Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 84. (Read 120014 times)

I'm very dissapointed of BitFury starting to collaborate with obvious Bitcoin foes like CIA snitch Gavin Andressen or altcoin cheer girl Roger Ver. We should procede with UASF

What are you specifically proposing?

We change the PoW algo to something else... then what? For how long is the hashrate decentralized until china, which is positioned with a perpetual advantage due cheap electricity and cheap human labor, can develop again specialized machines for cheap and run them for cheap and keep staking more and more machines?

You have to think about what you are going to do long term with a PoW change. Changing to some other algo is useless, we need something clever to avoid future miner centralization if we have to resort to that.

You're right, it's bad for companies (like Bitcoin Core) to make deals/decisions without asking the community's opinion behind the closed doors.  It's almost entertaining to watch you ignore the fact that everything you say applies to the group you seem to be a fanboy of. 

So it is O.K. for big mining companies to make deals without asking the community's opinion behind the closed doors but it is not O.K. to change the PoW algo to prevent these kind of situations.

I didn't sign up for a centralized piece of shit coin and a toy for big companies.

We must drain the swamp.

Does anyone know if ASICBoost is addressed?
Will the segwit be a HF Segwit without OP_RETURN commitment?
So - will covert ASICBoost continue to work as is?

I'm not conviced this is a fair compromise.

Has been any response from Core already? I don´t understand the euphoria of Charlie Shrem in his messages a few hours ago. With what has been announced so far, the solution to the conflict is still far away. It´s true that it´s a small approach when compared to previous positions but I don´t think that bitcoin can advance without taking Core into account. Highly announcing this agreement, given its terms, doesn´t make sense.

Devs? Ego?  Surely not!  

Anyone else see a Bitcoin Classic on the horizon? 

Anyone at NYC Consensus 2017 today ?

They should make the segwit announcement today or tomorrow, no ?

As far as I understand the new proposition, it has two advantages that I can see.  It can avoid a huge clusterfuck because it is a hard fork, so that once it is set up, it will split cleanly and nicely in two prongs that cannot unite any more.   As such, the immense clusterfuck that could happen if a minority soft fork splits off, making two coins, and taking over (becoming majority), orphaning the original one after a month or so, erasing all transactions on one prong in a go, can be avoided.

But if I understand correctly, this new proposition has a "power amplifier" built into it, even if initially there was a 50/50 split in hash rate on the two prongs.  Indeed, in that case, both prongs (both bitcoins, the original one and the new one) will only make blocks at half rate, so every 20 minutes.   However, the new one, having standard blocks of 2 MB, can accommodate just as many transactions as the old bitcoin did before the split, while the original chain has now half transaction rate.  

If the two coins are listed on exchanges, people will curse the old chain, that is now totally asphyxiated at HALF the current transaction rate (a 1 MB every 20 minutes !), while the new chain with same block rate can continue to work like old bitcoin used to.  This will give an edge to the new chain for users.

It can also have the opposite effect, that people do not even succeed in putting their old chain coins on an exchange to sell them and are hence constrained to hold them, thus increasing the market value of the old chain.  This could be even a danger if the split is too favourable to the new chain, and the split is 20% - 80%, and exchanges list both of them.   The old chain will only have about a block every hour (imagine !!) while the new one will essentially double bitcoin's transaction capacity.   But people will not be able to sell their old coins, so maybe the few of them on exchanges will explode in price, reversing the hash rate distribution.

Normally, once both chains are active and separated, the market will determine the market cap split, and the miners will follow with their hash rate.  

If the new chain doesn't asphyxiate entirely the old chain, two bitcoin will emerge, but at least, the two coins will never mingle again, and all transactions on both chains will continue to exist.

Yes this is exactly why the 2Mb folks want the block size increase after SegWit activation but before the lock.



This is an issue that is not going to have a "winner" it can only be solved by compromise and consensus.

I don't like all this games, it looks like some kind of bi war where everyone will loose at the end. Is the final goal of all of this for someone to control the Bitcoin and to become centralized? If this continues to go this way it will not end well, something constructive should be done very fast.

I think it's ok. First they activate SegWit. Then everyone will see that hardfork is redundant. But if some fools try to hard fork after SW they will end up with alt on their hands.

+1

I strongly agree with the arguments above.

What all parties need to be looking at is not who is in "control" or what signal bit is used but does the solution

1) Allow for long term scaling
2) Maintain consensus

Everything else is just human ego.

Bitbay now rallying on the disagreement over the Barry Silbert "agreement".

Dash also taking off.

Toys & prams in short supply.

Yes that is a good idea.

Watching this thread

Looks like Sergio Damian or whatever he is called, has been bribed by the PBOC money. Anyway, he has been selling vaporware for ages, he's incompetent compared to Core devs.

If this nonsense goes through, then Core must officially support UASF. What else is there? it's not like there are many other chances left.

It's either that, or Core officially supporting a 2MB increase, even tho doing a hardfork for only 1MB increase is pretty dumb, let alone rushed in 4 months, since I would like to see further tech improvements that would come with a properly planned HF, but we are running out of time, Chinacoin is coming.

Pffft.  Not even close.  Devs can only propose rules, consensus sets them.  Maybe you're thinking of Ripple or some other closed-source shitcoin based on centralised development and the users having no say in the code they choose to run.  Like so many people out there, you're willing to sacrifice the freedom of choice you've been given and surrender yourself to one centralised authority because you're scared of another one taking over.

The time of the cypherpunks was all too short, now only the cypherpussies remain, pleading for someone in power to trust with their hopes and dreams.  Pathetic.  

...No.  If devs could just change anything that they wanted to, they could completely destroy Bitcoin at any point.  That's the whole reason that we have consensus systems like hashrate.

One always forgets Satoshi's understanding of this from 2008:

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/


This is not to "quote authority", it is simply to show you that to its creator, this was understood, that one would separate users and miners (the "specialists with server farms of specialized hardware").

That said, Satoshi erroneously thought that there wouldn't be pools, and that there would be more of these "specialists" than the handfull right now.  But the idea that one would develop ASICS "specialized hardware", and that this would result in an industry of "specialists" was understood by him.  In other words, one cannot "discover this with horror" right now.  It was understood as part of the logical consequence of his design.  Maybe not desired, but at least logically understood.