Topic: Why the Bitcoin UASF has already won in case of a hard fork - page 2. (Read 1151 times)

Most of the merchants don´t have to worry themselves because they accept payments in bitcoin but don´t receive the coins, they have partners like Gocoin who are responsible for converting the bitcoins that users pay in fiat money. That is, the user pays with bitcoin, Gocoin or another partner makes the exchange and the merchant receives fiat money. Therefore those who would have to worry are these intermediate companies. In the case of merchants who receive bitcoins directly they have two options, or take risks or not accept payments until the situation is cleared.

Jihan Wu doesn't want BU, he doesn't want Segwit, he doesn't want HF, he doesn't want bigblocks.

He is full of shit and a liar.

What he wants is to keep the current state of bitcoin.

He was supposed to be against the high fees. Anybody believes his lies look at this shit: https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/868896110760181760

All he cares about his cheated software ASICBOOST, his monopoly business and collecting overpriced fees from the users.

He is against bitcoin's development and he needs to be eliminated.

#UASF

NY agreement is a meme. This is what the bitcoin hyperwhales (richer than Ver, Bitmain etc) think about the agreement:

http://qntra.net/2017/05/still-no-consensus-supporting-bitcoin-hardfork-barry-silbert-pretends-otherwise-to-his-peril/



Not to mention they can't even agree on what the agreement is

Pretty sure bitcoin doesn't differentiate between merchants who are aware of the new rules, and merchants who aren't. There's no customer service to complain to if you choose wrong, whatever the reason was. But I am also sure as the time gets closer to Aug. 1, you would have to be living under a rock to be unaware of what will be going on with UASF.

How would UASF or a hard fork affect normal merchants who don't know all the technical details but just want to keep accepting bitcoin as payment?

Bro, you can't just be 90% right, you have to be 100% right, because if you're wrong and transact on legacy chain after Aug. 1, and legacy chain re-orgs into segwit chain ANYTIME after, your transaction history on legacy chain gets erased, and your coins are gone.

Still feeling that Segwit + 2MB hubris?

UASF is already a failure. NY deal has all the backing. It's going to be either SW+2mb or just 4mb or 8mb blocks and nonsegwit on the real bitcoin.

There's going to be a lot of bitcoins flowing into Electrum, Mycelium, Trezor, Green wallets the next few weeks (these wallets have committed early to enforce BIP 148)....would be crazy risk (of potential legacy chain re-org) to leave them anywhere that isn't wholeheartedly committing to BIP 148 early on.

first: you cant resegit a segwit. so segwit doesnt "scale"

if core are now wanting to hard fork, atleast do it without the cludgy code.

billy and pereira4 repeat the same crap without understanding it. use the same graphics use the same rhetoric. im guessing its the same person double spamming posts for sig campaign income

the only reason they feel asicboost is bad is because it stops going soft.. going 2 merkle cludge was to avoid going hard. so if going hard you dont need two merkle cludge.. so if core now wanna go hard it makes it a non issue

meaning just make it a mandatory 1 merkle block of 4mb where native and segwit keys can all work in the same area where everyone benefits
include all the other features the community want but only able to happen in a hard consensus.. and just pull the trigger

pretending they can do a hard consensus in 3 months by naming it something else(UASF MASF) but then pretend another hard consensus taked 18 months is stupid misdirecting bullcrap of the core team.


just make a non cludgy upgrade, release it and make it mandatory. yep a 1 merkle block, proper scaling available version that includes all the keypair types everyone wants, native, segwit, schnorr.

stop with all of these half gesture cludgy crap
"51%-80% attack" just to force a cludgy temporary 2 merkle crap is not the best plan. and makes no logical sense

if the trigger is to be pulled. atleast do a f*cking proper job

I used to be on the fence about UASF, but not anymore since it's happening anyway, and since it's happening anyway, it might as well work. I wouldn't like to see a tie, but that's pretty hard in this situation, the balance will eventually go one way or another, and im getting sick of the bullshit. I would still like to see this getting explored:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014445.html

But I suspect Jihan will keep delaying anything that makes the fees go low, so if you ever want to see bitcoin scale, UASF must be it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Rwd1YGR7w

Segwit chain: Scales, gets lightning instantly, mainstream adoption ready, no more centralization due covert ASICBOOST scam, no risk of reorg

Legacy chain. Doesn't scale, no lightning network, NYC agreement already failed, ASICBOOST will continue even with NYC agreement due segwit not going in as a softfork, the agreement was never going to happen anyway, also it would require that you trust and install non-Core approved software which is a recipe for disaster, risk of reorg aka losing everything when snowball effect begins.

UASF is coming, either segwit gets activated before august 1 or nukes will be deployed.