Pages:
Author

Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 86. (Read 120014 times)

-ck
legendary
Activity: 4088
Merit: 1631
Ruu \o/
so no one sees this as one step towards a broader consensus rather than the final deal?

a significant enough spread of mining power just stated their willingness to go segwit. they also did it without any technical input. maybe they're now waiting to see what developers and exchanges have to say and it'll finish up with something everyone's happy enough with after their suggestions.
Maybe. All I see right now is a dangerous game of poker by UASF and BSFORK. Bluffing? Well maybe both of them started as a bluff and now are forced to play their hands to completion...
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1087
so no one sees this as one step towards a broader consensus rather than the final deal?

a significant enough spread of mining power just stated their willingness to go segwit. they also did it without any technical input. maybe they're now waiting to see what developers and exchanges have to say and it'll finish up with something everyone's happy enough with after their suggestions.
hv_
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1055
Clean Code and Scale
If there is a HF, prepare for two versions and no it won't be like ETH and ETC, it will be much messier...

Secret meetings and miners getting butthurt over UASF, sound like good reasons to go ahead with UASF to me.

Infact let's have a UASF version and a secret cartel HF version and see which one ends up at < $10

The fork with most money will have an advantage in the beginning, but when their nodes start to crash like BU nodes and perhaps even more serious bugs are discovered, people will move their money into the good version of bitcoin.

No political agreement will make software run perfectly, you need the developers, and the most experienced and with most expertise developers are in Bitcoin Core's team.

Sorry, wrong arguement, Trump can show an even better track record...ehh

Its only about winning feature and selling them. Here we all got trapped and stuck now.
legendary
Activity: 2786
Merit: 1031
If there is a HF, prepare for two versions and no it won't be like ETH and ETC, it will be much messier...

Secret meetings and miners getting butthurt over UASF, sound like good reasons to go ahead with UASF to me.

Infact let's have a UASF version and a secret cartel HF version and see which one ends up at < $10

The fork with most money will have an advantage in the beginning, but when their nodes start to crash like BU nodes and perhaps even more serious bugs are discovered, people will move their money into the good version of bitcoin.

No political agreement will make software run perfectly, you need the developers, and the most experienced and with most expertise developers are in Bitcoin Core's team.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
Let's be fair here.  You can't exactly begrudge them drawing up their own plans when the UASF crowd fired first.
False comparison. One plans to be a *user-activated-soft-fork* the other one plans to be a *cartel-activated-hard-fork*.

What needs to happen is, now that both sides have made their opening offers, it's time to haggle and meet somewhere in the middle.
The agreement should have been: Deploy Segwit via MASF as soon as possible using current version bits. Aim/plan on deploying a HF within 6-12 months after. If this agreement is the actual one (as this is a leak), then it's a horrible failure.

Very disturbing stuff, ignoring the experts and forking the network, interesting times ahead...
It seems that not a single person who is deeply involved with the technicalities (more specifically, actually correctly understands them) has participated in the creation of said agreement.

Secret meetings and miners getting butthurt over UASF, sound like good reasons to go ahead with UASF to me.
Correct. This may even further push towards a nuclear option of PoW change.

Example: First ATM in Europe support BIP148.
https://twitter.com/MojBitcoin/status/866308792568479745
hero member
Activity: 680
Merit: 500
If there is a HF, prepare for two versions and no it won't be like ETH and ETC, it will be much messier...

Secret meetings and miners getting butthurt over UASF, sound like good reasons to go ahead with UASF to me.

Infact let's have a UASF version and a secret cartel HF version and see which one ends up at < $10
legendary
Activity: 2786
Merit: 1031
Who is going to develop for them?

Where there any developers to discuss this "agreement"?
The only group amongst them that has any software developers to speak of is RSK. I don't believe any actual bitcoin developers had anything to do with it. The rest are all mining companies or services which have no real history of bitcoin core development.

Very disturbing stuff, ignoring the experts and forking the network, interesting times ahead...
-ck
legendary
Activity: 4088
Merit: 1631
Ruu \o/
Who is going to develop for them?

Where there any developers to discuss this "agreement"?
The only group amongst them that has any software developers to speak of is RSK. I don't believe any actual bitcoin developers had anything to do with it. The rest are all mining companies or services which have no real history of bitcoin core development.
legendary
Activity: 2786
Merit: 1031
Who is going to develop for them?

Where there any developers to discuss this "agreement"?
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1087
Maybe it was just >80% miners "interested"... I do not think miners can so easily come into an agreement within such a short time frame.

They did when a uasf was mooted on litecoin too. That shit was signed sealed and delivered in no time.
legendary
Activity: 2282
Merit: 1023
Maybe it was just >80% miners "interested"... I do not think miners can so easily come into an agreement within such a short time frame. Nevertheless, the HF in 4-months is ambitious but not un-achievable. After all, we also need to set the SMART objective- T = time...
legendary
Activity: 3948
Merit: 3191
Leave no FUD unchallenged
This isn't remotely what many of us were expecting when we heard the pools were agreeing to implement segwit provided a hard fork was also available. In retrospect it makes sense given their aggressive stance in the past, but basically this is without doubt the most aggressive stance yet by the mining consortium. It's even more amazing given bitcoin.com allegedly signed the agreement - BU's reference pool implementation owned by Roger Ver. I wonder if all the groups that allegedly signed the agreement are even aware of what it is they're agreeing to? Bitfury for example are in there, who have been vocal proponents of segwit to date.

This will no doubt make the community even more aggressive in response with its BIP148 stance. I don't like BIP148, but I like this even less.

Let's be fair here.  You can't exactly begrudge them drawing up their own plans when the UASF crowd fired first.  I'm pretty sure an open declaration of war wasn't what the miners were expecting when users started agreeing to that proposal.  Or did you think they were just going to roll over and play along?  This is what escalation looks like, which is why we should have made more of an effort to reach a compromise before now.

This is the bed we've made.  There's no arguing with that.

What needs to happen is, now that both sides have made their opening offers, it's time to haggle and meet somewhere in the middle.
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1087
Bitfury and bitpay are the important additions, but let's wait and see if this resembles the real agreement first.

Going ahead without any developer or exchange seems a little rash and I don't think everyone else will let them get away with it. Still, it's a springboard for discussion.
hv_
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1055
Clean Code and Scale
Shit. 2MB! What a big move from high decorated coders, best on earth.

Anything known who was lobbying this ?

guesses?

Finally I hope we se something moving at all.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
UASF BIP148 it is!   Cool
-ck
legendary
Activity: 4088
Merit: 1631
Ruu \o/
So you've probably heard by now that the large pools have been meeting in secret to discuss a way forward for the bitcoin protocol that would both activate segwit and a future 2MB hard fork. It appears the closed doors meetings did indeed come to an agreement, but not quite what has been assumed by the community.

This is allegedly the draft agreement:
https://pastebin.com/VuCYteJh

Copied below:
Quote
We agree to immediately support the following parallel upgrades to the bitcoin protocol, which will be deployed simultaneously and based on the original Segwit2Mb proposal:
 
 
 
·         Activate Segregated Witness at an 80% threshold, signaling at bit 4
 
·         Activate a 2 MB hard fork on September 21, 2017
 
 
 
The following companies have committed to provide technical and engineering support to test and support the upgrade software, as well as to assist companies with preparing for the upgrades:
 
 
 
·         Bitcoin.com
 
·         BitFury
 
·         BitGo
 
·         Bitmain
 
·         BitPay
 
·         Blockchain
 
·         Bloq
 
·         RSK Labs
 
·         Xapo
 
 
 
We are also committed to the research and development of technical mechanisms to improve signaling in the bitcoin community, as well as to put in place communication tools, in order to more closely coordinate with ecosystem participants in the design, integration and deployment of safe solutions that increase bitcoin capacity
 
 
 
We welcome all companies, miners, developers and users to join us and help prepare bitcoin for the future

In short, what this actually means is a large proportion of the big mining pools have agreed to ignore pretty much all scaling signalling and adopt their own to further their desires. They plan to do a hard fork within 4 months6 months(updated) that both activates segwit and creates a base block size increase of 2MB concurrently. In addition, they are NOT going to be using the existing segwit bits, signalling instead their own bit to activate segwit which is incompatible with the segwit activation from core. They are also planning activation at >80% hashrate.

In essence this means the pools are creating a fork of the current bitcoin code which is planned to be incompatible with any current version should their hard fork go ahead. Which means that every single current code node user, be they core, BU, classic, XT, whatever, is currently going to be on an incompatible fork of bitcoin after their planned deployment in SeptemberDecember. So they are asking the entire community to ignore all existing bitcoin implementations and adopt their software node implementation before that time, or risk being on a very hashrate poor fork, even though there is no published code to support this SeptemberDecember fork yet.

This isn't remotely what many of us were expecting when we heard the pools were agreeing to implement segwit provided a hard fork was also available. In retrospect it makes sense given their aggressive stance in the past, but basically this is without doubt the most aggressive stance yet by the mining consortium. It's even more amazing given bitcoin.com allegedly signed the agreement - BU's reference pool implementation owned by Roger Ver. I wonder if all the groups that allegedly signed the agreement are even aware of what it is they're agreeing to? Bitfury for example are in there, who have been vocal proponents of segwit to date.

This will no doubt make the community even more aggressive in response with its BIP148 stance. I don't like BIP148, but I like this even less.

I'd like to believe this draft agreement was heavily revised and is basically wrong, but at this stage this is all we have to go off.
Pages:
Jump to: