Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 83. (Read 120014 times)

If this is real and these meetings actually happened, to me this simply looks like folks who were initially against SegWit are now converging with the other half of the community in order to move forward.

I don't think these people will develop any kind of client, this is just a way of them saying "let's end this dead-lock, this indecision, and move forward, here's what we'd like to see/what we'd accept".

We seem to finally be reaching the halfway point where we can have everyone come together in a solution that's of interest to most.

Now let's wait and see the community react. So far it's been a more positive reaction than what I expected, so that's a good sign. This also doesn't look as hostile to me as some are saying it is, neither does it look like they want to raise hostilities or push things further to their own side.

I visibly get offered an experiment over what has deciding power in bitcoin: full nodes or miners.  Wow !  Thanks, guys !  Could you get your timings right to try both simultaneously, just to get the correct experimental conditions ?  I propose, all full nodes go UASF, and all miners go MAHF simultaneously.  Let us see who wins

Note that if the result is two bitcoins, that is even better:
1) everybody has twice as many coins as before (or maybe three ?)
2) much more transaction room, because now you have two (or three) chains, you can run two (or three?) full nodes, the decentralization doubles (or triples ?)

 

+1

I'm against the changes in BU and Segwit, the latter threatens the (currently static at ~ 6500) Bitcoin node count, and the former essentially guarantees the death of Bitcoin nodes

But Segwit is the best compromise, so I'm supporting it, against my better judgement. Segwit that reduces the base block to 0.75 MB + 2.25 MB sigs block = 3 MB would be far more sensible, for me.

You just described yourself, little pathetic jihan slave.

Does anyone know where the false dichotomy started that claims "one must be for BU if they are against segwit"? 

You are a foul mouth little troll that doesn't understand bitcoin.  That's fine.   just hodl you'll be ok.

I would be ok with a blocksize increase because being objective, UASF contains reasonable risks to worry about (even tho is still a valid tool, but if we can avoid it it would be better), but their roadmap is rushed. A hardfork must bring something more to the table than 1MB increase, there are other technologies we must implement in a hard fork that those guys are ignoring because they are not fit to make technological decisions. And don't get me started about getting the Rootstock scammers to replace Bitcoin Core:

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/866511081463828480

This is obviously the big hand of Bitmain bribing everyone while compromising code quality.

Lets do this right. Im ok with a blocksize increase, but let's not kick Core out and putting some idiots on board in return if you don't want to suffer the consequences eventually (see BU)


It's up to you too as long as we have the power to run full validating nodes, but you want to get rid of that so it's 100% about the miners and take it up the ass like the little cuck bitch you are.

You BU idiots have been free to fork off for years. This is a pathetic attempt to subert UASF that will fail. Gig is up for you paid Jihan shills.

The HF seems 50 times more likely to happen than the UASF. 

Don't be too butthurt yourself, big guy

And Segwit is the most superior capacity increase. Stay butthurt about UASF troll.

Actually most want whatever will be "the best solution" (in their hearts not caring if segwit is part of it or not) and have the "cable news" mentality when it comes to buying into the need for segwit to come 1st.

By and large, the mass of the community isn't even sure wtf segwit is/isn't.

Bigger block proposals were around for a long time before segwit even existed.  Anyway its not up to me, its up to the miners.  

OMG, it's so cute that you think that Core devs are doing this all for free.

Lulz, Core says they are gonna force everyone to accept what they want, and that's apparently OK.

Then a large % of the mining industry says they're gonna make a minor change to core code, include segwit, but with an 80% activation ...

I'm yet to see where these years of testing that the lousy core coders have done has been decided to be discarded.

OK switch the signalling bit and change a 1 to a 2
Lulz OP FUD.

Seriously do you have no idea about coding and what's already in the core code? Apparently NOT!

This is a joke beyond belief.
A solution that accepts segwit and a 2MB block size and the core fanboys go ape shit coz they don't get it activated in the manner they want.

What a joke.

It's on.


And, of course, the people will win. That's how Bitcoin was designed, and embodies it's purpose.



Decentralisation = Strength in numbers = Vires in Numeris

Where is Bitcoin Core a company? What are you talking about?!
And he is right! Why shoudl the community agree to such a shady backroom deal made by some stupid CEOs??
This is not banking here!
UASF BIP148!! If these guys wanna learn it the hard then fine! Let 'em fork off with their Chinacoin! Centralized as f** and without any talent and skills in terms of coding!
This is not an agreement. Just another attempt to hijack Bitcoin!

Just watched the live broadcast of Consensus 2017 scaling debate.
What do you make out of it ?

Seems that almost everyone is OK to go to 2MB and segwit...

Complete bullshit lies, troll. Most want Segwit first.

   

Most bitcoin investors have been asking for bigger blocks for years now. 

So far  I see  cryptocoin market cap booming. Last year BTC was 80% of all crypto wealth.

it is now 37 bill/79 bill  or 46% of all crypto wealth

The no scaling solution delay has caused explosive growth in other coins value and good growth in btc value.

an economic fact
there is a second issue  most BTC is in wallets  16.3 million of 21 million coins.

Some would say this delay is terrible. But maybe it is the end of crypto coins as we know them.

Everyone has read my list of companies that benefit by GPU mining.

Dell
HP
Lenovo
Acer

Intel
AMD

Nvidia

Asus
Asrock
BioStar
Evga
Gigabyte
Msi

Seasonc
Corsair

Crucial
Mushkin
Samsung

And 100 other companies.

Btc needs a simple easy move to show  solidarity

 One change just 2x the tx size from 1mb to 2mb

and revisit it 1 year later.

  Why?


  Simple it is no longer a technical problem look at the caps below.


BTC needs to show it has a consensus and can agree on something.

It has been passed as the $$$ leader  as it in now under 50% of all coins.

No dilution needed a 2x the tx size and come back in a year shows the btc people will stick together.

look at the list of wealth below.

http://coinmarketcap.com/


1   Bitcoin.................$37,041,273,266

   
2   Ethereum.............$17,184,250,941   
3   Ripple..................$12,424,084,808   
4   NEM.....................$ 2,213,523,000   
5   Litecoin................$ 1,293,282,677   
6   Dash....................$   917,737,253   
7   Ethereum Classic...$   884,060,685
8   Bytecoin...............$   693,777,114
9   Monero Monero.....$   511,980,651
10   Stellar..................$   508,732,790   
11   Dogecoin..............$   310,555,813   
12   Zcash..................$    284,001,799   
13   Golem..................$   261,081,062   
14   Gnosis..................$   255,814,207   
15   Steem..................$   252,134,350
16   BitShares..............$   217,877,756
17   Siacoin.................$   213,419,172   
18   Augur...................$   203,931,200   
19   Stratis..................$  201,833,687   
20   Waves..................$  185,432,000   
21   GameCredits.........$  168,968,598   
22   MaidSafeCoin........$   168,455,847   
23   DigixDAO..............$   165,657,800   
24   Ardor....................$  132,753,047   
25   Round..................$   127,830,650   

A muscle move is not the way to go here.