At Blockstream, every developer is HIGHLY incentivized to make bitcoin's price go up. At hiring $10,000 worth of bitcoin is purchased (part of their hiring contract) and set aside for them, and they can't touch it for the first year. After year one, each paycheck is paid in it for four years, equally distributed over that time. This is well documented. If developers there saw plans to harm bitcoin, then they'd likely fight those plans to keep their paycheck valuable.

5. The most 'valuable target' in bitcoin core for any infiltrating source would naturally be the Commit keys, which allow the Wladamir-led team of core code cleaners (referred to as Janitors within the dev community) the final say on what becomes bitcoin and what doesn't. Commit access is a right on Github to add a change to the git repository. Anyone with a Github account can write changes and propose them to the bitcoin core code, but only those with commit keys can actual add those proposed changes to the repo.

Today there are 4 bitcoin developers who work at Blockstream. Sipa is one, and although he has a commit key, due to the scaling debate he doesnt use his for scaling changes. Gmax used to have the 5th key, but gave it back because of the scaling debate. He doesn't even have the access he used to anymore.

If blockstream was trying to take over Bitcoin or lead it's governance in any way, they've not only failed, they've hobbled themselves so badly at it that it's now impossible.

Stop believing LIARS. Blockstream is one of the good guys.

Core is the only team that can make the upgrade safe.

Their being paid is what "buys them" and gives them incentive to actively work against any other group. By the nature of being human, Core devs are financial incentivized to use whatever means "necessary" to perpetuate the myth that Core is the "official" dev team. The only way to truly make it decentralized is to defund the Core dev team.

No issue with this proposal in theory this is now a battle Between 148 and 149 ignores Silbert but it is annoying due to how signalling has not reached consensus a forced fork date on both versions is a trap.

Once we hit this current period where escalating fees impact the overall user experience and by extension bitcoin services the countdown started between the sides towards a solution that will not make all users happy but will extend the clock.

One side will side with the Asset Class definition for Bitcoin and limiting the size of Bitcoin the pure 1MB faction, the other will grow and adjust the blockchain size over time in order to provide payment services through Bitcoin and that debate will continue.

This proposal is one of two acting as a temporary halting point so that the end users are unaffected and the services that process user transactions while client side users are untouched for the most part but will be forced to run new nodes.

Segwit or not the main issue is the need for more space on the blocks until we build a better solution to compensate miners after block subsidizes decrease with this they will have till 2020 to look at the issue in depth, for now 2MB will do the trick for the expand faction without wiping out miner fees significantly and get us there, only this route leads to a fork.
(We can call this period the excess profit period where on top of block rewards high txt fees exist and with 300,000 Transactions in the mempool that is not going to change for a while yet and is the opportunity of a lifetime if we do fork all new chains will retain the Bitcoins owned today.)

Forcing users to accept the 2MB size limitations and install a new Bitcoin client is not as good as a USAF since some users will not recognize the new chain and need to install new clients hence 2 Bitcoin chains, and it means there may be a 3.0 looming from this 2.0 Hard Fork unless its coded to be able to dynamically adjust the max size to demand not even mentioning other issues if the code has a bug.

In reality we may see this implementation succeed though due to the collective hash of the mining pools, but I am concerned of a Segwit version that is not coded and not run without testnet scrypt first.

Interesting times in Bitcoin the worst case we get 3 to 4 Bitcoins and press the Nuclear fragmentation option the Poker hands are revealed how will this play out, unfortunately it may be a self fulfilling prophecy if the question is who will pull the trigger and start the true mad descent which is currently programmed to be before the end of midnight November 15th 2017. OR this version that jumps ahead and is forked on September 21, 2017. But not before August 1 when the BIP 148 nodes reject any Bitcoin blocks that do not signal support for Segregated Witness via BIP 9.
Original, USAF, Silbert, Silbert 2.0

Gah this is going to be a pita.
At the minimum we will have a Segwit Chain and a Non-Segwit chain as a possible outcome to simplify it if this splits the consensus.

In my opinion USAF had the time and testing to prove itself we don't need to flip Segwit twice ... but props to Shaolinfury for a dual proposal.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bip-148-and-bip-149-two-uasfs-activate-segwit/
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki



-ck knows where it's at see you at the drama pageant, all we need is Bruno in a tutu to get consensus on something

So Barry Allen is the new Satoshi or the new Flash?
Where were these new gods of Bitcoin all this time?
What is SegWit non-core, couldn't the core devs propose this non-core version? IK this one should have a LOL.
When we're all dead Bitcoin is going to be around, devs come and go, what matters is code stays open and network remains decentralized and consensus be the voting mechanism.

However I'd say lets fork Satoshi's coins and put them in a trust account for Bitcoin improvement and development in the future, devs should get paid somehow for their hard work if they are not paid then they can be easily bought.
Once again we're slaves with governments being very much bigger cartel of the mining cartel, so we'll get used to these ones as well.

I personally always wondered if it was some vendetta with the Core devs, but it has been starting to seem like that's a big portion behind everything they have going. Seems like there's just a desire to force power away from some people and there isn't necessarily a ton of reasoning. Segwit soft fork has been looking good, but hey, a nuke to end the miners for fun might be something to spice up the community.

Actually maximum transaction size and maximum block size ARE connected. There are currently no limits on transaction size which means one transaction can be the size of the whole block. To actually restrict it to 1MB requires a fork that makes it part of the consensus rules. Nonetheless since no blocks have been larger than 1MB so far, to do so as part of the hard fork block size increase is the easiest time to implement it. There have been many arguments against limiting transaction size to date based on the censoring concerns in case there was a valid reason to create some kind of massive transaction. I don't have an opinion either way since I don't know how realistic the long term requirement for a >1MB transaction is. Perhaps it could be the collective transactions for one massive company for a day or something, not sure...