Topic: Will segwit be activated? - page 4. (Read 4443 times)

If bitcoins to split by hardfork bitcoin's price will going down like ethereum
 will there are two comunities bitcoin and bitcoin classic, will many people are dissagree with bitcoin's hardfork
it is high risk for bitcoin's alive.
I think before do hardfork bitcoins more wise do soft fork and the segwit is soft fork.

First I thought it was photoshopped, I had to personally see this on Twitter to know it's real. The fact is that Ethereum had chances of being in a much better position if developers decided not to fork it... and back to Bitcoin, it's hard to believe that this guy is playing in the community's favor with such statements.

Ver wants Bitcoin to split by hardfork just like Etherium

You said yourself Ver is not a programmer then why he tries to compete with programmers in their field? Who do I want to trust programmers or rascals?
Satoshi was a programmer, Core are programmers.
Satoshi set limit to 1 mb.
Roger is a trickster with no competent skills (your words) intending to crush it.

to add to this point, (to help explain it)

ethereum was NOT a consensus hard fork... it was a intentional split

some call Ethereums split a controversial split hard fork
some call Ethereums split an altcoin maker
some call Ethereums split a bilateral fork..

but not a consensus hard fork.. because thats a different thing altogether

(note: there's many forms of hard forks that have differing end results/goals/intentions. dont think harkfork=split. its an umbrella term for different possible results)

but ethereum nodes intentionally avoided consensus by actually ignoring each others chain data (google: --oppose-dao-fork) thus causing an altcoin, by disconnecting opposing nodes.

a consensus fork is ONE chain. where the minority dont create new blocks automatically. they are left orphaning what they dont like and never syncing.

in the case of a 95% agreement. of say 5600 nodes... 5300 agree 300 dont... what then happens is pools then do a consensus vote of their own. which gives time for the 300 to upgrade...
when pools get to their 95%. a grace period happens.. whereby both the 300nodes and 1pools not voting still have time to get onboard before being left unsynced and 'stuck'.

ok.. you might be about to rebuttle that losing 1 pools and UNDER 300full nodes is bad,, but..

blockstreams soft fork can lose 1 pool too.. and, would currently have over 2000 nodes no longer at 'full validation status' and demoted to half validation status.

Well it is hard to be answered, segwit is solution for bitcoin's problem but right now it becomes problem for bitcoins
because of many people are dissagree with segwit especially the miners from China although the segwit will be activated
it needs much time and hard discussion for activation of it.
But if still there are no solution for activation the segwit must there are other ways fixing bitcoin's problem except segwit.

Actually I find Monero pretty crappy, because after years of being online ,they cant even put out a GUI lightweight wallet.

And besides that the blockchain is pretty bloated and has a big size. Some people say that the cryptonote technology is not good and not safe.

Perhaps DASH is better, because at least it's price is going up now.

---

But on the bitcoin side. I would support a hardfork now.

And a BTC hardfork would not split the network in 2 because BTC has a 2 week retarget, and no miner would mine on the minority chain for 2 weeks.

So the majority always wins. It could technically happen with 51%, but just for safety and less drama, let's say 70%.

So if 70% agrees to hardfork now, of a 2mb, then the other 30% will be outnumbered, and then they will later see that it was not a big deal.


It' will not split in 2 like Ethereum vs Eth classic.

why is it that blockstream sheep use all of blockstream failures to sound like someone else is doing it.

Gmaxwell loves monero.. he is the lead dev.. he even has a monero address in his profile!! https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/gmaxwell-11425
gmaxwell actually wanted the other implementations to fork off, the other implementations laughed and aggressively said no
gmaxwell has helped add tx maturity(CLTV: bank 3-7day funds not available)
gmaxwell has helped add tx revocation(CSV: bank paypal chargebacks)
gmaxwell has pushed the fee war (advocated not to increase blocksize.. added 'average' fee estimator that actually increases fee even with no demand)
gmaxwell /rusty russell wants commercial permissioned services (LN Hubs)
gmaxwell/adamback organised many all expense weekends for miners to bribe miners
gmaxwell/adamback are members of the bankers hyper ledger (bankers blockchain)
gmaxwell/adamback are paid by bankers

as best as unbiased as i can be..
here are some options.

---

1. if segwit truly was 'backward compatible'. core could make some segwit transactions now and relay them directly to BTCC or Slush..(the two pools in support) get the Tx's added to the block and see if any orphans occur when that block is relayed to the network.
if no orphan occurs, then its backward compatible and that raises the confidence level.

core cough blockstream cough have $90m so they can happily pay BTCC $15k (price exceeding more than a blockreward) as a safeguard to btcc if the block orphans.
cheap 'test' in reality.

however it does not solve the second bit of confidence/risk that the majority of pools are not happy jumping forward at.. (lack of node full validation count)

---

2. doing it as a full community consensus. getting the community to have a consensus, rather than just the pools.
this is a consensus (hard)fork.. not an intentional split. .. consensus. there is a difference.

and if pools see a high majority of nodes able to fully validate these new blocks, then pools will gain confidence to vote for it and make them.

however it then means the community gain power to veto aswell as show devotion for (yep core dont want decentralised free choice).

---

3. so knowing they would need 95% community acceptance they would need to give the community something the community really want.
real true onchain transaction scaling thats not just a one time boost and also not having to let the devs decide what nodes should or shouldnt do.

so by also including dynamic blocks as a core release. nodes regain the independant diverse decentralised power. and it grows only when nodes show they can cope with.

then its just a 2 birds 1 stone election event where everyone gets what they want. and all different (10 different implementations) can be diversely accepting and consenting to the same things on an even playing field, rather than a one brand dominance/control event

before segwit activation, wallets need to leave the WIP/PLANNED marker ... so, they MUST test products in TESTNET that it is SEGWIT activate.

https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/

segwit nodes 1601 (28.64%)
unlimited 398 (7.12%)

He WAS an investor in Bitcoin. He made his fortune on it, that's true.
But now he's fond of alts he says bitcoin is dead pushes some alts e.g. monero. That's why he wants bitcoin to die so his forks prevail... which never happens.
So If you fond of monero too not bitcoin I understand why you take hardfork side  

Current data: Mining Pool Support by Proposal - Bitcoin Unlimited is supported by 17.30% of miners, SegWit by 16.67 and 8 MB Blocks Increase by 9.30%
As we can see Bitcoin Unlimited is winning with SegWit, we can forget about 95% consensus. Roger Ver was very happy when he tweeted that:

"Bitcoin Unlimited now has more support from bitcoin miners (and likely users for a while now) than SegWit in the last 24 hours."

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/821802321860444160

Well yeah, Ver is an entrepreneur not a programmer, why would he be into technical stuff?

But say this to Viscount not to me, he is obsessed with Gavin and Roger.


I think that is a very closed minded statement.

Ver is a huge investor in Bitcoin. Bitcoin failing is probably the last thing he wants to see.

He just wants a quick solution (as most of us to) to this god awful problem of scaling.

I dont see any problem with decentralization being affected by hardfork.

In fact the clock is ticking either way, and if we dont resolve the fee problem, then the demand will probably go away.

But still they're enemies of BITCOIN and decentralization and they promote this solution. I don't want bitcoin to die, so fuck Roger Ver and his HARDFORK

I look at the whole picture and don't let rascals shit my brain as should you do.
Segwit is far more progressive and technological solution than dumb increesing block size by HARDFORK... If you want to hear technical details  

On the Bitcoin Unlimited forum and Slack chat, it's hardly to see both Gavin Andressen or Roger Ver.
Again, you can't find them anywhere by nearly a year.

All the devs of Bitcoin Unlimited (or Bitcoin Classic) are working on their own, Gavin Andresen and Roger Ver could even disappear from the earth tomorrow and nothing will change on the Bitcoin Unlimited developing cicle.

This, just to help you to be in better contact with the reality

But who really cares about Gavin? To my knowledge he is not even involved in BTC now.

What is your problem? Haven't you read what I was saying above?


Don't look at the person, look at the plan, it's only weak minds that are discussing people, inteligent people are discussing code and possible solutions.

He is not supporting the solution he is MAIN CREATOR AND PROMOTER of this solution. And he is completely MAD or CORRUPT...
How are we to trust this lunatic???

What the hell does that have to do with technical discussions?

We are not talking about celebrities here, and who does what like teenage girls, we are trying to solve bitcoin's scaling problem.

I have no opinion on Gavin, I dont really even care about people in bitcoin.

What I care about is a safe and prosperous future for bitcoin.


If a bad guy is supporting a good solution, that doesnt make the solution bad, get it? Look at the facts objectively, and stop the gossip about who did what.


If the hardfork is the best for bitcoin, then I dont care if the devil is advocating it, as long as it is a safe and good solution for bitcoin.