You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: BIP91 Has Locked In! UASF is Dead. Could Bitcoin Hit New ATH?
This is really good news, thanks for sharing it with us! I'm following you for a while now, and you explained this earlier this week, now it is "locked in", nice! But what about all the others, who are not supporting it? How does this work? Do they need to have more then 51% of the mining power to make changes? So we can be sure August 1 will be a good day, filled with mainstream media attention and even more money coming in the cryotospace??
Starting in a couple days, miners will start orphaning blocks that aren't signaling for the original version of segwit (bip141). Miners that intend to fork will still signal 141 to avoid being orphaned, but will switch to bitcoin-abc client on Aug 1 to start mining bigger blocks.
Big blockers have at least 50% hashrate and overwhelming economic support from actual bitcoin users: https://vote.bitcoin.com/arguments/the-bitcoin-abc-client-and-big-block-fork-bitcoincash-is-a-better-roadmap-than-both-segwit-and-segwit2x
Segwit coin will fail miserably if it loses 50% hashpower. Either way, make sure you have your coins in a wallet where you'll be able to access BOTH coins in the event of a split.
I have just upvoted your all post. Please follow me https://steemit.com/@pirbhu
Thanks for your explanation, and yes, my bitcoins are offline and secured! ;-)
Don't see where you are getting 50% of hashpower from. If that were true we would have had scaling already. We will see though.
Half of all miners are STILL signaling Bitcoin Unlimited and Classic. Why?
Also, why are both Bitcoin Unlimited and Classic spending time and money to develop clients that will fork off with Bitcoin-ABC on Aug 1?
Did you think Jihan and Roger just changed their minds about Segwit? What gave you that idea?
Where is that information from?
signaling? You can look on the blockchain.
Exactly and I don't see it.
Half of all miners are still signaling Bitcoin Unlimited and Classic. Why?
Where are you seeing this? Do you have a website link?
BitcoinCash fork already trading at numbers that put it over a billion market cap - and it hasn't even forked yet!
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@ancap47/bitcoin-hf-coin-already-has-started-trading-against-cny-on-viabtc-exchange
Keep in mind, some larger exchanges may not give you both coins such as Coinbase.
According to Coinbase, they will not be allowing customers access to any Bitcoin Cash. So if you have 10 BTC on Coinbase, they will steal your 10 Bitcoin Cash.
Note that locking in BIP 91 is not the same thing as locking in Segwit. BIP 91 is an activation mechanism for Segwit, that functions like the UASF does. Locking in BIP 91 amounts to miners saying, "336 blocks from now, we all promise to ignore non-Segwit-signalling blocks, and build a chain of Segwit-supporting blocks."
Assuming that all the miners now supporting BIP 91 stick to the terms of that agreement, after a short, 336 block grace period, they will begin mining, and mining on top of, Segwit-signalling blocks only. This means that if there are still miners creating non-Segwit blocks, they will have limited hashpower, and consequently be building a much smaller chain than the Segwit-mining majority.
Because the network accepts the longest blockchain as the valid one, these non-Segwit miners will be building an invalid chain, giving them a significant financial incentive to switch to the Segwit chain. Because all blocks in this chain will be signalling for Segwit, the next 2016-block signalling period for Segwit itself should reach the needed 95% signalling threshold required for activation. Then, after another grace period, Segwit itself should activate, and will be usable on the network.
This all assumes that these miners do what they've comitted to do. If they break their word at some point, the situation sort of explodes in complexity, and a lot of what I've written above becomes invalid.
To speak more directly to your question, the miners who do NOT support Segwit, as noted above, will be mining a minority chain, and subject to having their blocks rejected by the majority of the hashpower.
If miners and users prefer a chain without Segwit (and presumably bigger blocks) they will likely hard fork themselves away from the majority consensus rules, creating an altcoin. This prevents a lot of potential harmful interference between the two chains. Currently, this hard fork effort is known as BitcoinCash, and uses client software BitcoinABC.
Note that the "success" or "failure" of a lot of these initiatives, whether they be activation mechanisms, technologies, concensus rules, or altcoins, are subject to the support of both miners and users. I mention this because we don't have a clear idea of where miner and user support really lands on a lot of these proposals. We know what they're saying, yes, but we don't know if they are being genuine in signalling their support, or if they'll change their minds.
It's completely possible, for example, for users to support Segwit2x long enough to activate Segwit, and then not follow a 2 MB hard fork. It's also possible for a fork of the Bitcoin software to start out with overwhelming miner support, and for that support to migrate away from that chain if there is insufficient use of that coin to maintain the value of that coin (and thus, profitable mining).
There have been a couple of attempts (1 & 2) at Sybil-resistant straw polls. Thus far, both polls reflect the biases of the faction that created them (among other biasing issues), making them minimally effective as real gauges of opinion. I'm not aware of any good indicators, but there are ideologues on either side who exhibit (I'll say this diplomatically) misleading optimism and confidence about how things "will" work out. I advise you to interpret such claims with caution, even when they are represented as fact, and to do your own research, using a variety of sources and opinions.
@grnt0352 thanks for your explanation! This makes a lot of my questinsore so clearly answered!
August 2, "The day of the oversold Lambos"
haha, nice one!
As I understand it those people won't get excluded anyway. It is not a hard fork. If someone is completely against it they can fork off their own chain but it won't be bitcoin.
Big Blockers are forking off on Aug 1. If they take a significant amount of hashpower with them, they WILL be bitcoin since they will be the longest chain.
I very much doubt that since the majority of hashpower is behind the Segwit 2 x whether you like it or not. People are free to fork off if they want but it is basically irrelevant - if they had the kind of support that they need then we would have had scaling a long time ago.
Signaling NYA and actually supporting it are two very different things. If all these miners really supported segwit, why didn't they signal all those months up to NYA? Why are they STILL signaling Bitcoin Unlimited and Classic? Why are node coints going up for both? Why are both BU and Classic both spending time and money developing clients to fork off with Bitcoin-ABC on Aug 1st?
Did you really think they just changed their minds about Segwit? Their Chief Scientist just did a talk about how Segwit is bad for the network. No one has refuted his points.
So far I have seen no hard data to back up what you say.
Everything I said you can look up on the blockchain or in forums.