what happen?
Segwit confirm or not?
Topic: Vertcoin [VTC][ANN] Segwit Activated | ASIC Resistant Decentralized GPU Mining - page 68. (Read 201629 times)
April 09, 2017, 05:12:32 PM
April 09, 2017, 04:42:58 PM
The page show now 88.00% Vrn still there but with only 5.33% and 4 blocks mined. 
April 09, 2017, 03:58:35 PM
Segwit Activation now saying 91% and the Vrn miner is gone...What happened? Did someone find a way to force him off the chain as was earlier mentioned? Or did he quit? Is the page wrong?
April 07, 2017, 07:38:26 AM
Do not add segwit yet! VTC doesn't need it and in case segwit fails in other coins VTC will fly for not having it. Implement it here once the blocks are full, not before that. Segwit only makes the attack vectors bigger. If you trade in security you should get something in return, right? With segwit you trade in security and get nothing in return because VTC blocks aren't full.
but if do not add segwit vtc price will down and not rise April 07, 2017, 05:58:45 AM
Do not add segwit yet! VTC doesn't need it and in case segwit fails in other coins VTC will fly for not having it. Implement it here once the blocks are full, not before that. Segwit only makes the attack vectors bigger. If you trade in security you should get something in return, right? With segwit you trade in security and get nothing in return because VTC blocks aren't full.
but if do not add segwit vtc price will down and not rise April 07, 2017, 05:57:43 AM
VTC 0.00006 is cheap, good time to investment.
i bought at 0.000066 does it ok? i am so fear of anxiety 
April 07, 2017, 05:31:54 AM
Do not add segwit yet! VTC doesn't need it and in case segwit fails in other coins VTC will fly for not having it. Implement it here once the blocks are full, not before that. Segwit only makes the attack vectors bigger. If you trade in security you should get something in return, right? With segwit you trade in security and get nothing in return because VTC blocks aren't full.
SegWit isn't only a scalability fix April 06, 2017, 11:26:57 PM
Do not add segwit yet! VTC doesn't need it and in case segwit fails in other coins VTC will fly for not having it. Implement it here once the blocks are full, not before that. Segwit only makes the attack vectors bigger. If you trade in security you should get something in return, right? With segwit you trade in security and get nothing in return because VTC blocks aren't full.
April 06, 2017, 10:31:35 PM
The whole point of a soft fork is scalability and compatibility not have two chains at all, is the preservation of the social contract, if someone thinks that Segwit is just a waste of time just because this chain don’t suffer scalability issues yet is just naïve and are subestimating the tech behind it, it not only fix some issues in BTC but allow more features and new possibilities as swaps and sidechain interoperability.
April 06, 2017, 09:33:50 PM
Verters is solving blocks again, 0% fee 100% upgraded.. throw some hash there if you can 
April 06, 2017, 08:31:54 PM
Syscoin already upgraded to Segwit and the market didn't care.
Perhaps the market thinks there's nothing special about it, most altcoins that uses bitcoin code can easily upgrade to segwit.
Perhaps the market thinks that adding a scaling solution to a coin that does not need scaling is not a big deal?
Sure. Also, hasn't VTC kind of staked its claim as a small scale miner coin by changing the algo? I thought the whole long term strategy of this coin was to play safe and keep out big scale mining operations. Segwit adds functionality that has no relevance to that purpose that i can ascertain.
And the fork talk. People would really like to see this coin split into two? You think it has the market cap value to support that and survive? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Vrn miner who refuses to switch has plenty of hash on its own and could very well mine the old chain and sustain it if forced to fork away- is that right? So if the method mentioned earlier to knock him out is successful and he doesn't switch, he would be forked away but continue on?
VTC has survived by remaining relevant to small miners and a lack of competition among early coins as many of them have died off. There are only so many coins left from that era. Age=value. Look at NMC. Its not of much use as a crypto, but remains valuable given its age and what it has outlasted. Shouldn't that be the ultimate goal here with VTC? Survival. Forking the coin and adding function it doesn't need (and done by countless newer coins already) seems counter intuitive and adds unnecessary risk for the long term goals.
Sorry if this pisses people off. Honestly I'm on the fence, but I do have a lot of concerns. I've also been into VTC from the very start, I'd hate to see one of my favorites do something dangerous soley for the purpose of hoping for some market attention and a pump.
Upgrading to the latest Bitcoin Core base though adds a lot more security to the network from upstream fixes. Futhermore, SegWit will allow us to support the Lightning network once it is ready. Finally, a number of the BIPs (including SegWit) fix malleability issues that increase the security of the chain. All of this will allow VTC to outlast a great many coins.
Interesting, thanks for the reply. I'm not sure I understand the need for security upgrades, maybe you could elaborate please? If there was a security issue, wouldn't it have been exploited by now on this or countless other coins running similar codes? What security risk is being diminished? My understanding was that even the quantum computer risk can be nullified by using a new wallet address for each transaction...
Also, I thought this coin didn't have a scaling problem and therefore doesn't need the lightning network?
There are inherent risks to any fork, I don't need to be a coder to understand that. I also have a good sense of markets and trading. From that perspective forking into two chains, in my opinion if it happened, is a bad idea.
Sorry but its not convincing to me. I'm looking at cost/benefit. The cost here is a risk of forking into two coins and any inherent risks in the more complicated Segwit code that may not yet have been flushed out. I'm weighing that against the benefit that seems to be adding security upgrades that aren't needed and scaling which isn't needed. So its taking a risk, for no forseeable benefits (with the exception that it would almost certainly cause a short term pump).
The nature of a "soft fork" means that there will not be two chains, unlike a hard fork. This is because non-upgraded wallets still understand and follow the newer, upgraded chain. In terms of security, any transaction malleability is a bad thing and SegWit fixes that. Futhermore, general improvements in the Bitcoin Core software make it far more resilient against DoS and eclipse attacks not to mention the massive increase in sync time. Re-basing from Bitcoin Core also allows us to more easily incorporate further improvements in the future. In terms of Lightning, it's true that we don't have a capacity issue (transactions fees are negligible), payment channels are a great innovation in themselves and allow things like cross-chain transactions.
The nature of a soft fork is that it is designed not to create 2 chains. That I understand. But design isn't always correct, people make errors, bugs get missed. Any transaction malleability is a bad thing, no argument, but the elimination of something bad doesn't necessitate any level of risk unquestionably. Suppose someone offered up a solution that fixed transaction malleability, but carried with it a great and forseeable risk- would you want such a thing to happen? Of course not. Any improvement is based on a cost/benefit analysis. Transaction malleability, DoS and eclipse attacks haven't killed vertcoin, they haven't caused mass chaos or a lack of security. Just looking at it functionally. Is it perfect? No. Is it still secure despite being imperfect? Yes.
I also suspect that Bitcoin will not be able to make an significant changes to its core code. I don't think the miner support will ever be there. I also believe one day bitcoin's scaling solutions, security upgrades, and ability to operate smart contracts will all occur without changes to the core code. Someone brilliant will one day find a solution to all of these issues from being forced to work with an unchanging core code. At that point will it be better to have an alt coin with a ton of extra details written into it that were never implemented on bitcoin? Or would it be better to have a simpler code, geared toward small miners, that can simply implement whatever brilliant solution was applied to bitcoin?
April 06, 2017, 08:09:25 PM
Syscoin already upgraded to Segwit and the market didn't care.
Perhaps the market thinks there's nothing special about it, most altcoins that uses bitcoin code can easily upgrade to segwit.
Perhaps the market thinks that adding a scaling solution to a coin that does not need scaling is not a big deal?
Sure. Also, hasn't VTC kind of staked its claim as a small scale miner coin by changing the algo? I thought the whole long term strategy of this coin was to play safe and keep out big scale mining operations. Segwit adds functionality that has no relevance to that purpose that i can ascertain.
And the fork talk. People would really like to see this coin split into two? You think it has the market cap value to support that and survive? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Vrn miner who refuses to switch has plenty of hash on its own and could very well mine the old chain and sustain it if forced to fork away- is that right? So if the method mentioned earlier to knock him out is successful and he doesn't switch, he would be forked away but continue on?
VTC has survived by remaining relevant to small miners and a lack of competition among early coins as many of them have died off. There are only so many coins left from that era. Age=value. Look at NMC. Its not of much use as a crypto, but remains valuable given its age and what it has outlasted. Shouldn't that be the ultimate goal here with VTC? Survival. Forking the coin and adding function it doesn't need (and done by countless newer coins already) seems counter intuitive and adds unnecessary risk for the long term goals.
Sorry if this pisses people off. Honestly I'm on the fence, but I do have a lot of concerns. I've also been into VTC from the very start, I'd hate to see one of my favorites do something dangerous soley for the purpose of hoping for some market attention and a pump.
Upgrading to the latest Bitcoin Core base though adds a lot more security to the network from upstream fixes. Futhermore, SegWit will allow us to support the Lightning network once it is ready. Finally, a number of the BIPs (including SegWit) fix malleability issues that increase the security of the chain. All of this will allow VTC to outlast a great many coins.
Interesting, thanks for the reply. I'm not sure I understand the need for security upgrades, maybe you could elaborate please? If there was a security issue, wouldn't it have been exploited by now on this or countless other coins running similar codes? What security risk is being diminished? My understanding was that even the quantum computer risk can be nullified by using a new wallet address for each transaction...
Also, I thought this coin didn't have a scaling problem and therefore doesn't need the lightning network?
There are inherent risks to any fork, I don't need to be a coder to understand that. I also have a good sense of markets and trading. From that perspective forking into two chains, in my opinion if it happened, is a bad idea.
Sorry but its not convincing to me. I'm looking at cost/benefit. The cost here is a risk of forking into two coins and any inherent risks in the more complicated Segwit code that may not yet have been flushed out. I'm weighing that against the benefit that seems to be adding security upgrades that aren't needed and scaling which isn't needed. So its taking a risk, for no forseeable benefits (with the exception that it would almost certainly cause a short term pump).
Where are you getting a risk of vertcoin being split into two coins ?
I was commenting from this last week by another poster:
If we can generate a CSV transaction with a locktime for an output TXID, and get Vrn to mine a block that spends that transaction before it should be spendable, we should be able to get it to fork away, I think?
Also, any time parts of the network are using different versions there is inherently a risk of an unintentional fork. Unforseen complications wherein one group finds a block the other group doesn't confirm. I know this is not the design of segwit and this soft fork, but design isn't always correct. No one expected BU miners to find a block bitcoin core miners would reject, yet it happened. Also looking at Jan I think it was where different version of ETH that were designed to work with each other without issue, all of a sudden disagreed and created chaos. If everyone is on the same software, these types of unexpected events can't happen. Can't have a conflict between versions if we're all using the same version.
April 06, 2017, 05:12:55 PM
Syscoin already upgraded to Segwit and the market didn't care.
Perhaps the market thinks there's nothing special about it, most altcoins that uses bitcoin code can easily upgrade to segwit.
Perhaps the market thinks that adding a scaling solution to a coin that does not need scaling is not a big deal?
Sure. Also, hasn't VTC kind of staked its claim as a small scale miner coin by changing the algo? I thought the whole long term strategy of this coin was to play safe and keep out big scale mining operations. Segwit adds functionality that has no relevance to that purpose that i can ascertain.
And the fork talk. People would really like to see this coin split into two? You think it has the market cap value to support that and survive? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Vrn miner who refuses to switch has plenty of hash on its own and could very well mine the old chain and sustain it if forced to fork away- is that right? So if the method mentioned earlier to knock him out is successful and he doesn't switch, he would be forked away but continue on?
VTC has survived by remaining relevant to small miners and a lack of competition among early coins as many of them have died off. There are only so many coins left from that era. Age=value. Look at NMC. Its not of much use as a crypto, but remains valuable given its age and what it has outlasted. Shouldn't that be the ultimate goal here with VTC? Survival. Forking the coin and adding function it doesn't need (and done by countless newer coins already) seems counter intuitive and adds unnecessary risk for the long term goals.
Sorry if this pisses people off. Honestly I'm on the fence, but I do have a lot of concerns. I've also been into VTC from the very start, I'd hate to see one of my favorites do something dangerous soley for the purpose of hoping for some market attention and a pump.
Upgrading to the latest Bitcoin Core base though adds a lot more security to the network from upstream fixes. Futhermore, SegWit will allow us to support the Lightning network once it is ready. Finally, a number of the BIPs (including SegWit) fix malleability issues that increase the security of the chain. All of this will allow VTC to outlast a great many coins.
Interesting, thanks for the reply. I'm not sure I understand the need for security upgrades, maybe you could elaborate please? If there was a security issue, wouldn't it have been exploited by now on this or countless other coins running similar codes? What security risk is being diminished? My understanding was that even the quantum computer risk can be nullified by using a new wallet address for each transaction...
Also, I thought this coin didn't have a scaling problem and therefore doesn't need the lightning network?
There are inherent risks to any fork, I don't need to be a coder to understand that. I also have a good sense of markets and trading. From that perspective forking into two chains, in my opinion if it happened, is a bad idea.
Sorry but its not convincing to me. I'm looking at cost/benefit. The cost here is a risk of forking into two coins and any inherent risks in the more complicated Segwit code that may not yet have been flushed out. I'm weighing that against the benefit that seems to be adding security upgrades that aren't needed and scaling which isn't needed. So its taking a risk, for no forseeable benefits (with the exception that it would almost certainly cause a short term pump).
The nature of a "soft fork" means that there will not be two chains, unlike a hard fork. This is because non-upgraded wallets still understand and follow the newer, upgraded chain. In terms of security, any transaction malleability is a bad thing and SegWit fixes that. Futhermore, general improvements in the Bitcoin Core software make it far more resilient against DoS and eclipse attacks not to mention the massive increase in sync time. Re-basing from Bitcoin Core also allows us to more easily incorporate further improvements in the future. In terms of Lightning, it's true that we don't have a capacity issue (transactions fees are negligible), payment channels are a great innovation in themselves and allow things like cross-chain transactions.
April 06, 2017, 01:57:54 PM
Syscoin already upgraded to Segwit and the market didn't care.
Perhaps the market thinks there's nothing special about it, most altcoins that uses bitcoin code can easily upgrade to segwit.
Perhaps the market thinks that adding a scaling solution to a coin that does not need scaling is not a big deal?
Sure. Also, hasn't VTC kind of staked its claim as a small scale miner coin by changing the algo? I thought the whole long term strategy of this coin was to play safe and keep out big scale mining operations. Segwit adds functionality that has no relevance to that purpose that i can ascertain.
And the fork talk. People would really like to see this coin split into two? You think it has the market cap value to support that and survive? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Vrn miner who refuses to switch has plenty of hash on its own and could very well mine the old chain and sustain it if forced to fork away- is that right? So if the method mentioned earlier to knock him out is successful and he doesn't switch, he would be forked away but continue on?
VTC has survived by remaining relevant to small miners and a lack of competition among early coins as many of them have died off. There are only so many coins left from that era. Age=value. Look at NMC. Its not of much use as a crypto, but remains valuable given its age and what it has outlasted. Shouldn't that be the ultimate goal here with VTC? Survival. Forking the coin and adding function it doesn't need (and done by countless newer coins already) seems counter intuitive and adds unnecessary risk for the long term goals.
Sorry if this pisses people off. Honestly I'm on the fence, but I do have a lot of concerns. I've also been into VTC from the very start, I'd hate to see one of my favorites do something dangerous soley for the purpose of hoping for some market attention and a pump.
Upgrading to the latest Bitcoin Core base though adds a lot more security to the network from upstream fixes. Futhermore, SegWit will allow us to support the Lightning network once it is ready. Finally, a number of the BIPs (including SegWit) fix malleability issues that increase the security of the chain. All of this will allow VTC to outlast a great many coins.
Interesting, thanks for the reply. I'm not sure I understand the need for security upgrades, maybe you could elaborate please? If there was a security issue, wouldn't it have been exploited by now on this or countless other coins running similar codes? What security risk is being diminished? My understanding was that even the quantum computer risk can be nullified by using a new wallet address for each transaction...
Also, I thought this coin didn't have a scaling problem and therefore doesn't need the lightning network?
There are inherent risks to any fork, I don't need to be a coder to understand that. I also have a good sense of markets and trading. From that perspective forking into two chains, in my opinion if it happened, is a bad idea.
Sorry but its not convincing to me. I'm looking at cost/benefit. The cost here is a risk of forking into two coins and any inherent risks in the more complicated Segwit code that may not yet have been flushed out. I'm weighing that against the benefit that seems to be adding security upgrades that aren't needed and scaling which isn't needed. So its taking a risk, for no forseeable benefits (with the exception that it would almost certainly cause a short term pump).
Where are you getting a risk of vertcoin being split into two coins ?
April 06, 2017, 12:43:22 PM
@etang6000 In roadmap will have the Confidential Transactions?
+1 for confidential transactions
April 06, 2017, 11:18:58 AM
@etang6000 In roadmap will have the Confidential Transactions?
April 06, 2017, 10:43:50 AM
Syscoin already upgraded to Segwit and the market didn't care.
Perhaps the market thinks there's nothing special about it, most altcoins that uses bitcoin code can easily upgrade to segwit.
Perhaps the market thinks that adding a scaling solution to a coin that does not need scaling is not a big deal?
Sure. Also, hasn't VTC kind of staked its claim as a small scale miner coin by changing the algo? I thought the whole long term strategy of this coin was to play safe and keep out big scale mining operations. Segwit adds functionality that has no relevance to that purpose that i can ascertain.
And the fork talk. People would really like to see this coin split into two? You think it has the market cap value to support that and survive? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Vrn miner who refuses to switch has plenty of hash on its own and could very well mine the old chain and sustain it if forced to fork away- is that right? So if the method mentioned earlier to knock him out is successful and he doesn't switch, he would be forked away but continue on?
VTC has survived by remaining relevant to small miners and a lack of competition among early coins as many of them have died off. There are only so many coins left from that era. Age=value. Look at NMC. Its not of much use as a crypto, but remains valuable given its age and what it has outlasted. Shouldn't that be the ultimate goal here with VTC? Survival. Forking the coin and adding function it doesn't need (and done by countless newer coins already) seems counter intuitive and adds unnecessary risk for the long term goals.
Sorry if this pisses people off. Honestly I'm on the fence, but I do have a lot of concerns. I've also been into VTC from the very start, I'd hate to see one of my favorites do something dangerous soley for the purpose of hoping for some market attention and a pump.
Upgrading to the latest Bitcoin Core base though adds a lot more security to the network from upstream fixes. Futhermore, SegWit will allow us to support the Lightning network once it is ready. Finally, a number of the BIPs (including SegWit) fix malleability issues that increase the security of the chain. All of this will allow VTC to outlast a great many coins.
Interesting, thanks for the reply. I'm not sure I understand the need for security upgrades, maybe you could elaborate please? If there was a security issue, wouldn't it have been exploited by now on this or countless other coins running similar codes? What security risk is being diminished? My understanding was that even the quantum computer risk can be nullified by using a new wallet address for each transaction...
Also, I thought this coin didn't have a scaling problem and therefore doesn't need the lightning network?
There are inherent risks to any fork, I don't need to be a coder to understand that. I also have a good sense of markets and trading. From that perspective forking into two chains, in my opinion if it happened, is a bad idea.
Sorry but its not convincing to me. I'm looking at cost/benefit. The cost here is a risk of forking into two coins and any inherent risks in the more complicated Segwit code that may not yet have been flushed out. I'm weighing that against the benefit that seems to be adding security upgrades that aren't needed and scaling which isn't needed. So its taking a risk, for no forseeable benefits (with the exception that it would almost certainly cause a short term pump).
April 06, 2017, 10:12:13 AM
Syscoin already upgraded to Segwit and the market didn't care.
Perhaps the market thinks there's nothing special about it, most altcoins that uses bitcoin code can easily upgrade to segwit.
Perhaps the market thinks that adding a scaling solution to a coin that does not need scaling is not a big deal?
Sure. Also, hasn't VTC kind of staked its claim as a small scale miner coin by changing the algo? I thought the whole long term strategy of this coin was to play safe and keep out big scale mining operations. Segwit adds functionality that has no relevance to that purpose that i can ascertain.
And the fork talk. People would really like to see this coin split into two? You think it has the market cap value to support that and survive? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Vrn miner who refuses to switch has plenty of hash on its own and could very well mine the old chain and sustain it if forced to fork away- is that right? So if the method mentioned earlier to knock him out is successful and he doesn't switch, he would be forked away but continue on?
VTC has survived by remaining relevant to small miners and a lack of competition among early coins as many of them have died off. There are only so many coins left from that era. Age=value. Look at NMC. Its not of much use as a crypto, but remains valuable given its age and what it has outlasted. Shouldn't that be the ultimate goal here with VTC? Survival. Forking the coin and adding function it doesn't need (and done by countless newer coins already) seems counter intuitive and adds unnecessary risk for the long term goals.
Sorry if this pisses people off. Honestly I'm on the fence, but I do have a lot of concerns. I've also been into VTC from the very start, I'd hate to see one of my favorites do something dangerous soley for the purpose of hoping for some market attention and a pump.
Upgrading to the latest Bitcoin Core base though adds a lot more security to the network from upstream fixes. Futhermore, SegWit will allow us to support the Lightning network once it is ready. Finally, a number of the BIPs (including SegWit) fix malleability issues that increase the security of the chain. All of this will allow VTC to outlast a great many coins.
April 06, 2017, 09:22:47 AM
Syscoin already upgraded to Segwit and the market didn't care.
Perhaps the market thinks there's nothing special about it, most altcoins that uses bitcoin code can easily upgrade to segwit.
Perhaps the market thinks that adding a scaling solution to a coin that does not need scaling is not a big deal?
Sure. Also, hasn't VTC kind of staked its claim as a small scale miner coin by changing the algo? I thought the whole long term strategy of this coin was to play safe and keep out big scale mining operations. Segwit adds functionality that has no relevance to that purpose that i can ascertain.
And the fork talk. People would really like to see this coin split into two? You think it has the market cap value to support that and survive? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Vrn miner who refuses to switch has plenty of hash on its own and could very well mine the old chain and sustain it if forced to fork away- is that right? So if the method mentioned earlier to knock him out is successful and he doesn't switch, he would be forked away but continue on?
VTC has survived by remaining relevant to small miners and a lack of competition among early coins as many of them have died off. There are only so many coins left from that era. Age=value. Look at NMC. Its not of much use as a crypto, but remains valuable given its age and what it has outlasted. Shouldn't that be the ultimate goal here with VTC? Survival. Forking the coin and adding function it doesn't need (and done by countless newer coins already) seems counter intuitive and adds unnecessary risk for the long term goals.
Sorry if this pisses people off. Honestly I'm on the fence, but I do have a lot of concerns. I've also been into VTC from the very start, I'd hate to see one of my favorites do something dangerous soley for the purpose of hoping for some market attention and a pump.
April 06, 2017, 09:21:26 AM
Looks like some big miners just joined on coinotron pool (upgraded) 
Jump to: