Congratulations Bitcoin community. There will be no chain split. Bitcoin is stronger than ever.

[patrick.miller]

I applaud the miners. Now we are achieving real consensus and it's encouraging. While the future is still uncertain as to the best method of gaining social consensus, we now know the stakes and value of coming together.

BTC To the moon.

[rizzlarolla]

I applaud the miners. Now we are achieving real consensus and it's encouraging. While the future is still uncertain as to the best method of gaining social consensus, we now know the stakes and value of coming together.

BTC To the moon.

If your talking about a user activated segwit soft fork?, you can count me out of that BS for what it is worth.
segwit is dangerous for Bitcoin immutability. Even more so soft forked.

imo Bitcoin was designed by satoshi to give this sort of attack massive chance of failure.
I'm counting on him. I'm counting on hash majority never activating segwit.

[Possum577]

imo Bitcoin was designed by satoshi to give this sort of attack massive chance of failure.
I'm counting on him. I'm counting on hash majority never activating segwit.

Is it the perceived attack that you're against or is the proposal to expand the transaction throughput size?

[rizzlarolla]

imo Bitcoin was designed by satoshi to give this sort of attack massive chance of failure.
I'm counting on him. I'm counting on hash majority never activating segwit.

Is it the perceived attack that you're against or is the proposal to expand the transaction throughput size?

I'm against the attack - segwit.
More tx throughput is needed - bigger blocks.

I agree with Craig Wright's speech posted elsewhere on "the forum" by Ver.

[BitcoinXio]

Things aren't over yet.

UASF may still happen but probably least likely.

Segwit2x is going to happen but the 2x part will be fought hard and may not happen.

UAHF (Bitcoin ABC) looks like it happening anyways on Aug 1st.

Plus we still have ongoing alternative clients like BU and Classic.

[CryptoMadeMan]

This is good. I was really hoping I was not going to watch a bunch of grown ass people not get their s*** together and agree on something before burning it to the ground via a split. Indecisiveness directly impacted price fluctuations and is the real world qualifier and the all the proof any outsider needed to see to determine instability in the community which reflected in valuation changes (+1 to the mentality of btc not being a safe investment vehicle). This message is for all the decision makers wherever you are.

[patrick.miller]

I applaud the miners. Now we are achieving real consensus and it's encouraging. While the future is still uncertain as to the best method of gaining social consensus, we now know the stakes and value of coming together.

BTC To the moon.

If your talking about a user activated segwit soft fork?, you can count me out of that BS for what it is worth.
segwit is dangerous for Bitcoin immutability. Even more so soft forked.

imo Bitcoin was designed by satoshi to give this sort of attack massive chance of failure.
I'm counting on him. I'm counting on hash majority never activating segwit.

I'm referring to BIP91 lock-in and activation, which means BIP141 (SegWit) will be enforced. Non-BIP141 signalling blocks are now rejected.

I have absolutely no concerns about SegWit causing a problem for immutability. I am not sure what you even mean by this.

Anyways, I am looking forward to making SegWit transactions on Bitcoin's mainnet, and testing new address formats such as BIP173. http://bitcoin.sipa.be/bech32/demo/demo.html

[patrick.miller]

Things aren't over yet.

UASF may still happen but probably least likely.

Segwit2x is going to happen but the 2x part will be fought hard and may not happen.

UAHF (Bitcoin ABC) looks like it happening anyways on Aug 1st.

Plus we still have ongoing alternative clients like BU and Classic.

While things aren't over yet, it's clear that SegWit will be enforced now.

As for Bitcoin-ABC, I am not worried about it only for users who will be confused and upset when they accidentally send their Bitcoins/BitcoinCash to an address on the wrong network. This will cause serious user frustration and exchange support ticket issues.

[rizzlarolla]

I have absolutely no concerns about SegWit causing a problem for immutability. I am not sure what you even mean by this.
Anyways, I am looking forward to making SegWit transactions on Bitcoin's mainnet, and testing new address formats such as BIP173. http://bitcoin.sipa.be/bech32/demo/demo.html

segwit "anyone can spend"?

[patrick.miller]

I have absolutely no concerns about SegWit causing a problem for immutability. I am not sure what you even mean by this.
Anyways, I am looking forward to making SegWit transactions on Bitcoin's mainnet, and testing new address formats such as BIP173. http://bitcoin.sipa.be/bech32/demo/demo.html

segwit "anyone can spend"?

SegWit facts – Not ‘anyone can spend’ so stop saying they can
by John Hardy - 11 Feb 2017

Anybody who argues against SegWit because it uses “anyone can spend” transactions is either being disingenuous or does not understand what they are talking about.

“Anyone can spend” is just words to describe a transaction which has no conditions attached to how its output can be spent. This has been part of the Bitcoin protocol since… forever.

To prevent old nodes from being excluded from the network, as in the case of a hard fork, SegWit uses a clever trick that enables old nodes to see SegWit transactions by making them appear as ‘anyone-can-spend’.

The fear of the misinformed is basically that the new transactions created by SegWit will be insecure because “it says ‘anyone-can-spend’, duh.”

The problem is, this is just plain false. Segwit is a softfork which means miners introduce new rules. The new rules mean that although SegWit transactions superficially appear to old nodes as ‘anybody-can-spend’ – the rules dictate that these transactions cannot be spent without a valid signature.

The ‘worst case scenario’ is that miners could mine a block that breaks these rules and old nodes would still recognise it as valid. It is foolish to consider this a genuine risk.

The miner would be wasting all their resources mining an invalid block, and for what, to make a few remaining old nodes think some SegWit transactions had a different owner? What would they accomplish?

The answer is nothing at all. Their block would be orphaned almost immediately. Nobody would be affected except the miner.

Anybody who persists in making this argument is lying or dim. By exposing themselves as either of these things they completely undermine their cause and can be safely dismissed.

https://seebitcoin.com/2017/02/segwit-f ... -they-can/

[Hienrich]

imo Bitcoin was designed by satoshi to give this sort of attack massive chance of failure.
I'm counting on him. I'm counting on hash majority never activating segwit.

Is it the perceived attack that you're against or is the proposal to expand the transaction throughput size?

I'm against the attack - segwit.
More tx throughput is needed - bigger blocks.

I agree with Craig Wright's speech posted elsewhere on "the forum" by Ver.

I don't see why Segwit and another hard fork that increases block-size is implemented. Wouldn't such a system be more efficient and appease to more of the Bitcoin community?

[Possum577]

I'm against the attack - segwit.
More tx throughput is needed - bigger blocks.

I agree with Craig Wright's speech posted elsewhere on "the forum" by Ver.

Craig Wright's speech was awful. Any sophisticated point he was trying to make was muttled by his horrible, seemingly unprepared rhetoric. He sounded like the typical American politician. Full of big emotion, small words, and a weak grasp of the English language.

If it wasn't for Roger Ver interpreting Craig's remarks in a more concise manner I would have dismissed Craig's point of view completely.

I don't see why Segwit and another hard fork that increases block-size is implemented. Wouldn't such a system be more efficient and appease to more of the Bitcoin community?

Roger explains it very well. I'll try to paraphrase (and likely do so poorly), the problem with Segwit is that if you separate the witness from the transaction there's no mechanism to confirm that the correct parties were involved in the transaction. This will open up opportunity for funds to be stolen or rerouted from a transaction without any proof of where the transaction was originally intended to go. Obviously if this risk is realized the consequences are significant.

[rizzlarolla]

I'm against the attack - segwit.
More tx throughput is needed - bigger blocks.

I agree with Craig Wright's speech posted elsewhere on "the forum" by Ver.

Craig Wright's speech was awful. Any sophisticated point he was trying to make was muttled by his horrible, seemingly unprepared rhetoric. He sounded like the typical American politician. Full of big emotion, small words, and a weak grasp of the English language.

If it wasn't for Roger Ver interpreting Craig's remarks in a more concise manner I would have dismissed Craig's point of view completely.

Unfortunately, the fact the messenger is awful, does not make the message wrong.
I realise how uncool it is of me to to agree with Craig Wright.

I don't see why Segwit and another hard fork that increases block-size is implemented. Wouldn't such a system be more efficient and appease to more of the Bitcoin community?

segwit brings massive technical debt, far more so through a soft fork.
segwit creates 4x the loading for a potential max 1.7 return.
That is not efficient.

The Bitcoin "community" don't generally understand bitcoin.
Most "community" members are not real.
On bitcointalk for example, i have proven that to be the case.
Just shill accounts under theymos control.

Anybody who argues against SegWit because it uses “anyone can spend” transactions is either being disingenuous or does not understand what they are talking about.

Anybody who persists in making this argument is lying or dim. By exposing themselves as either of these things they completely undermine their cause and can be safely dismissed.
https://seebitcoin.com/2017/02/segwit-f ... -they-can/

This is only a small part of the problems of segwit soft fork, as you probably know.
You have probably safely dismissed all of them at one point or another?

[davidmccoy]

The exact situation about SegWit2x will be cleared in August.

[Neoclassical]

There might still be chain split you know. BitcoinCash is taking momentum, and there is a planned SegWay2x split later this year. But splits are normal, in fact Blochchain was designed in a way which helps to run true democracy by these splits.

[Hienrich]

I don't see why Segwit and another hard fork that increases block-size is implemented. Wouldn't such a system be more efficient and appease to more of the Bitcoin community?

segwit brings massive technical debt, far more so through a soft fork.
segwit creates 4x the loading for a potential max 1.7 return.
That is not efficient.

The Bitcoin "community" don't generally understand bitcoin.
Most "community" members are not real.
On bitcointalk for example, i have proven that to be the case.
Just shill accounts under theymos' control.

What do you mean by 4x the loading for a potential max 1.7 return? What is loading and return? Sorry, I am still learning technical terms.