Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
@adamstgbit great to here from you
- Bitcoin Unlimited, does not support or plan on supporting segwit2x ( because of the segwit part ), instead they are strongly considering a UAHF aug 1st.
BU is not forking off Bitcoin ABC is, BU will probably make a compatible client if it is not already in the works that will fork off and follow Bitcoin Cash (i am hoping so)

- Bitcoin Core, does not support or plan on supporting segwit2x, (because of the 2x part), instead they are strongly considering a UASF aug 1st.
Core will follow the Segwit2X and try and negate the 2X part. Some fundamentalists may do a UASF

-segwit2x is set to activate before aug 1st, so long as it mantines 80% hashing power ( which seems likly since ~87% are "signaling intent" right now )
yip if it activates before August 1 then UASF fundamentalist get what they want may not fork. If it happens after August 1st UASF fundamentalists get what they want, and they may fork. - if it were up to me I'd let the fundamentalists fork off and activate Segwit2X after august 1st.

- in all likelihood the segwit2x fork will be recognized as BTC, but we WILL have 2 other chain splits, one backed by BU, one backed by core.
- in all likelihood the segwit2x fork will be recognized as BTC (at first*), but we may have 2 other chain splits, one backed by Bitcoin ABC and BU-HF , one backed by BS/Core UASF'ers and maybe even a the Original BS/Core chain without Segwit. * over time the market will converge on the best solution.

BU will follow the longest chain with the most PoW so it will be on the Segwit2X chain, it will lose mining support as BU miners will switch to btc1 for segwit2X activation.
 

adamstgbit

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2016
1,206
2,650
@lunar
this flowchart is helpful thanks.

IMO segwit2x (1/2) will be successful.

and this flow seems to indicate that if that is the case BU WILL fork off.
and later when the 2mb part of segwit2x activates core WILL fork off.
so i'm guessing my statements above are mostly correct, both BU and Core do not support segwit2x, and both will end up forking because of it. this is fine by me.

without carefully considering anything, i side with segwit2x and feel that anyone oppose to it, is an uncompromising fool sure to waste good money chasing a some kind of "utopian scaling solution" which simply won't play out in reality .

@AdrianX thanks for these clarification.

BU will probably make a compatible client if it is not already in the works that will fork off and follow Bitcoin Cash
not sure how i would feel about BU forking off to a minority chain. and I think if ETH/ETC has taught us somthing it's that: in the end principals and technical correctness are not as valued as "the will of the majority"

BU will follow the longest chain with the most PoW so it will be on the Segwit2X chain.
this is my hope, and that BU keeps pushing for EC on this chain. even tho, EC will likely be delayed for years because the capacity incress Segwit2X provides will be sufficient for some time.
 

Inca

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
517
1,679
There is 0 chance of Core forking off the network. If we have learnt one thing it is that they will do anything to hold onto control of the reference client - nothing is too dirty, degraded or beneath them.

At this point, although I hold Jeff Garzik in high regard I am concerned that segwit2x is simply a trojan horse to pass segwit under the guise of being packaged with a hard fork 'later' and positioned as not being BIP-148. I note the 'on message' meme on /r/bitcoin is now about excluding extremist positions and seems rather jubilant in general.

If I had to guess I suppose miners have seen the alt market grow this year and when facing the potential loss of #1 market share they blinked first. Maxwell was seemingly happy to watch bitcoin crumble with 5$ fees and day long transaction backlogs.

Whilst I fully support bitcoin ABC I doubt it has sufficient traction to attract hashing power behind it to remain viable long term. Hopefully I am proven wrong!

I sold my coins a few days back and have begun layering back into my position after the recent price weakness. In terms of market movements I am hoping bitcoin will stage a monster rally after some form of resolution to this impasse is met in the coming days - hopefully resetting the BTC dominance % back up 10-20% temporarily. Another possibility is that bitcoin and crypto in general will instead deflate regardless of outcome confirming this latest bubble has finished until perhaps later this year we can try again for the moon. Here is hoping for the former!

EDIT: it is preaching to the long converted here but chaps ensure your coins are safely tucked away in cold storage in the coming weeks :)
 
Last edited:

adamstgbit

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2016
1,206
2,650
https://forums.prohashing.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1687

Had to post the link to this nice article by ProHashing.

I tried searching for his username since I remember he was on here, but could not find it any longer.
if it was up to me, I would strip segwit to its most basic form, the malleability fix, and allow for EC to dictate blocksize. but its not up to me, and trying to get anyone to rally behind one solution over another has proven impossible. this article by ProHashing, is a nice dream, but thats all it is, a dream.

segwit2x is favorable not because its a "perfect solution"... its clearly not, but...
its got segwit code and while its somewhat controversial to some, at least this code has been highly tested and refined, and many want this code to activate. and while the 2mb incress "isn't enough" its twice as good as what we have now, and segregating the witness data makes it even more than double On-chain capacity, which many people want.
but thats all besides the point, point is its not about technical soundness or anything like that not really. what it's really about is political correctness, about power, about perception.

segwit2x is politically correct, because it attempts to satisfy both sides.
segwit2x has power behind it, because 90% hashing power.
segwit2x will be perceived as "BTC" because majority want some kind of middle ground, and this is it.

Core has been out played, they can't fork over a small and simple doubling to 2mb. They can, not like it, but they can't fork over it, thats just silly. ( but they known to be silly so maybe we can all LOL as they fork off with <1% )

BU has been out played, they can't pretend to remain true to the original vision of satoshi while ignoring what 90% of the hashrate are calling for.

I support segwit2x because of the ultimatum it presents, compromise or fork off. which choice will the vast majority will choose ??? :whistle:;)
 

Fatman3002

Active Member
Sep 5, 2015
189
312
I don't think the risk regarding the change in incentive structure with SegWit/LN is sufficiently addressed. Bitcoin can work with some bugs here and there. It has. But if you change the incentive structure you risk destroying Bitcoin completely.

Satoshi wants huge blocks, huge nodes, and no segwit. That is my dream as well. Is it realistic? well... probably not. But I'm not going to support something just because 90% of the miners do. So until my dreams are crushed and I'm forced to drown my sorrows in endless rows of Kinder Surprises, that's where I stand.
[doublepost=1500326883][/doublepost]Nor do I believe the Core fans won't turn on the rest and deny the actual block size increase. So with Segwit2x we're likely looking at just Segwit.
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
and this flow seems to indicate that if that is the case BU WILL fork off.
segwit is a soft fork so BU will follow this chain.

not sure how i would feel about BU forking off to a minority chain. and I think if ETH/ETC has taught us somthing it's that: in the end principals and technical correctness are not as valued as "the will of the majority"
BU wont leave the main chain, but there will be a spinoff called ABC and BU may make a comparable spinoff client (call it BU-HF). BU nodes will follow the segwit2X chain by default, because segwit2X will orphan blocks not mined by Segeit2X miners will stop using BU.

this is my hope, and that BU keeps pushing for EC on this chain. even tho, EC will likely be delayed for years because the capacity incress Segwit2X provides will be sufficient for some time.
I'm not sure about years, I don't think a 2MB block size will be sufficient for the first month or 2 at the start of the next bull hype cycle to $40K.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu and Norway

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
Core has been out played
core has not been outplayed. with the solution you prefer, they get exactly everything they want: segwit permanently locked in + a promise of a minor blocksize increase that can always be broken + no procedure in place for further blocksize increases.

upon segwit activation, expect BS investors to announce the deployment of nodes in the Lightning Network.
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
Whilst I fully support bitcoin ABC I doubt it has sufficient traction to attract hashing power behind it to remain viable long term. Hopefully I am proven wrong!
With minority mining and a reset on difficulty it could see support from marginalized miners.

For BitcoinCash to be effective ABC and BU-HF need to stay viable until the 2X part of the NYG is active. There after the next goal is to remain viable until the 4MB hard fork. Any shenanigans and its a viable fork option for SHA256 miners.

I think calling this fork BitcoinCash, with a focus on low fee unlimited transactions and digital Cash for the internet small miners will be attracted to the low difficulty rewards, not the fees, so despite it being a viable threat to keep the HF capacity increase viable in Segwit2X it has other merits.

In time I'm thinking there is a probability that Gresham's law as a monetary principle takes effect with two forms of bitcoin in circulation, accepted by exchanges and whatever else, the more valuable commodity "bitcoin restricted access sentimental" will disappear from circulation and "bitcoin cash" could emerge with the bigger network effect.

I'm all for testing this hypothesis and it seems it's going to happen in real life.
[doublepost=1500336001,1500335222][/doublepost]@adamstgbit what do you think of @Peter R's review of Segwit?

 

adamstgbit

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2016
1,206
2,650
core has not been outplayed. with the solution you prefer, they get exactly everything they want: segwit permanently locked in + a promise of a minor blocksize increase that can always be broken + no procedure in place for further blocksize increases.

upon segwit activation, expect BS investors to announce the deployment of nodes in the Lightning Network.
its slightly more than a promise, the implementation they run has hardfork baked in. So, once segwit2x activates, from that moment on it will require a coordinated fork to avoid the up coming "baked in" HF.
I believe this was the intent of the HK agreement, the NY agreement can be viewed as an agreement to go ahead with the agreement which the core devs broke.

I don't think the risk regarding the change in incentive structure with SegWit/LN is sufficiently addressed. Bitcoin can work with some bugs here and there. It has. But if you change the incentive structure you risk destroying Bitcoin completely.
With the 2MB blocks and segwit's onchain scaling effect, totaling an "8mb effective block size", this should be enough onchain capacity, to keep the incentive structure intact, i mean, no one will be forced offchain due to excessively high fees, I would expect a year or two of non-full/very-little-fee pressure blocks.

Satoshi wants huge blocks, huge nodes, and no segwit. That is my dream as well. Is it realistic? well... probably not. But I'm not going to support something just because 90% of the miners do. So until my dreams are crushed and I'm forced to drown my sorrows in endless rows of Kinder Surprises, that's where I stand.
I think his vision is realistic and probably Optimal, i personally dont give a crap if the cost of running a node is having the ability to upload/download 100GB a day, IMO decentralization of nodes all the way down to a home user level is not realistic, unnecessary and highly questionable if its even desirable.
BUT i must respect that a large part of the community want to keep bitcoin "light weight".

I admire your conviction to your ideals, i share your ideology mostly, but at the same time i have always been one to "go with the flow" and i wouldn't want to block the possibility of progress simply because I feel my way is "better" then some other way.


Nor do I believe the Core fans won't turn on the rest and deny the actual block size increase. So with Segwit2x we're likely looking at just Segwit.
Yes i fear this as well, in this case i will value the ABC / BU fork alot more, then i would have otherwise.
but i think this is a unlikely scenario ( ~33% )
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
On August 1st 2017, We the People will breathe new life into Bitcoin.

A group of miners, developers, investors, and bitcoin users will upgrade the Bitcoin protocol as specified by the User Activated Hard Fork (UAHF).

Those who do not want to follow our lead are free to use whichever chain they like. Miners implementing the UAHF will safely split away, creating a new version of Bitcoin called "Bitcoin Cash".

All current Bitcoin holders will automatically own Bitcoin Cash. The existing ledger at the time of the split is preserved, thus users retain any balances they had before the split.

Bitcoin Cash brings sound money to the world. Merchants and users are empowered with low fees and reliable confirmations. The future shines brightly with unrestricted growth, global adoption, permissionless innovation, and decentralized development.

These ideals can be achieved, but it depends on you to succeed. We need the support of miners, investors, and users like you. Join us to help achieve Satoshi's original vision of Bitcoin as Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash.


https://www.bitcoincash.org/
 
Last edited:

adamstgbit

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2016
1,206
2,650
@adamstgbit what do you think of @Peter R's review of Segwit?
i like @Peter R, but in this video i believe he's built a house of cards. i see how segwit coins can theoretically be less secure then bitcoins, i really liked the way he ended the presentation, " if no one saves the wit data, can you prove fraud happened? ( nope! )" but how realistic is it that nodes will stop validating / saving witness data... idk man...

heavy stuff.
 

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,693
Coresteam's blockage has run on too long. Bitcoin's share of the cryptocurrency market cap is down from >90% to <50% within a year due to the deliberate crippling of capacity and arresting of the all-important network effect.

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.

Seems very opportune as we are near the 1000th page of the renewed GCBU thread. Enough said, time for action!
 

adamstgbit

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2016
1,206
2,650
ok here's the game plan,
we go along with the segwit2x, proclaiming " yaye a compromise has been reached " all the while we slowly accumulate more bitcoincash. then when gmax starts to rally his troops, we will jump onboard with his crusade to block the 2x part.
when he gets his way, we short the living shit out of it and kick BTC to the curb.
the miners fallow our lead and together we let gmax and his gang of zombies hold the bag of segwit tokens, while we will hold and control ALL the digital cash.

and then... well then... ahahaha we set the exchange rate at 100: 1 :cool:


just kidding!:ROFLMAO:
 

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
Last edited: