Topic: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails - page 7. (Read 6407 times)

Looking at the network topology of the segwit softfork, it looks horrible. The idea that there is a mixture of nodes, some with full network knowledge and some without full knowledge of it if they don't upgrade is asking for complications in my opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if some of franky1's concerns are true, but cannot confirm this as it is way beyond my technical knowledge and expertise in this area.
Perhaps this should have been implemented as a hard fork along with the 2MB block size increase as originally agreed. If the miners and exchanges are behind a hard fork, the old fork is a stuck difficulty chain with coins that cannot be traded.
Even if the future is that the main chain is more of a settlement chain, with lightning style networks providing retail functions, there still needs to be an ability to grow the chain to meet demand. Some alt coins (e.g. Komodo) are now using the bitcoin blockchain, increasing demand. I don't see why some algorithmic block size change can't be implemented. It could look at parameters such as high fee / low fee unconfirmed transactions, past block usage, orphan rates, etc. and slowly adjust, monitor effects and adjust. Then a sensible fee market could develop, rather than this pathetic fee race or drop out due to expense situation we have now due to a fixed block size. A fee market cannot develop on a full block chain, it just limits use when it becomes to expensive to transact.
I'm not surprised the miners are upset with core / blockstream developers for not keeping to their word and implementing segwit as a hard fork along with a much needed and conservative 2MB block size change. So perhaps it is stalemate until we see which economic power goes bust first.

No idea...but for some reason bitcoin core devs feel it is just dandy to sit on hands and have a 1mb block size and look at btc as a store of value

on the other side

they feel it is just dandy to not get seg witness now and fight the up'ing in block size later (past 1mb) with bitcoin core..because they see it as

their only leverage with bitcoin core for any movement

So bitcoin core won't hard fork and those not wanting bitcoin core won't let the btc core developers have the lead and allow a soft fork

it is quite the cluster

 

So the end game of that scenario is like:

BTC price is e.g. 2Mio $
TX fee e.g. 1000$

With that only big guys will transfer = banks and funds, or better hodl in their core funds.

We see it today, with Vontobel BTC tracker it is cheaper to transfer the tracker using e.g. SWIFT

So we need middle men and can not own BTC any more but have to buy IOU to participate in this store of value.

Do you think thats the future?

High fees are holding Bitcoin back (and i don't mean the price). They make micro payments unattractive/unpractical.
Maybe many are undecided because they rather remain in the status quo than see Bitcoin fuck up.
The agenda of core/blockstream is clear and whether there points are right or wrong, i don't expect them to compromise.
I don't see however the reasons for BU to not compromising. Many of them seem to care about Bitcoin and want a good solution.
The emergent consensus seems to be their biggest hold up. Why are they still pushing for it. Why not just go for a quick increase of blocksize to 2MB? Try it on for size, see how the network acts, which would be valuable information for further increases. It would be a small but immediate and safe relief and it would buy time to test the emergent consensus more or look for different options. I'm sure this would also attract a bunch of developers to this solution. I'd expect also many undecided to jump on that wagon, so why doesn't BU compromise to this? What are there reasons to push fore there solution without compromise?

Just seems to me that where the current bitcoin core devs seem to think. Thus gridlock. But more daunting is no one is talking or trying to solve the issue on one or both camps.

Again...frigging stalemate

If by "not a problem" you mean its ok for Bitcoin to possibly lose opportunities for investment, mainstream adoption, and continued clear dominance as the #1 crypto, then sure, its not a problem.

There are no clear consensus to Bitcoin scaling problem but whether BU or Segwit will not be implemented for now, will not be a problem in Bitcoin cause this currency will still move forward.
The bitcoin network can still handle the volume of transactions in a daily basis with the drawback to pay high fees in order for your transactions to get confirmed faster.
I think this problem will remain for many years if the community continues to debate and argue for better solutions.

If neither happens, bitcoin core is just fine with the current block size. They likely
would never have moved to even seg witness yet without the push for bigger blocks

Their viewpoint is 1mb blocks are just dandy, because btc is mainly a store of value
and currency is not relevant as long as price goes up.

Thus this impasse will likely go on for years as long as BTC price rises and continues to
act as bitcoin core assumes, as store of value, that continues to rise steadily.

Impasse/stalemate

check out the unconfirmed
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?daysAverageString=7×pan=1year

apart from a blip in june/july (ill get to this later)
mempool size was 2mb-3mb..

then in october. (around the 10th october) it started to get into 4mb.. and started rising...and rising. and rising.. hmmm i wonder what new feature was introduced in october that needed the community to get frustrated and delayed to "sell" the community into thinking this feature being the promise to fix the issue..

hmm.. oh yea.. segwit.

as for june july. (CLTV+CSV)

what a coincidence.. spam attacks right around the times blockstream devs want pools to think certain features need to be added to be stepping stones to something that (may) eventually fix spam attacks..

Because this does not fit Blockstreams agenda to implement the Lightning Network. Their investors wanted them to come up with a long term solution for scaling Bitcoin and not just a temporary patch. A lot of salaries were paid to develop this solution and a lot of pride is involved too.

So in the end, it boils down to money again and not what the people wants.

The miners wants miners fees in the future and they do not think running payment channels off-chain will sustain their business in the future. < money again >

no they're not.

xt, classic, bu and the other dozen nodes want ONE network where everyone is on the same playing field and using consensus.

its only blockstream that have bypassed real consensus by going soft.
its only blockstream that have nodes set up as upstream filters to control what non segwit nodes see/receive
its only blockstream that have played around with its banning and whitelisting protocols.

here is gmaxwell trying his hardest to get those not wanting to follow gmaxwell to split away.. but they laughed at him and refused to split away because that would just give gmaxwell what he wants..



READ CODE, read stats,
stop defending the humans


X% are with segwit
X% are with BU
X% are with classic
but ~60%.. yep well over 50% are UNDECIDED

so do not classify the 50-60% undecided as being in any camp just to suit some biased brand camp social games

Again it is all politics. Gavin started playing the game when he started campaigning for XT. Maybe he thinks he can reenter the scene when the network does the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited. All their moves always have a hidden purpose.

If you think about it both sides are doing the power grabbing depending on your point of view. On one side it is Blockstream and on the other it is Roger Ver and the Chinese miners who are supporting Bitcoin Unlimited.

Gavin rules.   

It really boggles my mind why people are listening to people like Gregory Maxwell over Gavin.
I think taking $71M in venture capital is a far more reliable indicator of a biased agenda
than 1 visit to the CIA.  Call me crazy.



 
 

the ~2.1mb POTENTIAL that segwit offers is:
only 4500tx/~2.1mb IF 100% of users have moved funds to segwit keys. and continue to only use segwit keys (not gonna happen)

its not going to change right at activation day.
its not going to change just by using a specific node.

it will only change when people move funds to a segwit key and then use segwit keys only,
and only grows at small amounts depending on how popular the use of segwit keys are UPTO the max POTENTIAL

---

so lets explain it. in regards to impact on tx demand

the mempool is nearly always well above 4500tx of unconfirmed tx's(2mb) in the mempool.
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?daysAverageString=7×pan=1year
ever since october the lowest the mempool has been was 3mb+(meaning 4mb DEMAND if you include the 1mb that do get confirmed)

there is also currently 47million unspent outputs that would need to be spend to move everyone over to segwit keys
http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/unspent-transaction-output-set

---

so even if segwit activated lets say tonight.. nothing changes.
lets say people downloaded segwit nodes and took a few days to sync
and then lets say EVERYONE (even the holders from 8 years ago) moved their funds to segwit keys.

do you understand the congestion it would cause to get funds moved to segwit keys before full benefit of segwit can be seen
imagine it everyone trying to move funds all at the same time...

---

then once everyone moved across.. that >3mb+(average demand) after everything has cooled off, results in still not enough even with the 1.1mb extra "boost" segwit offers

however just increasing the blocksize to 4mb without the bait and switch will alleviate things and people dont need to move funds to special new keytypes to see the benefit.

---

segwit REQUIRES people to move funds to new special keypairs that are not tested on bitcoins mainnet and do offer a new attack vector by manually copy and pasting the segwit keys from a segwit node to a native node and then messing with it as a 'anyonecanspend'

yep core might filter out tx's being sent automatically by a segwit nod to native node. but they cant stop manual copy and pasting between a segwit node and native node.

---

in short. segwit opens up new attack vectors. doesnt guarantee 100% utility of segwit and doesnt disarm the malicious users.

p.s my over use of HR lines are for those with short attention spans who fail to read code/literature about how bitcoin works simply because 'its too long'

BOOM BABY !!!

And there it is !! 


Gavin Andresen: “Run Bitcoin Unlimited” To Solve “Destructive Congestion”

https://cointelegraph.com/news/gavin-andresen-run-bitcoin-unlimited-to-solve-destructive-congestion



and what does he think of Segwit.



 

I have no expectations of you , I know you are stupid. 

 

I'm just PoSting this shit to match your quality expectations - no PoW needed for you . sorry

@hv_
Were you born this stupid, or do you have to work at it.  

 

FYI:
It was used as a form of parody, Dufus.  
Implying that CB Worships G.Maxwell believing all of his lies as gospel.

You do not know anything - poor mate.

'Saint' can be called s.o. who is already dead  ...  banned is not enough.

 

Ya think?   

Ask yourself: What company raised $71M in venture capital, wants to be "a leading provider of blockchain technologies", and hired many
of the prominent developers of the core bitcoin repository?

hint: It rhymes with "cock dream".