Found this on bitcoinmarkets (seem to be one of the more reasonable social media sources save buttcoin)



From what I can tell BitcoinClassic has 50% commitment and they're about to add another 23 ...

Looks like Bitcoin Classic releases soon.  https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/431us1/anybody_knows_when_classic_is_launching/

Waters seem muddy now on if the hardfork is going to actually happen (seemed imminent a few weeks ago).  Also - if the hardfork is good for bitcoin overall even if you fully believe 2mb blocks are a necessity seems muddier to me now than it did a few weeks ago.  

I would be shocked if this doesn't drag on for three more months with nothing being decided.

I opened a big leveraged short at 394.  I don't see how things are going to go up until the block size debate is resolved.  Or at the very least there is no longer a looming threat of a hard fork.  

This isn't JUST a hard for but a reshuffling of the powers that be in core who are being paid by a private company to fund bitcoin (imo this entire debacle can be traced back to the foundation going belly up on funding development).

Until the two camps are united, core compromises on 2mb blocks or everyone in the community (exchanges etc) change their mind I see the drift downward as inevitable.

I do live in eternal fear of core announcing 2mb blocks and losing it all.  But I'm betting that if they haven't done it yet they aren't going to until hard fork is inevitable.

Because adding a 2mb blocksize in excange for SEGWIT would keep the chains & communities from splitting in two and destroying both sides.  Even if it's not necessary by luke-jr's opinion - if it is 2MB blocks or 2 chains which one is really worse for bitcoin?

This is the third time around.  BitcoinXT, Classic & now Unlimited.  I fully expect this one to die out due to Unlimited's lack of professionalism & experience.  Then continued gridlock on SEGWIT.  At some point the industry will decide it's tired of waiting for > 7tps

Look.  I'm not thinking in terms of "right" or "wrong".  Just that 40% of the hash power is threatening to upgrade to non core.  You can pop on your fedora & wax eloquent about moral high ground all day if you want.  I literally have no opinion on right/wrong as I'm just a casual buttcoin observer.  

But it is pretty curious that you're about to destroy your coin by allowing all the leverage to be taken from the most qualified developers (which is going to launch my leveraged popcorn futures into oblivion) by being too stubborn to compromise on a little (2mb) to get a lot (SEGWIT + not losing control of the longest blockchain to a bunch of amateurs).  People have been begging for higher thruput / lower fees for the last two years.  So I assume that doesn't live up to whatever justification means in your book.

Ok then I must have mis characterized.  Essentially you don't think there's any type of serious threat of either BU forking, or not being able to implement SEGWIT on the current timeline?  I guess this explains the situation - if a lot of people think that this BTCU / demand for bigger blocks is just a misnomer then it explains why the core side is acting the way they are.  Should be interesting times.

I assumed 2MB + SEGWIT would be win all around and fairly non confrontational for all sides.  The side that just wanted 2MB gets a bigger block.  The side that wants SEGWIT gets it.  Everyone gets to keep core.  2MB no big deal since internet & hard drive speeds have increased by like 800% since inception.  Etc.  Guess I was wrong.

Thanks for your reply tho - things make a little more sense to me understanding that core & supporters think forking the blockchain is simply never going to happen and that SEGWIT will get implemented with or without the bigger block carrot.

Time for bitcoin to go back to GPU's 

This is just as accurate as saying "2MB blocks are mostly exactly like SEGWIT but simpler - so everyone should support that."

That is to say, entirely inaccurate. 

I'm asserting that thruput needs to be more than 7tps.  A lot more.  With low fees for it to keep growing.  If I'd allowed my network get to choke points for years while knowing it would likely take 6 - 12 months to upgrade without pushing a viable solution while hard drive space & bandwidth price ratio had gone down 10x.  And then started pushing a controversial solution that would jack with the entire ecosystem of fees for security until just months ago - I'd be fired.  Especially if there was an alternate employee who was offering a network with 8x the thruput / lower fees if thruput not needed while trying to force my controversial change as the only alternative.

Bitcoin Unlimited is the third employee offering a solution.  They are currently sitting at almost 40 of the 100 directors voting yes.

Absolutely - we agree.


We agree.


Absolutely hilarious.  People have been clamoring for more & cheaper thruput for three iterations over two years.  And your analysis of all of them AND the 40% & counting of the hashpower holding up your 20 bil project is "a bunch of loud mouthers".

51% is needed before you have enough leverage to start convincing people.  It's by design.  Social 99.5% consensus is preferred but not needed.

It opens up side channels.  A few years ago I was super stoked about this.  But I did some math on the fees, transaction levels needed to market cap ratio to maintain a high enough hashrate for the network to make it financially difficult to short / fork / profit.

As fees are taken offchain, rewards go away the miner security to market cap ratio will plummet.  I don't *think* it's sustainable - need to go back and do more numbers on average transaction amounts, what will likely be taken offchain, etc. 

But keep up the smug attitudes towards the miners. 

I think this is the most likely.  But XT, Classic, Unlimited - it's only a matter of time before there is a fourth shot. 

Most likely miners who hire their own dev team.  Solve the block problem without SEGWIT, disallow side channels, make the masses calling for lots of capacity / cheap on chain transactions happy & wrestle control of the code away from the trolling developers who've pissed them off.

Source on the miners saying this?  Did they mention what hash they wanted before they started?

Super curious about this situation.  There's something that just isn't adding up ...