Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with &gt;80% miner support. - page 8. (Read 120014 times)

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 20, 2017, 02:01:57 AM

One of my pools was lucky enough to find a block in this heat and contribute to the activation signalling:
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/000000000000000001190eb117434d9d2cc40a0a01bcb6ec954f16b565dbfd4e

Congrats... Great to see that your pool got to be part of a possible pivotal moment in bitcoin history.... Wink

This activation period looks very close but I don't think it will succeed because f2pool is STILL holding out. No idea what he's thinking; he's done some bizarre flip flops in the past that have nothing to do with what he says, so I don't even know if he's holding out because of gmaxwell's issue on the btc1 git. There is still enough hashrate to activate it without him on one of the activation periods (they are 336 blocks long) but instead of it being a given it's going to be a close one based on random luck.

Could you pls explain a little more here since I understand this issue is about to better sync the activation UASF / SW2x ?

Wouldn't it be better the SW2x lock-in is to be delayed to minimize the time difference between those two activations ?

That's what the miners try ?

I think that this is a repeated theme in this thread that BIP91 seems to cause dynamics to lock in segwit, but is does not necessarily cause sufficient dynamics to lock in segwit2x (meaning the 2x portion of that NYA). Anyhow, probably have to verify the extent to which there could be signaling that establishes the 2x portion of the segwit2x - which I doubt would even be able to sustain any kind of 80% threshold, let alone the less controversial 95% threshold that segwit is going to likely achieve within short period of time after BIP91 gets locked in.

Of course, ck can respond more regarding the portions of your question that seems directed at him... which may be all of it.. .. hahahaha Cheesy

Hm, speculation; Think about sth like 'group dynamics'. Once the miner 'community' noticed - I and I'm sure all the needed 'meetings' last months lead exactly to this - that only together / colluding they can GO ON and even against core (and stable the price!!!) .... maybe we will be surprised?

With my recent interactions with you, I am of the opinion that you are speculating way more than me. I believe that I am just attempting to take this one step at a time. Of course, there may be some nee to look into the future, but I think that the fact of the matter is that we know a whole hell-of-a lot more what are the potential next steps only after verifying the passage and the particulars of the current step... Otherwise, it is my thinking that our speculation is way too much all over the fucking place if we try to assume too many steps in advance.

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 20, 2017, 02:44:44 AM

Could you pls explain a little more here since I understand this issue is about to better sync the activation UASF / SW2x ?

Wouldn't it be better the SW2x lock-in is to be delayed to minimize the time difference between those two activations ?

That's what the miners try ?

BIP91 has to lock in and start invalidating non-segwit blocks before BIP148's activation, otherwise BIP148 goes active while the miners continue to mine non-segwit signalled blocks. They aren't really compatible, even though they ultimately lead to segwit's activation. BIP91 being activated earlier is better than them conflicting come August 1. This is the main reason segwit2x rushed and chose to activate 2 weeks before BIP148.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 20, 2017, 02:01:57 AM

One of my pools was lucky enough to find a block in this heat and contribute to the activation signalling:
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/000000000000000001190eb117434d9d2cc40a0a01bcb6ec954f16b565dbfd4e

Congrats... Great to see that your pool got to be part of a possible pivotal moment in bitcoin history.... Wink

This activation period looks very close but I don't think it will succeed because f2pool is STILL holding out. No idea what he's thinking; he's done some bizarre flip flops in the past that have nothing to do with what he says, so I don't even know if he's holding out because of gmaxwell's issue on the btc1 git. There is still enough hashrate to activate it without him on one of the activation periods (they are 336 blocks long) but instead of it being a given it's going to be a close one based on random luck.

Could you pls explain a little more here since I understand this issue is about to better sync the activation UASF / SW2x ?

Wouldn't it be better the SW2x lock-in is to be delayed to minimize the time difference between those two activations ?

That's what the miners try ?

I think that this is a repeated theme in this thread that BIP91 seems to cause dynamics to lock in segwit, but is does not necessarily cause sufficient dynamics to lock in segwit2x (meaning the 2x portion of that NYA). Anyhow, probably have to verify the extent to which there could be signaling that establishes the 2x portion of the segwit2x - which I doubt would even be able to sustain any kind of 80% threshold, let alone the less controversial 95% threshold that segwit is going to likely achieve within short period of time after BIP91 gets locked in.

Of course, ck can respond more regarding the portions of your question that seems directed at him... which may be all of it.. .. hahahaha Cheesy

Hm, speculation; Think about sth like 'group dynamics'. Once the miner 'community' noticed - I and I'm sure all the needed 'meetings' last months lead exactly to this - that only together / colluding they can GO ON and even against core (and stable the price!!!) .... maybe we will be surprised?

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 11105

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 20, 2017, 02:01:57 AM

Quote from: Vishnu.Reang on July 20, 2017, 02:05:47 AM

One of my pools was lucky enough to find a block in this heat and contribute to the activation signalling:
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/000000000000000001190eb117434d9d2cc40a0a01bcb6ec954f16b565dbfd4e

Congrats... Great to see that your pool got to be part of a possible pivotal moment in bitcoin history.... Wink

This activation period looks very close but I don't think it will succeed because f2pool is STILL holding out. No idea what he's thinking; he's done some bizarre flip flops in the past that have nothing to do with what he says, so I don't even know if he's holding out because of gmaxwell's issue on the btc1 git. There is still enough hashrate to activate it without him on one of the activation periods (they are 336 blocks long) but instead of it being a given it's going to be a close one based on random luck.

Could you pls explain a little more here since I understand this issue is about to better sync the activation UASF / SW2x ?

Wouldn't it be better the SW2x lock-in is to be delayed to minimize the time difference between those two activations ?

That's what the miners try ?

I think that this is a repeated theme in this thread that BIP91 seems to cause dynamics to lock in segwit, but is does not necessarily cause sufficient dynamics to lock in segwit2x (meaning the 2x portion of that NYA).. and it is actually a way to prevent UASF from activating.

Anyhow, probably have to verify the extent to which there could be signaling that establishes the 2x portion of the segwit2x - which I doubt would even be able to sustain any kind of 80% threshold, let alone the less controversial 95% threshold that segwit is going to likely achieve within short period of time after BIP91 gets locked in.

Of course, ck can respond more regarding the portions of your question that seems directed at him... which may be all of your question.. .. hahahaha Cheesy

Searing

copper member

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1465

Clueless!

Quote from: Paashaas on July 19, 2017, 09:00:44 PM

After Coinbase now GDAX is rejecting any potential HF from Jihan Cheesy

https://blog.gdax.com/uahf-a703b6a13115.

So what do you think? It seems to me that Jihan Wu doesn't command enough support for a chain split. It will be better for him (and for everyone else) to stay in the original Bitcoin chain, rather than risking his money and reputation in building another one. Anyway... it is his call.

Imho if not enough w/o him for bit 91. He will do what he did with ltc. Try to hold hostage. He is an ass.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 20, 2017, 02:01:57 AM