Topic: What's Core's stance on the upcoming 2MB block size increase in November? (Read 653 times)

Maxwell (nullc) commented on reddit about the likelihood of segwit2x's 2X hard fork happening.




That seems pretty much inevitable at this point.  BCC is pretty clearly going to go ahead.  Unless it ends up with less than 1% of the hashing power, it should at least limp along.  

Viabtc are listing the coin on their exchange, so at minimum they need the coin moving slowly so that they can handle deposits/withdrawals.

Even if BCC ultimately fails, there is a strategic benefit in having it as an option when the segwit2x negotiations happen.

Given the above comment, some kind of consensus being reached between segwit2x supporters and core doesn't seem very likely.  This means that miners will fork for segwit2x.

By December, there might only be 1 fork standing with the other options basically dying.

I think there is enough "hardcore" support for all 3 forks, that they will likely all continue.

I agree, this is a valid question however. The question misses another important stakeholder, developers. The question I would have posed is," Was Bitcoin created for miners or developers or users"? In your reply you seem to be confusing users with developers. This debate has been primarily between miners and developers. UASF is misleadingly named "User Activated" to mislead the ignorant to think they have a say. The fact is, the majority of bitcoin users don't operate any nodes, therefore have zero say in the matter.

The stance is clear: Nobody supports this crap. Bitcoin will not have a rushed hardfork in 3 months, period, why is it so hard to understand? Stop wasting your time and money on the FUD. Enjoy the bull market, and buy any dips triggered by hardforkers.

If they really fork into these altcoins, dump them for real and free BTC, take it as a christmas gift.

A very valid argument. Bitcoin is supposed to be a coin for the people. Behind the scenes, it is a totally different thing. People

are fighting to control it and they are also fighting to maximize their profits. They will even do this at the expense of other

and this is where these miners fail. They think they can survive without the users, and they are wrong on so many levels.

It was no more than a counterthreat. ViaBTC is just a subsidiary of Bitmain anyway.

I agree that's the thing to do

Some more serious developers were against it but BIP148 was presented as a change supported by the Core developer faction. I agree, both deserve to be seen for what they are: minority factions trying to force their agendas on the comunity

I can't fathom why they thought it was a good idea 

With this issue I've had no actual evidence given to me by either side, so I've chosen to ignore ASICboost in general.
BIP 148 was not created by Core devs, nor was it supported by all of them.  Some even considered it "reckless".  Personally, I consider both UASF and BCC to be radical movements which don't have real consensus.
Even ViaBTC can't dedicate all of their hashrate to BCC, because they're a Bitcoin mining pool.

1. It is not true. That is one of the many lies and misdirections spread by Core developer backers.

2. BIP148 as originally intended was a reckless move by the Core developers that threatened to destroy bitcoin on Aug 1st. BIP91 was a last minute move with compromises designed to achieve some kind of consensus from the overall bitcoin community. Core irresponsibly decided not to join in that consensus

3. A relatively small miner, ViaBTC decided to do a hard fork to a coin that incorporates the original Satoshi bitcoin design that had unlimited block size and no segwit. At this point the ViaBTC initiative should be irrelevant and of no consequence

4. The name is Bitcoin Cash (BCC) and yes

5. No premining is taking place. The frozen coin device is to enable immediate trading in BCC futures on the ViaBTC exchange. It's a temporary trick with very little practical relevance to anything other than the trading of BCC futures

The following points does sound logical to me, but maybe not from another's person's perspective.

1. I have read that ASICBoost (covert) was the main reason (I am not sure if there is any truth in it) Bitmain was against Segwit.

2. BIP148 proposal and to activate it on August 1 has to be one of the main reasons Segwit2x was deployed before July 22, obviously a split would be chaotic to the whole community.

3. Bitmain's UASF contingency plan was UAHF. Only if Segwit2x fails and BIP148 is deployed then there would be an UAHF. So now it looks almost certain that Segwit would be activated through Segwit2x then what is the point of UAHF on August 1? There is a possibility of hard fork in November, big blocks, understandable.

4.
The thing here is ABC doesn't want Segwit, maybe because of point 1. And not agreeing with the current turn of events/consensus and forking off is what altcoin does.

5. I personally don't agree with this premined and frozen BTC stuff, looks a bit fishy.

6. Nash equilibrium, no player has anything to gain by changing only his own strategy. Is UAHF a player in this game? If so then UAHF is a change in strategy, maybe for a short-term gain or like you aptly said to reuse of the expensive ASICs, no big block sentiments here, avoid Segwit for the sake of ASICs.

Is it the same agenda behind the hard fork on November?

I know

No matter how valid the LN approach maybe, if the answer to 2mb is no, Core/dev and their backers are being reckless

Its sadly not just another alt.

Its an alt for exactly reuse of the expensive ASICs, that were a major part of keeping the Nash Equilibrium in place.

Now, there is a new attack vector open that haven't been there in that quality. This attack vector increases with the value and usability of the BCC.

BCC has nothing to do with the main bitcoin network, like the previous forks, XT, Classic, and BU, BCC is another implementation of Bitcoin Core, separate blockchain, another altcoin.

Hardforking the whole network to increase block size requires a great deal of planning, whole consensus needs to be changed, not backwards compatible so for the time being what matters is Segwit activation and if everything goes well bitcoin network would have Segwit by the end of August.

If I am right a hard fork event requires super majority and if by November all the nodes are willing to replace the existing client with BTC1 then the network would be hard forked, if a few nodes support then we would have another altcoin, again nothing to do with the main network. Or the hard fork event would be postponed to another date, maybe a year from now. There is couple of months to ponder about an hard fork event.

Bitcoin needed many years now to be seen as safe.

Forget about LN first years live running...

assuming Segwit activates as expected I think Core, and a lot of other members of the Bitcoin Community(myself included) believe that the 2mb hardfork will be rejected.

So I believe there will either be:

1- a chain split with a small minority moving to the 2mb chain
2- a chain split with a large majority moving to the 2mb chain
3- no chain split because of the underwhelming support of 2mb hardfork
4- a solution is met to favour both parties and the issue is resolved.

Regardless of the outcome Core will continue to develop new technologies/2nd layer protocols after that time with either a diminished presence or as a whole.

BIP91 is miners agenda and should leave no one in surprise if 101% of them supports it. By and large it's to enlarge their pockets and not a care in the world for the users of Bitcoin.  Question to answer is, "Was Bitcoin made for miners or users?" Obviously miners are to render a service and get paid for it, so they don't decide for users. The Bitcoin core are about to prove to the cartel of miners, they are not indispensable and the world can actually do without the best man.

Lol

LN or bust

Core's stance is no.

BIP91 is now active which not only means that we're getting SegWit, but also an increase in block size.
What does Core think of this compromise?
Will there be 3 forks of Bitcoin by November? (Segwit+2MB, Segwit, BCC)