Topic: Will segwit be activated? - page 3. (Read 4443 times)

It wont split because the difficulty retarget is 2 weeks. So if a split happens the majority chain will be bitcoin, and everyone will leave the minority chain because they cant make money.

Its a clever design that satoshi did. So I think a hardfork can be safely applies if people are in consensus.

Bitcoin splitting into 2 would be a disaster. BTC is a reserve cryptocurrency, can you imagine there being 2 reserve cryptocurrencies?  It's either not possible or it would be a total mess. 

the splitting actually killed etheruem because now the market it's divided on two fork and you say this is a good thing?

if bitcoin was going to have the same phate everyone would just dump his coin as usual not to mention he would have double of the coins like it was for etheruem, this can only lead to even more dumping

can you please explain about how people (aka bitcoin users) can show their wanting SegWit? it is my understanding that hashrate is making the decision (currently about 25% according to bitcoincore website)

also in the link you gave (http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/services.html) there is this thing called archive nodes (which is 12K nodes) what is that and why is it huge?

and also why the number of nodes in that link (each chart) is a lot bigger than other resources
for example: https://coin.dance/nodes total nodes: less than 5000
https://bitnodes.21.co/ total nodes: 5551 nodes

lol your the one that wants to split the network.. no one else


and also hows your monero

and hows meeting your contractual obligations in blockstream to get the next tranche of fiat from investors

oh and hows the satoshi roundtable meeting with the hyperledger guys, going all as planned?

and as funny as it was for you to try and find a different bip that took many months to activate.. to pretend segwit is on track..

i can show a chart from your own colleague that shows another bip that got accepted far sooner.. to show segwit is not on track..

bip 112 took only 2 months to get to 100%. yet segwit is at its second month and still at only ~25%

Please don't defraud people here with absurd lies like this.

Right now 61% of reachable nodes have segwit support, some 7565 of them.


Here is a comparison of hashrate that has signaled for segwit activation vs BIP66 (X is number of days since signaling started.)


As you can see, a few people are trying to desperately spin a dishonest narrative in order to promote their bitcoin splitting proposals-- but there isn't any substance there.

Segwit is ahead of BIP66's deployment, and BIP66 activated fine but people here are posting that it's "dead on arrival". Segwit is on most reachable nodes, but posters here are incorrectly telling you that it's only on 1600 nodes.

We have a lot more evidence of Roger Ver owning altcoins than Bitcoin... just saying.  If you own 1% of ETH, Ripple, Zcash, whatever but 0.01% of all Bitcoin.. you can make a lot of money getting the price of any one of those altcoins to even 1/10th Bitcoin's even if your attacks utterly destroy the price of Bitcoin along the way and even though your Bitcoin holdings are worth a lot more than the altcoin ones pre-attack.  There are also people trying to trash Bitcoin to drop the price because they sold out their positions after being deceived by the Hearn-and-Co claims that Bitcoin was over-- some of the top rbtc posters were bragging about selling all their Bitcoin last year.

Segwit will activate if people want it. The work has been done to get it ready, so it's up to the people who want it to see it activate.  It does make for a nice demonstration of how full of crap the people were who were claiming that Bitcoin desperately needed more capacity-- when in fact they, personally, just desperately needed Bitcoin hobbled by a split in order to promote their altcoin investments.

Well it is still dangerous for bitcoin's hardfork and will become long debating on comunity,
it is mean becomes more other problem for bitcoins because segwit is soft fork and
it is still not be activated yet, you can imagine bitcoin's hardfork will become long debating on comunity
more than segwit's debating. 

just a thought:
someone who calls a non-consensus, centralized fork which was more like a dictatorship from the devs "a good thing" is obviously benefiting from it

try not to use the umbrella term "hardfork" when you actually mean the subcategory of forks which is an intentional split.. because it confuses the sheep into thinking all hardforks=intentional splits

even a soft fork can become an intentional split as gmaxwell himself explained with

People often worry about a dump in price before a hard fork, but if anything, people should be looking to secure as much coin as possible before a hard fork so that your coins are safely secured on both chains.  Then, whichever chain is successful, you can't lose.  Conversely, if you choose to buy coins immediately after a fork, you'll find many sellers would be looking to dump the coins on the chain they don't approve of, so it's unlikely they'll offer to sell you the coins on both chains.  You'd have to carefully consider which chain to buy on. 

So people panic buying before the fork could offset anyone who doesn't understand this who might be panic selling out of fear. 

consensus hardfork does not mean splitting the network.
intentional split is not the default end result of a hardfork

hardforks just leave the minority unsynced and stuck.. where by the sensible thing is to join the majority by upgrading with the majority and continue with the majority.. rather than be stuck in limbo..


however, opposers completely adamant to not join the majority.. can add additional code intentionally.
additional code is then needed for the unsynced minority to ignore consensus, ignore the majority, ignore the orphans and start their own network.
meaning they intentionally start their own chain and reboot their own syncing of new blocks from a different source than the majority.

It will, if people don't activate segwit, hard fork will be done, so soft fork like activating segwit is better than hard fork, hard fork will drive the price dump

that tweet was a question, not a statement.

and it is actually gmaxwell that wants to split the network

here i will spell it out for you.
here is blockstream gmaxwell trying to get anyone not blockstream to fork away..  and they replied they wont be that dumb to intentionally split the network... and before you reply BullSh*t.. its from the horses mouth himself.


even funnier.. gmaxwell also says he willing to intentionally split the chain just to implement the soft fork

Do you have any idea how Bitcoin works? Bitcoin produces exactly the same amount of blocks as it did when Satoshi was the only one mining: 1 block per 10 minutes (on average).

Nah, as you said this tweet is legit, here is the source for everyone interested to see the responses of people : https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/761973787294330880?lang=en
I was wondering about it, Roger is very rich bitcoiner, he owns shitload of coins, so do we really think he would want bitcoin to fail? It would destroy his own wealth in the process.

That is precisely true there will be a split like ethereum does and bitcoin when split, the price will meltdown and we do not want that to happen. I also do not agree of bitcoin using hard fork. Possibly the only way for bitcoin to make the transactions faster is to add more miners in the market.If many miners will come then the solution for the slow transaction in bitcoin will be solved.

Yesterday I was looking at my first Bitcoin transactions, in 2015. I used 0.01 mBTC fee for up to 5 inputs! Nowadays even 20-50 times fee is often not enough to get a decent transaction time.
In my opinion, this is reducing Bitcoin's growth. I don't really care how it will be fixed, as long as it can handle more transactions.

The irony is that a hard fork would instantly double the number of transactions it can handle
To be clear: I'm not in favour of a hard fork. But I do see it as a problem that miners have a financial incentive to keep blocks small (and fees high).

i have one more hope for SegWit's fate and that is litecoin SegWit. as you may know litecoin is similar to bitcoin in every aspect and they recently added support for SegWit.
according to http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php the start is in 28 days and i really hope the miners accept it and we can see SegWit in action.

that will surely clarify many things, so maybe we can finally make up our mind about SegWit and whether to support it or not. (by we i mostly mean miners )


well i don't follow these things much and don't really know R.V. but from this tweet is seems to be an idiot who doesn't know how manipulated market cap is.
let met explain for those who may not know it.
ethereum has a huge supply (and this supply is just a number in the code, unlike real commodities this can easily be created and since not all the 80+ million coins are available to public it is a fake supply)
now market cap is just supply * price
when there is two chains, there is two sets of that massive supply. even if price of ETC were $1 its market cap was 80+ million dollar

and not to mention the market he is talking about are pump and dumpers enjoying another altcoin among hundreds of others to pump and dump.

p.s. maybe he is heavily invested in ethereum and wants his payment

There's been so much talk about this, but I will risk asking it again: if SegWit fails, will that failure bar a malleability fix not bundled to any other issues such as a larger blocksize?