Topic: Will segwit be activated? - page 2. (Read 4443 times)

It's because humans are idiots and think that the new boss will be different than the old boss.

Bitcoin doesnt change anything fundamental about humans, it's just an instrument that can be used for good or bad.

Just like a nuke, it can be used to stop asteroids from hitting earth, or it can be used to destroy Hiroshima. It's humans choice.

So Bitcoin will probably be used for evil too, it is already being used by scammers, and who knows who. So people who think that BTC will solve everything are stupid.

It's humans that are the problem not Bitcoin.

Decentralize the decentralization

Firstly, my apologies for asking something that was in the top search of google. I usually get frustrated when the answer is a google search away and people ask for links, so in short, sorry for getting you to do that.

I am really shocked by this collective group. So many company names in the network that i individually would stay away from but to see they are all under the same umbrella is quite concerning! The R3 initiative and Hyperledger seem to follow the same path - correct me if i am wrong. They could easily turn into the next google or facebook, fishing for information and passing them onto government organisations to monitor and analyse.

How can we overcome this monopoly? How does this effect the whole concept of "decentralization"?

fee's can be sorted. not just by having a maturity element to stop malicious people.


but also changing the "priority" calculation

instead of
(value * age) /size

which just allows some rich guy to spend every 10 minutes with no fee.. but causes a poor person to only reach priority once a week/month.

we could try thinking of something that actually deals with the bloat/age/size issue. and not so much care about rich vs poor

EG
(blocksize/tx size)*age

txsize      blocksize   age         result   
226         1000000   1            4425      10min
226         1000000   6            26549     1 hour
226         1000000   46          203540    7h 40min
450         1000000   1            2222      10min
450         1000000   6            13333     1 hour
450         1000000   90          200000    15h
100,000   1000000   1            10          10min
100,000   1000000   6            60          1 hour
100,000   1000000   144         1440      16h 40min
100,000   1000000   20160      201600   5months

imagining where the priority target was 200,000
where lean tx's can transmit every 7 hours. fat 100kb tx's can transmit every 5 months. then the fee only becomes about the fatter you are the more you pay and the sooner you want it the more you pay.

rather than a richman poor man game where the main variable is about how much you own counting

Quite frankly I would personally trust Roger Ver more than the bad boys from ETH with all the failures like the DAO and such.

Bitcoin hasn't failed, yet. But if people dont fix this fucking fee problem in the next 1 year or maximum 1.5 years, then it's toast.

I will have to consider abandoning BTC then, although I have been here for more than 3 years, it will be a very sad day for me when I will have to leave BTC.

So 1.5 years is the maximum you have until this issue doesnt become critical, because the fees are already increasing, and with this pace it will be like the banking fees.


Nobody will use BTC.

google: barry silbert blockstream - top answer
Thrilled to invest in @Blockstream alongside a fantastic group of forward thinking global investors

google: barry silbert BTCC

to put it short. the whole list of his 'stakes'/investment
http://dcg.co/network/

barry silbert owns DCG (digital currency group) which then has investment/advisory/chairman board seat demands of many groups
you will see he is the guy behind "consensus 2016"

this is why coindesk is very biased and in favour of companies owned by barry silbert(DCG) because coindesk is ownd by him

then check out DCG hyperledger

barry silbert to bitcoin/blockchain world.. is like rupert murdock to the fiat world

Cheers for that. Very interesting actually. I have no idea what to make of it and i will do some research about what you mentioned. If that was the case, then what do you make of it? Do you have any links i could read up on in relation to what you mentioned?

i edited your post to show another thought you should also be thinking about.. why btcc was instantly waving happy flags for segwit.. even before actually peer reviewing and making their own node that had the rules set in october

Its very interesting reading over different perspectives on this. Some claim that Segwit has a lower vote than what reality portrays. I think its a great solution and it seems the most dedicated users on here are supporting it. I would not trust an investors opinion on this (Roger Ver) as they obviously have their own agenda. What ever happens, i really hope this does not follow the same theme as ETH.

This might sounds a bit silly to ask, but why was this not thought about a while back before we had the whole world watching?

SegWit must be activated since it's the best way to fix our problem or time will force us to activate SegWit. But, we must make sure that blockchain don't split into 2 (unless one of them have power less than 5%) and i think this is the hardest part.

Why we need segwit? Because we need the size block to increase. Nobody wants they payments delay because of unconfirmed queue. Bitcoin payment is instant, and it is a must.
Sooner or later segwit will be activated.

Your picture shows stagnation and a downtrend. It's the same thing.

People are aware of segwit because it has been promoted all the past year. And now that it's out, they just simply dont want it.

So I think people have to think about alternatives because it doesnt look like people want segwit. Or perhaps they are not educated enough to decide.

Either way, having a plan B doesnt hurt.

This picture clearly shows that we had a peak in late december as also beginning of january , so far,and since then are constantly going down.
If we would see several up and down swings around the 25% mark I would be more relaxed.But that is not the case.
In 2-3 months I think we will know if we really have to worry or not.

this drop doesn't mean anything because it is a volatile number and because it is based on the number of blocks mined in a certain number of previous blocks (it goes from 24% to 26%) and it is because finding a block is kinda based on luck. so for example if those miners signaling segwit mine a couple of blocks less than before it goes 1% lower and if they find a couple more it goes 1% higher.

this picture may be more helpful (from https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/):



EDIT:
this may also be because of the increase in the hashrate. in the past 2 days hashrate has gone up 100,000 TH/S (source blockchain.info) so maybe the rest of the network is finding more blocks.

Segwit support dropped from 24.4% to 21.5%, now the chances are even slimmer. What will happen now?

http://segwit.co/

Is the 2mb hardfork too unthinkable? Or we will push segwit until it gets accepted?

I guess you are right, some people are not contented with the number of BTC that will be in circulation, so they are looking for ways to increase their strong hold on the chain, if they want to fork BTC they can, but we all know the real BTC.

You are right, and you know there is ETC(ETH classic) after ETH fork, so I wonder the bitcoin whales make the hard fork intentionally so they can create a bitcoin classic to grab people's money again.

If we go with that logic then Bitcoin will never have any patches on it, we will just implement weird inefficient bloated "hacks".

What if BTC needs a quantum key derivation system? What if BTC needs a better signature system? What if BTC needs a better consensus system? What if bitcoin needs a better mining system, where nodes will be included in the reward too? What if BTC needs bigger blocks?


BTC can never evolve, if it cant be hardforked, in the proper way. And you know, the survival of the fittest, if you cant adapt to the environment, you will fail.

Divide and conquer

ver was asking a question. if you want someone that made a concrete statement in favour of splitting the community intentionally


even gmaxwell admits ver, gavin and others were against splitting the network.. but gmaxwell loved the idea of splitting it