Topic: ViaBTC: Should we active Segwit? (Read 2708 times)

Segwit is the first step to great scaling without centralizing the main chain.

For anyone who is sane and not delusional or ignorant, it was obvious that Segwit would be strongly favored in that result.

ViaBTC is a small man, just like Jihan. It takes a great person to admit being wrong right away. Therefore, it will take some time before they realize that they are.

No. This is our coin; no miner is going to hold it hostage. Either Segwit gets activated via UASF or we hard fork a PoW change.

It´s incomprehensible the statement of Viabtc after the survey of yesterday. Why do a survey if you ignore the results afterwards? Or they don´t want to admit so fast they were wrong before? The centralization of Bitcoin that some miners are looking for lead us to the same old point, selfishness and avarice. However here the miners are ignoring the power of the community. What if one day bitcoin users would feel tired and disgusted and decide to move to another coin? What would happen if they decided to sell all their coins and say goodbye to Bitcoin? Would these miners feel happy about mining a worthless coin singing "Hashpower is the law"? In the end, the miners, although necessary, are replaceable, the community of users, not so much.

Yes please, we need Segwitt and side-chains asap!

They often quote Satoshi out of context and spread the "original vision" bullshit. If we were on about "original visions", we'd never have 1 MB of RAM (if the "Gates quote" actually is true). A lot has been learned over the years, and a lot has changed (the original whitepaper is really outdated on the current status of Bitcoin). 1 CPU = 1 Vote doesn't work; I don't think Satoshi predicted/factored in ASICs.

Pretty much everything that Satoshi has said about POW or miners has an assumption, i.e. miners being honest and acting in the best interest of the network due to certain incentives. After several years of experience, we've learned that this isn't exactly true. This is why miners need to be kept in check, which is also one of the reasons for which we have so many nodes and promote users running them. If you take a look at the centralized ETH, the ViaBTC statement couldn't possibly make sense. If it did make sense, ETH could never move into POS (which is a separate story).

Segwit is the first step towards some of the fixes required to make a higher block size safer.

Their disconnect, IMO, is that they ignore the issues of "mining centralization"
and "ledger centralization" so that they can push for an ideal that failed in 2010.

Essentially, they are repeating the failures of history. They do not care about
the possible pitfalls, they only care about their own self interests. It is so
destructive, that it is more likely that all blocksize raising proponents are likely
funded or created by the miners themselves, and not a band of Satoshi idealists.

Only miners would be so egotistical to think that they can control the whole system.
Some still haven't learned that the economies do not follow them, but vice versa.
They do not understand that "block forming consensus" is not enough to balance
this type of system. There are still pieces missing for full automation.

The BU proponents do not understand this. They believe Satoshi created the
perfect system and that by allowing the miners to act in an unrestricted and
unilateral manner, that we will reach the Bitcoin utopia dreamed about in early
years. Those were children's fantasies then, totally unrealistic based on our
current technological limitations. When Satoshi added the 1MB Cap, it was an
acknowledgment that the technology was still lacking. He didn't propose a
flexable cap for very important reasons. He chose a concrete restriction fix.

Which is what I've observed to be the belief of BU proponents. Do they not understand that as such, Bitcoin would be a pretty worthless system?

The nuclear option is changing the PoW, which was what the user was referring to IMO. I like the idea of it, and it sets a nice precedent for miners not acting in the best interest of the Bitcoin network. The major downside to it is that it also punishes the honest/good miners/pools (e.g. Bitfury & BTCC).

---

We can do UASF with BIP149 (which supersedes BIP148) if need be: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0149.mediawiki

I've already written somewhere that UASF is a bit dangerous if there is less than 50% support because it would very likely develop into a chain split if a large part of the opposing pools chose to stay stubborn. And probability for them to accept Segwit is probably negatively correlated with a further polarization of the debate.

It's better to get 50% on board first (the support is now at ~40%, so 50% is not far away. ViaBTC if it really reconsiders its position - the last tweet for me is pointing into that direction - could bring it very very close) and then, if only Bitmain is left opposing, move on with UASF.

For the long term I support the "nuclear option" or a even more radical change (alternative to PoW).

Well I think that's what he IS actually arguing and he's not the only one; that bitcoin is a miner controlled system.

They could have saved everyone some time and backtracked on their absurd BU or BIP100 support. I have added the result and their statement to the OP. Additionally, this just confirms that they go against any kind of consensus/voting (nodes, economy, twitter, whatever).

Jihad, also know as "Fuck your mother if you want fuck", has not been acting reasonably and the interest of the Bitcoin network for quite some time now. The latest statement from ViaBTC does not make sense at all. Hash power is not any kind of law. If it were, Bitcoin would not be a decentralized system but a miner-controlled-system.

I agree. UASF will saves everyone a lot of time and resources.

UASF. Or Nuclear Option. Just threatening it will make them activate Segwit before tomorrow.

In my arrogant opinion, Antpool is stalling SegWit on Bitcoin to see what happens with LTC and for a while they'll keep stalling to earn more profit on their bags of LTC mined for years.

I think this was their plan all along to sell their LTC with as much profit as possible and at the same time benefit from the fees in BTC.

ViaBTC or other pools signal for SW, it won't matter not until Antpool signals it as well or we really don't need them?

Well they did say "for now" and backtracking on what they have said would involve some degree of embarrassment to admit they were wrong about their decision. The world is full of people ploughing on with a bad decision long after it is brutally obvious that they made a bad decision so it's normal for them to hold their position for now. It took f2pool a while to settle on what their final stance would be too, but they didn't make as bold statements as viabtc did against segwit so they had no need for a big backtrack. Naturally it will take viabtc longer but I suspect they will switch positions. The real key, then, is what will happen with Bitmain since they have the most hard line position against segwit and will lose the most face from changing their minds. Their leader is so stubborn he could just persist indefinitely flying in the face of all logic and reason that tells him he's headed the wrong way. Money and the reality he'll lose out by doing this is the only thing that might swing him back.

Let's give it a few weeks or months and then see what's what. The stars are very slowly aligning or colliding for something to be done. Segwit is the prime option for now.

Unfortunately they have not changed they mind after the poll, but at least they try to find out.

https://supload.com/SyfsSeTJ-

Thanks Lauda. I didn't play with Twitter enough to know they can show the ending time and I totally missed it.

And somehow I felt like ViaBTC will be one of the hardest ones to convince to go to SegWit path, much more difficult than F2Pool.

Sorry for not quoting you, it's pretty hard to do that on my small display smartphone.

I was totally disappointed when Viabtc before releases a lot of statement against Segwit Activation. I was quite surprise about it and didn't find their reason to be valid. But now it looks like they are changing their tune. What gives? Do they come up to the conclusion that hard fork is not really the solution for bitcoin technology? I will vote now for Segwit.

You're welcome. I was right about my initial assumptions, and the "losing side" is already whining about "sybil attacking" on Twitter.

Combine this with the ASICBOOST exploit and you get a monopoly that nobody can compete with (unless they want to constantly be operating at a loss).

F2Pool did it not long after their poll concluded.

~2-3 hours. You can see that on the link, just take a closer look.

I also find surprising their change of mind. I voted, but I'm not too confident that they will actually take this poll into account much.
But yeah, I hope I'm wrong and they'll switch to SegWit soon after the poll. How long until the poll is concluded?

It is one thing to consider the theory and another thing is to see the practical use it is having and see how it is working. The application of Segwit in Litecoin is serving as a test field for Bitcoin and this application is giving very positive results, it is normal that more and more voices asking that it apply to Bitcoin.


$ 21000 the first option, $ 25500 the second one, and 2000 BTC/USD is a conservative prediction thinking in medium term. Once the scalability issue is resolved the price will rise significantly and the users will complaint when they have to pay 50 cents (0.00025) per transaction.

Yes has clearly won with 80%, but unfortunately, Proof of Twitter is not a part of bitcoin, so it all comes down to ViaLTC wanting to do the switch or not. I think since f2pool did the switch there's some hope of other pools slowly switching up specially as LTC reaches an all time high and potentially reaches 50% of Bitcoin's marketcap, they may get scared and this may trigger all the miners to signal segwit in BTC. We'll see.