Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[AdrianX]

A good summary of the state of things, and being covert in the open.:

http://www.coindesk.com/coindesk-explainer-bitcoin-bip-91-implements-segwit-avoiding-split/

SegWit2x was introduced during CoinDesk's Consensus 2017 conference in May. Based on a fork of the Bitcoin Core software client called BTC1, SegWit2x seeks to both implement SegWit and raise the block size limit.

BIP 141: Introduced in November 2016, BIP 141 is the original plan for activating SegWit. [with no raise to the block size limit.]

BIP 91 uses the same BIP 9 soft fork deployment method as BIP 141, but with a few key differences:

• Miners signal with "bit 4," as opposed to "bit 1"
• Activation only requires 80% as opposed to 95% of hash power support
• The activation window is 336 blocks, as opposed to 2,016.

So, once that 80% threshold is reached, BIP 91 locks in, and another 336 blocks later, it activates.

At that point, BIP 141 is enforced using the same technique as BIP 148:

But if BIP 91 is almost identical to BIP 141, why didn't miners signal support for the latter? ...

So, to get around that, BIP 91 employs a clever trick. Rather than change the existing SegWit activation logic, it uses a secondary bit to signal mandatory enforcement of the original bit.

In many ways, BIP 91 can be read as an effort to front-run the BIP 148 proposal, thus removing the potential of creating two rival bitcoin blockchains, each with competing assets.

Disclosure: CoinDesk is a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which helped organize the Segwit2x agreement. - and mentions nothing about the 2X being the reason the 2MB Hard fork being the reason for segwit2X!

It's like there is only segwit activation and idiots just making it difficult.

 

[Niner]

Stan Larimer posted a link to this huffpost article titled "Please Don’t Change Bitcoin, You’ll Break It!".

He's hired some high-powered PR firm to promote bitshares and a new crypto called the HERO which is probably why the article appears on huffpost. However it is relevant to this thread and I'd like to find out if there is any flaw in the basic argument put forth therein.

Here is the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/please-dont-change-bitcoin-youll-break-it_us_596e5d2de4b0376db8b65b9c

edit: the basic argument is that bitcoin is an excellent store of value but trying to make it also work as an excellent payment system simply won't work but rather will tend to destroy the store of value.

 

[Biiity]

Yup,

I guarantee within the next 10 years gold with be worth, close to if not, nothing. Bitcoin will be our way of investing and spending. I never understood gold and never will Bitcoin is the future.

 

[AdrianX]

make it also work as an excellent payment system simply won't work

Bitcoin is what it is, the Lightening network tries to make bitcoin a payment system - PayPal 2.0.

What people do with bitcoin is up to them, limiting the number of people who can use bitcoin is what will destroy it as a store of value.

ps I haven't read the article but the argument to not change bitcoin cuts both ways, adding segwit to enable bitcoin as a payment network is the change, advocate for this change say no it's not a change it's a soft fork. this is a change and the true threat to bitcoin.

The other change that is not a change is removing the temporary soft fork transaction limit. Bitcoin functioned well without it for almost 7 years, bitcoin started to become unreliable and expensive to use when developers insisted the limit be kept*. Keeping the limit is in effect changing the way the network has grown and was designed to grow. Blocking users from using the network was never part of the design.

*Limiting the number of transactions and having dysfunctional tools to allow users to big against each other to see who is allowed to transact is what causes the bad user experiences of delays and costly transactions.

 

[adamstgbit]

my concerns over the effect of segwit2x on non-minning-non-segwit2x-aware-nodes(99.9% of all nodes) are left unanswered
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6o5l1r/will_segwit2xs_early_activation_cause_confusion/

 

[solex]

Research paper done on BU's emergent consensus
https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/686.pdf

Not aware they did any fact-checking or consulting with people at BU.
Thoughts and criticisms are welcome!

 

[AdrianX]

@adamstgbit you are correct, Segwit2X will become a mandatory upgrade for mining nodes, (so mining nodes must hard fork and non mining nodes can soft fork)

To prevent that problem all non segwit blocks will be orphaned during the fork.

 

[79b79aa8]

note that, despite acknowledging referees, the paper is unpublished.

 

[freetrader]

I'm still trying to get this extract from a conversation on Jul 19 on #ckpool IRC channel confirmed.

https://hastebin.com/axupamusot.vbs

If true and it means what I think it means, then several pools are not really running BTC1 but only signalling, and to me that means there's a good chance they don't intend to honor the 2x part of SegWit2x.

 

[solex]

@freetrader
Yes. Probably all the pools signalling for BIP141 are not planning to run BTC1, so when the 3-months comes up then .... nothing changes.

 

[Zarathustra]

I'm still trying to get this extract from a conversation on Jul 19 on #ckpool IRC channel confirmed.

https://hastebin.com/axupamusot.vbs

If true and it means what I think it means, then several pools are not really running BTC1 but only signalling, and to me that means there's a good chance they don't intend to honor the 2x part of SegWit2x.

Then we will have 3 chains. Segwit2x, Segwit2xminus2x, Bitcoin Cash

 

[adamstgbit]

@adamstgbit you are correct, Segwit2X will become a mandatory upgrade for mining nodes, (so mining nodes must hard fork and non mining nodes can soft fork)

To prevent that problem all non segwit blocks will be orphaned during the fork.

but nodes will NOT reject "non-segwit blocks" they will accept such blocks, no?
nodes will accept that block, and later realize that miners didnt build ontop of that block for a reason that node does not understand.
[doublepost=1500477380][/doublepost]

@freetrader
Yes. Probably all the pools signalling for BIP141 are not planning to run BTC1, so when the 3-months comes up then .... nothing changes.

this seems incorrect.
we've seen >90% of miners signaling NYA which is the intent to run segwit2x via BTC1.
they were lying?

 

[awemany]

Then we will have 3 chains. Segwit2x, Segwit2xminus2x, Bitcoin Cash

I appears a lot easier to go Bitcoin Largeblocks and SegWit2xminusX == Bitcoin Core then, to minimize the number of splits. But what do I know.

Especially since I don't see a lot of big blockers being really opposed to implement the option to transact with unmalleable txn. In case blocksize becomes truly open-ended.

This all boggles my mind.
[doublepost=1500486140,1500485166][/doublepost]Further on the mind-boggling: WTF is this, please.

 

[AdrianX]

I'm still trying to get this extract from a conversation on Jul 19 on #ckpool IRC channel confirmed.

https://hastebin.com/axupamusot.vbs

If true and it means what I think it means, then several pools are not really running BTC1 but only signalling, and to me that means there's a good chance they don't intend to honor the 2x part of SegWit2x.

cording to Coindesk its common knowledge - Miners and Jeff Garzik seem oblivious:

BIP 141: Introduced in November 2016, BIP 141 is the original plan for activating SegWit.

SegWit2x seeks to both implement SegWit and raise the block size limit.

So, to get around that, BIP 91 employs a clever trick.

BIP 91 uses the same BIP 9 soft fork deployment method as BIP 141, but with a few key differences:

• Miners signal with "bit 4," as opposed to "bit 1"
• Activation only requires 80% as opposed to 95% of hash power support
• The activation window is 336 blocks, as opposed to 2,016.

At that point, BIP 141 is enforced using the same technique as BIP 148:

But if BIP 91 is almost identical to BIP 141, why didn't miners signal support for the latter?

 

[AdrianX]

but nodes will NOT reject "non-segwit blocks" they will accept such blocks, no?

Nodes follow miners and the longest chain, orphans are part of the way things are.

There will be reorgs for non segwit nodes and miners. The hypocrisy of BS/Core avoiding risk at all cost is ridiculous. the solution just upgrade to BTC1 for the activation and one of the segwit proposals there after.

we've seen >90% of miners signaling NYA which is the intent to run segwit2x via BTC1.
they were lying?

read the coindesk excepts above, BIP91 is just the segwit part of the segwit2X plan. in the last 24 hrs BIP91 has 77% support (https://coin.dance/blocks) and segwit2X 90% Support. I'm guessing when the 2X activation time comes 43% will oppose the 2X fork.

I'll be supporting BitcoinCash by mining and running a node, and reevaluate after the 2X part of segwit2X has activated.

I wont be buying any BitcoinCash until the price has balanced with the velocity. (the fundamentals of BitcoinCash will be similar to Bitcoin - with one big exception there is no infrastructure to facilitate velocity so it will have a vastly reduced velocity, if people save it then the money in circulation will maintain a higher price.

In time everything will equalize and then possible opportunities may present themselves. For now I'm increasing my BTC temporally to maximize my BCC holdings. I'll sell the Segwit2X news as I see fit and hold my Bitcoin Cash.

 

[jbreher]

Bitcoin Unlimited will be offering a client compatible with ABC for full-node users who want to be part of a large block fork: The BitcoinCash initiative.

Yes, but who is setting up a coin splitting service?

I'm fully behind the ideals of Bitcoin Cash. However, it seems certain that it will be the minority chain at t=0+. If it can be marshalled to adulthood, I believe it could in time become the majority fork. But the first moments after the split are critical.

Should there be an easy coin-splitting service -- one which has near-universal knowledge thereof throughout the community -- then most would avail themselves of this feature ("cool - free coins!"). More investment in this fork means a higher probability of survival.

So anyone know of such a service?

 

[adamstgbit]

and segwit2X 90% Support. I'm guessing when the 2X activation time comes 43% will oppose the 2X fork.

so your betting a good chunk of the NYA signaling is going to backstab the agreement they are currently signaling because all they really wanted was segwit activated.

i think this is a distinct possibility, if it dose play out this way, this is probably bullish for bitcoinCash.

the way i see it bitcionCash will start off rather undervalued, completely crash if 2MB HF dose activate, or start building some serious momentum as the big/small camp official splits in two.

cant wait to be trading all these happenings.

 

[jbreher]

edit: the basic argument is that bitcoin is an excellent store of value but trying to make it also work as an excellent payment system simply won't work but rather will tend to destroy the store of value.

That's not an argument. It is a simple hypothesis.

 

[adamstgbit]

Yes, but who is setting up a coin splitting service?

I'm fully behind the ideals of Bitcoin Cash. However, it seems certain that it will be the minority chain at t=0+. If it can be marshalled to adulthood, I believe it could in time become the majority fork. But the first moments after the split are critical.

Should there be an easy coin-splitting service -- one which has near-universal knowledge thereof throughout the community -- then most would avail themselves of this feature ("cool - free coins!"). More investment in this fork means a higher probability of survival.

So anyone know of such a service?

i guess one way to split the coins will be to pre-send coin to an exchange that will recognize and credit its users with "BCC".

so far i haven't seen anything from any exchange about BCC other then coinbase, explicitly stating that they will rob there users of their BCC

 

[AdrianX]

so your betting a good chunk of the NYA signaling is going to backstab the agreement they are currently signaling because all they really wanted was segwit activated.

@adamstgbit BIP91 is segwit without the 2X part, I'm guessing 34% of miners signaling for it have no clue and think they are cooperating with the NYA.

It's tweets like this from BTCC that lead me to believe some have no shame in pulling out.