The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 78.

Hakkane

sr. member

Activity: 422

Merit: 270

Quote from: FiendCoin on May 23, 2017, 04:54:41 PM

We all know what jonald is about. His constant shilling against Core Devs made it obvious.

Scaling was never about scaling, it was always about CONTROL.

No, don't be so over-simplistic. We always had two problems here:

- A blockchain that needed a scaling solution

- A group of devs that were trying to convince us with a scaling solution that was a poisonous pill. By pushing the pill they showed they were working for the interests of a very particular company most of them are employees of, which own intellectual property over the benefits of SegWit

Personally I always considered Bitcoin XT a more elegant scaling solution, but I supported BU as it has more probabilities to succeed. I still think this new solution is imperfect because we will need further scaling in the future and Segwit (even if not Blockstream's) will give us many headaches and dramas in the future. However:

- It scales Bitcoin

- It removes Core devs from the equation. Or if they board this boat they know they can't do with BTC what they'll please

- It is almost ensured to succeed in terms of adoption

So I support this solution

d5000

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 6249

Decentralization Maximalist

Quote from: stdset on May 22, 2017, 11:25:04 PM

Quote from: d5000 on May 22, 2017, 08:10:06 PM

The item that mostly worries me from the proposal is that it doesn't address quadratic validation time.

Solution is pretty trivial:

Quote from: Sergio Demian Lerner

To prevent worsening block verification time because of the O(N^2) hashing
problem, the simple restriction that transactions cannot be larger than 1Mb
has been kept. Therefore the worse-case of block verification time has only
doubled.

Ah, thanks, didn't know that it was that trivial (I wrongly thought that the "maximum block size" and "maximum transaction size" were connected in some way).

Is this included in the miners' proposal? If Lerner is one of the developers contributing to that solution (I read RSK Labs is participating), then it should be the case. Is there already publicly viewable source code for the "agreement update"?

If this is the case, I think, the Core supporters should simply (grudgingly) accept the proposal. It's better than an UASF because of the significant danger of a chain split - and it's really not worth it to polarize even more only because of a different timeline (HF in late 2017 or in 2018 ...). They should however try to convince the "consensus group" to change the HF date to a more distant point in the future. It should not be that difficult.

25hashcoin

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

This new proposal here is 1000x better and deserves serious exposure and consideration: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014399.html

ComputerGenie

hero member

Activity: 1092

Merit: 552

Retired IRCX God

I'm pretty sure that the true reason Matt Corallo turned down the invite is because, in less than 10 minutes after the proposal was originally posted, he posted a long-winded polite version of saying, "This dumb shit will never work the way you think it will"*.

*obviously paraphrased into my own words

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 3015

Welt Am Draht

Quote from: -ck on May 23, 2017, 05:29:00 PM

Looks like a last minute invitation to the final meeting? My understanding was this was in the works for weeks.

No idea. There's not enough context to be able to tell. Maybe some will be supplied at some point by someone.

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: gentlemand on May 23, 2017, 05:27:14 PM

Quote from: -ck on May 23, 2017, 05:25:02 PM

Core developers were NOT invited.

According to this they were.

But I've no idea who or what to believe any more.

Looks like a last minute invitation to the final meeting? My understanding was this was in the works for weeks.

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 3015

Welt Am Draht

Quote from: -ck on May 23, 2017, 05:25:02 PM

Core developers were NOT invited.

According to this they were.

But I've no idea who or what to believe any more.

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: gentlemand on May 23, 2017, 04:36:17 PM

I think their refusal to turn up reflects rather poorly on them, though I've no idea how much notice was given. It's starting to look a little like they're more interested in sneering than working towards something everyone's happy enough with.

Core developers were NOT invited.

FiendCoin

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 263

The devil is in the detail.

Quote from: mindrust on May 23, 2017, 04:41:37 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

best thing about this is kicking out the core devs from their throne. Bitcoin might have a chance now. yay!!!

So you admit it. It never was about big blocks, transaction delays, big fees... It was all about taking over bitcoin and kicking the core devs out.

After all you said about segwit and how bad it is, you are fine with a HF/Segwit ain't ya?

You are just giving the core devs another reason to press the red button.

#UASF & PoW Change

Let's go nuclear. Fuck ASICs

We all know what jonald is about. His constant shilling against Core Devs made it obvious.

Scaling was never about scaling, it was always about CONTROL.

ComputerGenie

hero member

Activity: 1092

Merit: 552

Retired IRCX God

Quote from: mindrust on May 23, 2017, 04:41:37 PM

...Let's go nuclear. Fuck ASICs

There's now billions of dollars invested in Bitcoin; even if the world turned upside down and the alg changed, new ASICs would be out in less than 2 months. Roll Eyes

ComputerGenie

hero member

Activity: 1092

Merit: 552

Retired IRCX God

Quote from: -ck on May 23, 2017, 04:21:54 PM

...Some of the countersigners thought they were signing for segwit first so it appears those who signed didn't even know what they were signing...

Given that the actual March proposal read:

Quote

...This means that segwit would be activated before 2Mb: this is inevitable,
as versionbits have been designed to have fixed activation periods and
thresholds for all bits....

I'm not sure where he (Alex Petrov) is wrong in his belief. Undecided

mindrust

legendary

Activity: 3276

Merit: 2442

Quote from: ?? on ??

best thing about this is kicking out the core devs from their throne. Bitcoin might have a chance now. yay!!!

So you admit it. It never was about big blocks, transaction delays, big fees... It was all about taking over bitcoin and kicking the core devs out.

After all you said about segwit and how bad it is, you are fine with a HF/Segwit ain't ya?

You are just giving the core devs another reason to press the red button.

#UASF & PoW Change

Let's go nuclear. Fuck ASICs

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 3015

Welt Am Draht

Quote from: -ck on May 23, 2017, 04:21:54 PM

However according to tweets like this:
https://twitter.com/sysmannet/status/867124645279006720

Some of the countersigners thought they were signing for segwit first so it appears those who signed didn't even know what they were signing.

Fuck me.

Before they left the room each person should've been forced to read the statement out loud and press an 'I agree' button at the end of every sentence.

Quote from: ?? on ??

best thing about this is kicking out the core devs from their throne. Bitcoin might have a chance now. yay!!!

I think their refusal to turn up reflects rather poorly on them, though I've no idea how much notice was given. It's starting to look a little like they're more interested in sneering than working towards something everyone's happy enough with.

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

It kinda sorta looks like they might have vaguely come to a final agreement:
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/breaking-bitcoin-miners-reach-scaling-agreement/

According to this the timeframe is now 6 months and is a scheduled parallel hard fork with both segwit and 2MB as predicted.

However according to tweets like this:
https://twitter.com/sysmannet/status/867124645279006720

Some of the countersigners thought they were signing for segwit first so it appears those who signed didn't even know what they were signing.

LOL I feel like just stopping reading news for a a few weeks and just come back when they've all made up their freaking minds.

philipma1957

legendary

Activity: 4256

Merit: 8551

'The right to privacy matters'

Quote from: ebliever on May 22, 2017, 03:04:14 PM

Quote from: EarlyBirdSpecial on May 22, 2017, 02:10:17 PM

With bitcoin adding segwit, I wonder what's going to happen to a lot of altcoins as a result. This is going to be a very interesting year.

It would be high time for BTC to become competitive with the alts. It's up 100% in a timeframe in which alts generally are up 1000%. I sense a lot of bitterness in the bitcoin maximalists who missed out.

If bitcoin can navigate the minefield now before it (and I feel less confident than I did last night when I was finally starting to get optimistic), it could have SW+LN in August, along with Rootstock smart contracts. But it is lagging badly behind Ethereum in terms of the partnerships and businesses already working based on the Ethereum platform, and frankly I don't think Bitcoin will regain the lead there.

Even with plenty of TX capacity Bitcoin still has 10 minute confirmation times, making it a real drag transferring coins. Lately I've taken to selling into Dogecoin to move small amounts, as much for the speed improvement as for the TX fee. And Zcash got a huge boost today with the JPMorgan news. It, Dash, Bytecoin and Monero all have a lead in native privacy features that Bitcoin lacks.

The point being, the Bitcoin maximalists are kidding themselves when they imagine everyone returning solely to Bitcoin. It's a multipolar cryptoverse now, and we may never see Bitcoin at 50% of market again. Even if we do I expect it to be temporary.

Well at least someone sees what I see.

btc waited too long to simply 2x the block size.

the wait has given alt coin real value.

btc has lost its hammer.

4 more months before they do what they should not do to fix it.

This will be fun to see.

sturle

legendary

Activity: 1437

Merit: 1002

https://bitmynt.no

Quote from: ComputerGenie on May 23, 2017, 01:57:05 PM

Quote from: sturle on May 23, 2017, 01:52:49 PM

...The Bitcoin Foundation don't employ any bitcoin developers at the moment, afaik...

Because they went broke paying Gavin $200k a year?

It was not the only reason they went broke, of course. I think he was the last one, yes. And he was not even hired as developer, because he had mostly quit developing at the time, but as "chief scientist" or something.

ComputerGenie

hero member

Activity: 1092

Merit: 552

Retired IRCX God

Quote from: sturle on May 23, 2017, 01:52:49 PM

...The Bitcoin Foundation don't employ any bitcoin developers at the moment, afaik...

Because they went broke paying Gavin $200k a year?

sturle

legendary

Activity: 1437

Merit: 1002

https://bitmynt.no

Quote from: ComputerGenie on May 23, 2017, 01:39:36 PM

Because SEC filings matter....

Quote from: sturle on May 23, 2017, 11:16:46 AM

...paid by a single employer to do a very specific job...

One of the Bitcoin Core developers work at the MIT Media Lab. The Bitcoin Foundation don't employ any bitcoin developers at the moment, afaik. If they do, it must be a very cheap one. The rest are employed elsewhere, by various companies, own startups etc. Bitcoin Core is certainly not a company. It is a very loosely connected group of people who do various amounts of work on bitcoin.

sturle

legendary

Activity: 1437

Merit: 1002

https://bitmynt.no

Quote from: classicsucks on May 23, 2017, 12:12:16 PM

Quote from: sturle on May 23, 2017, 10:43:57 AM

There are no deals done behind closed doors.

Yeah, quote me out of context like that, and post a funny image, because that make is looks like you are a real grown-up! Perhaps almost nine years old.

At this level of maturity, it becomes obvious why you don't understand the basics of how bitcoin works. And how development of free software works. Please ask your mother to explain it to you.

ComputerGenie

hero member

Activity: 1092

Merit: 552

Retired IRCX God

Because SEC filings matter....

Quote from: sturle on May 23, 2017, 11:16:46 AM

...paid by a single employer to do a very specific job...

Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 78. (Read 120014 times)