Topic: -- The Riddle of the Twin Brothers - Who Were, Are and Will Rule the World! - page 208. (Read 383196 times)

Just when I thought they might have found a way to avoid a massive war, this pops up.  This looks really bad to me.  The Chinese could fork Bitcoin on their own and create two forms of Bitcoin or force majority of miners to move to a competing alt. 

Only 12 days until the halvening - this shouldn't even be an issue yet it's actually escalating!

---

Reddit:  Luke-Jr

HaoBTC, in the future, if you have concerns or questions that need clarification and/or answering, please just ask, rather than posting on a blog that we probably don't read and might not even notice...
Things that we tried to make clear both at the meeting itself, as well as afterward on social media:
Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.)

There was no hardfork promised (not even all the Core dev team has authority to do that), only code that could be recommended for one. (This also was made VERY clear.)

The hardfork proposal promised was not a "2 MB hardfork", but a hardfork that would include as one minor change, the ability to include up to 2 MB of current witness-included-in-txid (anyone-can-malleate) transactions.

Miners have no leverage to make demands. If they attempt to hardfork without community consensus, they harm only themselves, while Bitcoin moves on without them. (At least for my part, my goal of the agreement was to end division and argumentation, which did not happen, admittedly not because of the fault of many of the agreement participants.)

The July 2016 estimate was not part of the agreement, and certainly not a deadline. It was (at the time) a reasonable expectation based on the agreement terms.

Speaking only for myself, I made the promise with sincerity, and intend to uphold it best I can (despite the almost immediate violation by one of the parties).

Admittedly, both at the meeting and now, I consider the "SegWit delayed until HF is released in Core" position some miners took to be unviable, and that miners will be pressured to deploy it much sooner by the community. After all, not deploying segwit literally means they are preventing the block size increase. However, I understand the agreement places no such obligation on them.

Since the agreement was made:

SegWit has still not yet been included in a release. Thus the three months deadline has not even begun "counting" yet. (I still aspire to have something by the end of July if possible, but I consider this to be above and beyond the agreed-on terms.)

Discussions have revealed that the goal of expanding space for anyone-can-malleate transactions loses the necessary performance improvements included with SegWit to make larger blocks safer, thus cannot safely be done without ugly hacks to introduce new limits similar to BIP 109 which might become a nuisance to Bitcoin both today and in the future. This isn't a show-stopper to writing code, but it may make it difficult to come up with something that unbiased parties can recommend.

Many third parties have expressed that they will under no conditions consent to a hardfork that comes out of this or any other political agreement. This won't block code nor recommentation, but it does guarantee such a proposal cannot be adopted.

Some developer(s) have expressed concerns that doing a hardfork safely ("soft hardfork") is somehow "unethical" to them, and doing it unsafely will require even greater efforts on ensuring consensus is reached not only from the community, but also that there are no nodes accidentally left behind. This isn't a blocker, but it probably makes deployment much harder.

---

Luke is basically saying they did their part but hard forking isn't up to core or even up to the miners - it's up to the entire community.  And the clock on Segwit hasn't even started ticking yet. 

This could get really ugly for Bitcoin in a matter of days. 


...enter Satoshi/Dr. Wright

ZeroHedge
by Tyler Durden
Jun 27, 2016 3:22 PM

On Friday afternoon, after the shocking Brexit referendum, while being interviewed by CNBC Alan Greenspan stunned his hosts when he said that things are about as bad as he has ever seen.

"This is the worst period, I recall since I've been in public service. There's nothing like it, including the crisis — remember October 19th, 1987, when the Dow went down by a record amount 23 percent? That I thought was the bottom of all potential problems. This has a corrosive effect that will not go away. I'd love to find something positive to say."

Strangely enough, he was not refering to the British exodus but to America's own economic troubles.

Updated my sig line...

We're at nearly 40k wallets for IX which is really good but we need to be at 100,000+ and I need that to happen in like under 30 days.  You asshats needs to start pitching in - get the word out, it's FREE IX which will be worth a massive amount SOON!!! 

Be the heroes you deserve to be by propagating ~The Signal!

Ya'll need to help out with getting the word out on this coin faucet so we can give out as much free IX as possible. 

Please update your sig line! 

No, I ain't paying nobody jack.  This is the open source thingie! 

Europe has kicked the self destruct process into high gear.  Dominoes...dominoes?

~ Solomon Rising

Bitcoin broke $600, briefly down to $549 but it's bouncing hard off support [now at $597] so I think this was just a manipulated shakeout which would mean we're going a lot higher [$1,100+] in the next 1-2 weeks after people freak out and panic-sell their BTC.

Well played...

And the trend continues, idiot "experts" once again LATE to realize the obvious!

Anybody who stopped to think realized this long ago!  Stop reading bullshit and start thinking for yourselves!


[CoinDesk] - Circle Execs: The DAO Proves Blockchains Require Trust