Well **** em all. The market is speaking. ETH

Segwit may be cool or not, but lets face it, it will not happen. Since december segwit hashrate has been around ~20%, far far away from the needed 95%. While the anti segwit client has gone from 0% to 35%. The mining community has rejected segwit.

Imo what we need is that developers either makes a new proposal or that they join and fix BU before BU takes over. For example make segwit signalling optional in core, raise the blocksize limit from 1MB to 8MB(as it was orginally) and set a date when it hardforks like in 3months. That should give us a few more years and it should break this stalemate that we have been experiencing the last few years. We have to face the facts, the mining community is going for bigger blocks, either with core or without core.

wow ETH

Segwit from what I know is a very complicated code structure and could have stuff lying around as well. also its scaling ability is pretty piss poor. 1.7x is good for what, the next month, if not already over saturated with the current market?

that said, ive said before i think both scaling functions can be deployed, ive never understood why these are all so mutually exclusive. increase blocksize, let that multiple through with sw. but core has had infinite resistance to this idea.

BU does not equal fixed blocksize increase. I think most users in the space are on board for a 2-4mb hard fork. Core is against increasing the blocksize in any capacity, and BU is unlimited. Would be nice to compromise at 2mb or something but it doesn't appear to be in the cards.

http://vitalik.ca/general/2017/03/14...d_markets.html

Segwit is a foundational change that allows further scaling improvements to be built on top of it.

You can read about them on Core's roadmap: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pi...er/011865.html

Obviously this is way beyond my technical expertise- maybe TC can comment on the impact of these proposals

"- offchain: LN like protocols to increase throughput by a scale of x1000 to x10000 in a decentralized manner.

- onchain: Schnorr, Signature Aggregation, TreeSigs, MAST, Tx cut-through, ... overall we get from that an additionnal +50% to +100% with significant improvements on the fungibility/privacy side (that we so desperately need) ." - quoted from reddit

To say that there is no plan after Segwit is simply false.

Now the question is, do we give Core, a brilliant group of developers with an excellent track record, who promote peer-review and rigorous testing before deployment, a legitimate chance to scale Bitcoin? Or do we trust Bitcoin Unlimited, the opposite of everything I just mentioned, who have two major ****ups in the past month alone.

Edit: As for why "we can't have both." https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY?t=6198

There are plenty of other ways to fix these such as flextrans, hardforking segwit etc.

That is a cute roadmap, but we needed scaling one year ago and now very much. 1.7x theoretical extra as a softfork that will likely never happen is not enough by far, it would buy us some extra months but we are still years behind... And Ethereum has plan for scaling from 300TPS(today) to 100k TPS(in a few months with Raiden which is like LN) to inf TPS(in a few years). Meanwhile Bitcoin will be stuck at 4TPS or maybe 10TPS if Segwit, against the odds, is activated.

Even if this happens, having 1MB blocks for settlements in 10years is ridiculous.

There is no plan to increase the blocksize limit. Core is even considering lowering it to 300kB before they slowly let it grow back to 1MB again.

The miners gave them a chance, they failed to follow the informal agreement. So now the miners are rejecting them and there is not much "we" can do about it.

That is what we will get since Core failed to get support for their brilliant code. It doesn't matter how good your code is if it's not used.

That is just one guy. There are plenty of toxic people on all sides of the debate.

Where are you reading this stuff? Core is not against bigger blocks. They just want to increase the block size SAFELY.

Did you read the roadmap?

"Finally--at some point the capacity increases from the above may not
be enough. Delivery on relay improvements, segwit fraud proofs, dynamic
block size controls, and other advances in technology will reduce the risk
and therefore controversy around moderate block size increase proposals
(such as 2/4/8 rescaled to respect segwit's increase). Bitcoin will
be able to move forward with these increases when improvements and
understanding render their risks widely acceptable relative to the
risks of not deploying them. In Bitcoin Core we should keep patches
ready to implement them as the need and the will arises, to keep the
basic software engineering from being the limiting factor."


Anyway, shots fired by the exchanges today. Jihan Wu threw another temper tantrum on Weibo. Only in Crypto could the two most powerful men in a $20bln industry be a couple of petulant crybabies.

ETH

I hate to see BTC go down, but lets be real. What are the chances BTC is the #1 crypto in 5-10 years? It's like the tape deck of technology. What puts it on top is it's liquidity and "disbursement" at least until satoshi moves that 1 mil coins! I dunno why I have about 15% in BTC but I do. I guess it's because I swore to never sell again. Should be all-in ETH. If ETH fails something else will take over the prehistoric dinosaur BTC is.

At this point, I am fully in favor of a hard fork + change of POW (or reduce difficulty) to avoid an attack on the Core chain.

BUCoin may retain short-term value, because they have deeper pockets, but investor confidence will deteriorate as relentless ****ups by their incompetent devs will be commonplace. And who knows how many vulnerabilities are in their code now and will be in the future. It will die soon enough.

Core Coin will win long-term, because software technology is only as good as its developers, and Core is the most talented and experienced team in the industry. Most miners probably believe this too, as evident by the majority of miners running Core instead of BU, but are handcuffed to supporting Jihan because of his monopoly on ASIC's. Most miners may not switch to Jihan Coin if the difficulty adjustments frees them of relying his ASIC's.

Short term pain for long term growth is a worthwhile tradeoff imo.

edit: assuming this is technically possible.

whatever happens, the only way to lose is to sell your coins. if CoreCoin needs to fork itself to survive, that would be pretty interesting.

I disagree.

Bitcoin is a highly risky investment with limited upside for as long as a hardfork is priced into the market. No way we enter a consistent uptrend until the situation is resolved. Hopefully the price continues to decline. Make the miners bleed until they are forced into a decision.

miners are always being squeezed. the price of bitcoin (and all un-manipulated coins) tends toward their marginal cost of mining.

its unfortunate the we have to select "dev teams" that present specific view-points of what bitcoin is. Core has chosen a specific path/set of values and if you want to support the Core dev team, because its perhaps the most technically competent, then you also must accept the constants they've chosen.

i think a few things are clear today:

1) the market wont allow a "dev team" to control the constants so easily
2) the market wants more transaction throughput
3) the market does not want to fork into two competing chains

everything seems pretty evenly split right now. lots of competing pools, lots of competing interests. 33% split makes things hard to change. thats also part of what makes bitcoin valuable.

however, i also see very clearly that as more and more people enter the cryptocurrency space, these new actors are more willing to accept the decisions of dev teams - in fact, they find comfort in it.

nakamoto consensus is the new concept here that we must learn to deal with.

Since Antpool switched to BU it's more like:
BU: 38%
8MB: 9%
Segwit: 28%

But the momentum seems to be behind BU so I would assume we will soon get 50% BU. However 75% might be hard to get so the plan of the Chinese miners might not activate. So I see 3-6months more of stalling before miners get fed up and just hardfork at 51%.

Schnorr's signature aggregation and MAST only change and/or compress the signature data (i.e. the witness data) that's already not counted against the 1MB cap once SegWit is activated. Therefore, while they improve the overall efficiency of the system, they won't actually enable people to place more transactions in a single block. So unless they are coupled with a hard fork, they won't actually help with scaling.

For clarity let's make the following estimates:
-Currently, every 10 minutes about 2.2K transactions are sent using 1 MB of data
-With SegWit, every 10 minutes about 4K transactions will be sent using ~2.0 MB of data
-With Schnorr's, every 10 minutes about 4K transactions will be sent using ~1.5 MB of data

so that people are understanding here, viks calculation he means @ 1mb blocksize under proposed segwit softfork that consumes 2mb of data.

Depending on how you calculate the average tx size and whether or not everyone moves to segwit txs, you can get 4k txs @ 1mb blocksize as an "average" if "everyone moves to segwit txs"

Idk how to calculate schnorrs discount-- i'm not aware of any research on that



https://tradeblock.com/blog/analysis...n-size-trends/
&
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/46379

napkin math:
basically avg bitcoin tx size is ~600 bytes on today's network.
if everyone went to p2sh tx & segwit, average size that counts against 1mb block is prolly 250-300bytes

1e6/275= 3.6k txs

3.6k is prolly lower bound because calculating txs is dependent on input - ouput of where bitcoins are moving.

edit: its also a very good assumption that most lite wallets would move to p2sh txs in a segwit softfork.

Majority of blocks last 24h now signalling for big blocks.

ftfy

BU can go ahead and fork with its "majority" though.

Not sure what you are implying. Of the blocks which were signalling it was more like 75%.

BU intends to hardfork. I think it is unlikely that the minority chain will survive without hard-forking a difficulty adjustment. We will see what happens.

No vote is effectively a vote for the status quo, they are running core.

BU has plurality hash of signalers, but not a majority of total network hash (due to the no-votes mining Core). If BU forks now, they would not be the majority chain.

Happy to be proven wrong though, but that's my understanding of what i see here https://coin.dance/blocks#thisweek

True. But it also not signalling a preferens in the hardfork vs segwit debate, which was what we were discussing.

There are uncertainties here as mining is stochastic. Here is good article on it:
https://medium.com/@g.andrew.stone/e...a31#.8kcux8cgl

split is dumb unless they clearly name it two different things--gl with the public having them figure out which bitcoin is which. Sending wrong one gonna happen a lot if it's not clear.

Seems like a flipping disaster for the coin to me for no good reason other than nerds gonna nerd.

Average coin days destroyed

^ watch that.

I was there during the ETH/ETC split and it was not terrible. In hindsight I am glad it happened, mainly because it gave the community courage to push for protocol upgrades more aggressively.

I think it will be a bit different for Bitcoin because:
1. Longer time for difficulty adjustment will make it very hard for minority chain to survive
2. Harder to make a split contract
3. Less computer savvy user base

But still as a holder I am for doing it. Reason: I think not doing it is also very risky.