JackH 2017-01-17 09:45:08
yup correct
frib 2017-01-17 09:45:09
and in the end it would come down to network power
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:45:10
yes you can do it now
JackH 2017-01-17 09:45:18
correct
frib 2017-01-17 09:45:18
as all things in bitcoin
frib 2017-01-17 09:45:21
ok so do it
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:45:22
make a Jack fork, see what happens
frib 2017-01-17 09:45:32
the support is still gona be 27 %
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:45:43
put it at 25%
frib 2017-01-17 09:45:48
maybe people will be more motivated seeing as you offered a more realistic possibility
JackH 2017-01-17 09:45:51
actually yeah, it could be put to 10
frib 2017-01-17 09:45:56
marijnfs, 25% would not be feasible!
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:46:06
make a 25% hardfork
frib 2017-01-17 09:46:09
it would have to be > 50% to have enough network power
JackH 2017-01-17 09:46:16
nah not hardfork
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:46:18
only accept blocks that signal segwit
JackH 2017-01-17 09:46:37
if 10% is enough to lock it in, and it locks in, the rest of the miners have to upgrade
JackH 2017-01-17 09:46:46
or get their blocks orphaned after activation
frib 2017-01-17 09:46:53
not if they choose to continue their own block chain
frib 2017-01-17 09:46:57
leaving YOU the orphan ;)
frib 2017-01-17 09:47:08
which is why of course 10% of miners would never do that
JackH 2017-01-17 09:47:11
then it all comes down to the nodes
JackH 2017-01-17 09:47:40
well the ecosystem really
frib 2017-01-17 09:47:46
jack make a 50.00001% hardfork, let's see what happens
JackH 2017-01-17 09:48:01
if everyone accepts a segwit block, it doesnt matter only 1% of miner mine it
JackH 2017-01-17 09:48:12
ecosystem always wins, miners are slave to it
JackH 2017-01-17 09:48:18
I dont want a hardfork
JackH 2017-01-17 09:48:20
that is stupid
JackH 2017-01-17 09:48:36
thats rbtc talk, and its insane and ridiculous and dangerous
frib 2017-01-17 09:48:51
make 51% softfork
Pilate 2017-01-17 09:48:59
yeah instead we should have nodes not really validating anything
JackH 2017-01-17 09:49:02
I like everything about it, but the stupid threshold
JackH 2017-01-17 09:49:10
95% is just too much
JackH 2017-01-17 09:49:13
thats about it
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:49:24
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/812714fd80e96e28cd288c553c83838cecbfc2d9/src/chainparams.cpp#L83
piqure 2017-01-17 09:49:25
^^^ WARNING: any URL may lead directly or indirectly to COIN-STEALING MALWARE! ^^^
frib 2017-01-17 09:49:26
JackH, did you consider the reasoning behind 95%?
JackH 2017-01-17 09:50:11
yeah, reason was hubris and self obsession with ones ability to rule (aka the core developers cannot make mistakes and everything they put in the code is the absolute truth and is always the right figure)
Fibonacci 2017-01-17 09:50:20
kanzure asked me to come here.
Fibonacci 2017-01-17 09:50:26
Not sure why
JackH 2017-01-17 09:50:30
And this comes from someone that loves what they have done so far
kanzure 2017-01-17 09:50:33
Fibonacci: leave #bitcoin-wizards and never return
grubles 2017-01-17 09:50:40
lol
Fibonacci 2017-01-17 09:50:45
Umm.. why
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:51:26
with all the talk of 50% attacks, they made sure they wouldn't happen
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:51:35
JackH: wouldn't you want the core to be conservative?
frib 2017-01-17 09:51:39
JackH, deploy!! consensus.nRuleChangeActivationThreshold = 1028 // 51% of 2016
JackH 2017-01-17 09:51:44
not with this
JackH 2017-01-17 09:51:56
this is basically giving the miners a full say over the network
JackH 2017-01-17 09:52:06
that very same thing we have always kept to the nodes and the network
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:52:13
you want it segwit specific?
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:52:17
getting picky now
JackH 2017-01-17 09:52:32
yes segwit specific
JackH 2017-01-17 09:52:48
This was supposed to be the last damn important patch we needed
JackH 2017-01-17 09:52:51
solves a number of things
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:53:14
there are still quite some things in the pipeline i think
JackH 2017-01-17 09:53:40
quadratic scaling of hashed data, malleability and some extra size for us to play with
grubles 2017-01-17 09:53:42
why don't you contact the miners then?
JackH 2017-01-17 09:53:54
yeah thats how it works right
grubles 2017-01-17 09:53:55
we are supposed to do what exactly
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:53:56
but realistically, I think you could propose a bip for 80%, claim an extra voting bit
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:54:05
it's not so unrealistic
JackH 2017-01-17 09:54:08
some brain dead dude in China only thinking about scoring the next block is going to sit down and understand segwit, right
grubles 2017-01-17 09:54:12
no seriously
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:54:13
we would have to vote on that though
grubles 2017-01-17 09:54:39
you and your business is a case study in how they, by not signaling segwit, are affecting bitcoin-related businesses
JackH 2017-01-17 09:54:52
actually, its not that bad
JackH 2017-01-17 09:55:01
the business does fine as we are moving more and more over to selling
grubles 2017-01-17 09:55:08
...
JackH 2017-01-17 09:55:14
processing and wallets do not make money, unless we scale to billions of people
JackH 2017-01-17 09:55:18
anyway, thats for later
JackH 2017-01-17 09:55:24
right now, my real problem is the activation
JackH 2017-01-17 09:55:27
its also a good patch
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:55:27
what do you sell then
grubles 2017-01-17 09:55:30
then wtf was the last hour of complaining for
JackH 2017-01-17 09:55:35
selling BTC
JackH 2017-01-17 09:55:52
because segwit is being kept back due to a stupid figure
JackH 2017-01-17 09:55:58
I believe, that in time, we will get higher adoption
JackH 2017-01-17 09:56:00
but 95%
JackH 2017-01-17 09:56:03
thats a joke
Fibonacci 2017-01-17 09:56:08
Coin base cancelled my max buy at 790 without notifying me. I had the confirmation email and everything
JackH 2017-01-17 09:56:15
not with the resistance of rbtc having grown this high
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:56:20
the one figure is not gonna keep the vote away, his power wont stay at 6% or whatever
grubles 2017-01-17 09:56:23
it's so everyone is upgraded and ready to go once it's activated so there is a very very small chance of money loss
JackH 2017-01-17 09:56:30
its not just him any longer
JackH 2017-01-17 09:56:35
its starting to ramp up
JackH 2017-01-17 09:56:51
while you may cringe reading that cesspit, its unfortunately also growing
JackH 2017-01-17 09:57:02
yes, in hashing power
grubles 2017-01-17 09:57:14
not really
berndj 2017-01-17 09:57:23
JackH: warning='2 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version' <-- from my debug.log
grubles 2017-01-17 09:57:23
there's only ~150 people there at any given time
JackH 2017-01-17 09:57:37
yes I noticed that
berndj 2017-01-17 09:57:44
"growing"
JackH 2017-01-17 09:58:49
cooperating and finding a combined voice is worse
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:58:51
berndj: yes thats 2mb signaling, which is apparently not expected
JackH 2017-01-17 09:59:31
what is sad though is that not one of you here, at least prior to my text tirade seemed to care about it
JackH 2017-01-17 09:59:39
you just all assume "its gonna be fine"
JackH 2017-01-17 09:59:41
just like that
JackH 2017-01-17 09:59:43
christ
grubles 2017-01-17 09:59:59
i think you read too much rbtc
JackH 2017-01-17 10:00:07
they have rammed up support against segwit since op_ctlv
JackH 2017-01-17 10:00:12
now its all in against it
marijnfs 2017-01-17 10:00:16
we are optimists
frib 2017-01-17 10:00:27
it went up 3% since yesterday
JackH 2017-01-17 10:00:34
well, so I am optimist about teechan
JackH 2017-01-17 10:00:36
and we can call it even?
grubles 2017-01-17 10:00:48
based on what? tweets?
JackH 2017-01-17 10:00:50
at least I see something that could offer some damn scaling in a near future
grubles 2017-01-17 10:01:01
this convo is going nowhere
grubles 2017-01-17 10:01:03
take care
JackH 2017-01-17 10:01:07
based on that it is an engineering problem
frib 2017-01-17 10:01:10
wasn't segwit released like 2 months ago
JackH 2017-01-17 10:01:13
and not a consensus stall problem
moli_ 2017-01-17 10:01:38
JackH, if bitcoin is easily changed that would be a problem
JackH 2017-01-17 10:01:40
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/versions.html compare to op_csv
piqure 2017-01-17 10:01:40
^^^ WARNING: any URL may lead directly or indirectly to COIN-STEALING MALWARE! ^^^
frib 2017-01-17 10:01:44
it would take 13 days just to activate
frib 2017-01-17 10:01:57
be patient
JackH 2017-01-17 10:02:14
that doesnt matter
JackH 2017-01-17 10:02:20
lock in period matters
moli_ 2017-01-17 10:02:25
JackH, if it takes a year for segwit to be activated, so be it, and even if after a year it's still not activated, it's not a dead end, there's no time limit for it
JackH 2017-01-17 10:02:34
you keep saying this moli_
JackH 2017-01-17 10:02:40
after a year, why is it not a problem
aj 2017-01-17 10:02:43
JackH: op_csv came comfortably after chinese new year, segwit is uncomfortably prior to cny and western new year
JackH 2017-01-17 10:02:43
why is it ok
frib 2017-01-17 10:02:47
JackH, just went up another 0.5%!! https://coin.dance/blocks
marijnfs 2017-01-17 10:02:48
JackH: buy litecoin, they will get it first
piqure 2017-01-17 10:02:48
^^^ WARNING: any URL may lead directly or indirectly to COIN-STEALING MALWARE! ^^^
JackH 2017-01-17 10:02:48
why should I think it is ok
frib 2017-01-17 10:03:09
almost at 30 now
JackH 2017-01-17 10:03:14
wtf, no its not
moli_ 2017-01-17 10:03:19
JackH, the problem is centralized mining, if you could have an answer for it then it would be great
JackH 2017-01-17 10:03:23
you are looking over the last 100 blocks
JackH 2017-01-17 10:03:30
144*
frib 2017-01-17 10:03:31
still a reasonable estimate
aj 2017-01-17 10:03:42
frib: very noisy estimate
JackH 2017-01-17 10:03:43
no it has gone up and down and in the long run lost about 1-2% lately
JackH 2017-01-17 10:04:00
yes that is the problem moli_ the miners are the problem
frib 2017-01-17 10:04:03
and no it's not the last 100 blocks its the last 2016
JackH 2017-01-17 10:04:25
its 25% over the last 2016
JackH 2017-01-17 10:04:41
and if it went up its variance, not more signal
frib 2017-01-17 10:05:14
JackH, ah you're right 28.47% last 24 hrs
frib 2017-01-17 10:05:50
could be variance. could not be. but if it's not the only way to see it is with an increase
frib 2017-01-17 10:06:26
although I have to admit that's a pretty sad flat line haha
JackH 2017-01-17 10:08:33
yeah look the economic mayority has signaled their intention for segwit, as has the majority of nodes. miners should shut the f*** up and whomever gave them the power of 95% was drunk
JackH 2017-01-17 10:08:52
so teechan it is when its out
JackH 2017-01-17 10:09:11
as we have dusted ourselves and killed of any opportunity for LN
marijnfs 2017-01-17 10:10:22
JackH: you understand teechan?
marijnfs 2017-01-17 10:10:30
Cause what i'm reading here is not convincing
frib 2017-01-17 10:10:47
JackH, are you saying miners get more of a say in whether or not to adopt segwit than other nodes?
JackH 2017-01-17 10:10:50
I think it deserves a chance as it at least is not depending on some dude in China
JackH 2017-01-17 10:11:07
frib they have the say in activation yes
frib 2017-01-17 10:11:18
JackH, but no more or less than anyone else
JackH 2017-01-17 10:11:29
yeah you as a full node can do nothing about activating it
JackH 2017-01-17 10:11:35
so more than you, yes
frib 2017-01-17 10:12:02
ah because adoption depends on who solved the blocks
JackH 2017-01-17 10:12:15
yup
frib 2017-01-17 10:12:21
but JackH, you really think "some dude in china" doesn't know what segwit is?
JackH 2017-01-17 10:12:30
I am quite certain of that
frib 2017-01-17 10:12:35
elaborate
moli_ 2017-01-17 10:12:42
marijnfs, teechan is a dumb idea, don't waste your time on it
JackH 2017-01-17 10:12:56
I think they care about their profit here and now and in the next 2-3 months and are easily spooked by the brigade in rbtc about how dangerous segwit is
JackH 2017-01-17 10:13:26
And now the narrative has also moved to how they will loose money because of LN
frib 2017-01-17 10:13:37
JackH, you think someone who has all that money invested in this has not done the due dilligence of learning about what lies ahead?
JackH 2017-01-17 10:13:47
So yeah, I think some have doubt, and you know what. We allowed 5% to have doubts
trotski2000 2017-01-17 10:13:59
JackH: there's no real technical point made against segwit.
JackH 2017-01-17 10:14:12
trotski2000, its about presentation not hard facts
frib 2017-01-17 10:14:14
JackH, but won't they ?
frib 2017-01-17 10:14:34
network congestion allows them to jack up fees
JackH 2017-01-17 10:14:35
seeing the uptake so far, I am starting to doubt their ability to think for themselves frib
frib 2017-01-17 10:14:53
money is made on chain not off
aj 2017-01-17 10:14:56
JackH: they'll lose more money if people move to litecoin; will be interesting to see how that plays out
JackH 2017-01-17 10:15:15
aj both you and I know very well that Bitcoin has come too far for us to "move to" anything else
JackH 2017-01-17 10:15:32
mainstream adoption, as silly as it may be will go towards Bitcoin
aj 2017-01-17 10:15:33
JackH: personally i think the new year is more of a factor though
frib 2017-01-17 10:15:55
JackH, even if bitcoin vs usd tanks?
JackH 2017-01-17 10:16:15
we are stuck, stop asking what if situations
JackH 2017-01-17 10:16:21
deal with the fact, we are STUCK
aj 2017-01-17 10:16:29
JackH: ("both you and I know" -- either you're wrong or you're giving me too much credit :)
JackH 2017-01-17 10:16:33
95% gentlemen, 9 fucking 5 percent
frib 2017-01-17 10:16:40
if we are STUCK then it is very like that it will tank
frib 2017-01-17 10:16:50
he was right you're just trolling!
JackH 2017-01-17 10:17:23
shall we agree on this again 17 feb?
frib 2017-01-17 10:17:35
on what
JackH 2017-01-17 10:17:45
this fine chat we have
aj 2017-01-17 10:17:49
JackH: (fwiw, i'm pretty confident LN can be made to work on mainnet as is at this point; https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2017-January/000658.html )
piqure 2017-01-17 10:17:49
^^^ WARNING: any URL may lead directly or indirectly to COIN-STEALING MALWARE! ^^^
JackH 2017-01-17 10:17:53
and see how much more it has progressed
frib 2017-01-17 10:18:01
ill put it in my calendar
JackH 2017-01-17 10:18:13
ok
aj 2017-01-17 10:18:22
JackH: yeah, that sounds about when i'd expect progress to start happening again
frib 2017-01-17 10:18:26
1800 EST
JackH 2017-01-17 10:18:38
ok 17th feb it is
marijnfs 2017-01-17 10:18:39
aj: yeah the shittly LN which is basically not working
JackH 2017-01-17 10:18:45
lets see who is more correct
frib 2017-01-17 10:18:46
uhm CET 1800
aj 2017-01-17 10:19:31
marijnfs: nah, that's LN that's working at ~80%; just doesn't allow channels to last indefinitely
aj 2017-01-17 10:19:59
frib: UTC pls
marijnfs 2017-01-17 10:20:07
aj: doesn't it have some weird trust issues, also it's very inefficient
frib 2017-01-17 10:20:08
idk what that is
aj 2017-01-17 10:20:25
frib: GMT?
frib 2017-01-17 10:20:41
6pm UTC + 1
aj 2017-01-17 10:21:35
marijnfs: i think that avoids the trust issues; and nah, with CLTV and CSV available it's pretty efficient already
frib 2017-01-17 10:21:40
the mempool should be indefinitely long by then lol
aj 2017-01-17 10:22:13
dammit you guys, stop be interesting, i have to go :(
marijnfs 2017-01-17 10:22:33
one problem with lnd, we still need bigger blocks
marijnfs 2017-01-17 10:22:54
if people start closing channels like crazy it will still get conjested, and these transactions really have to be accepted
marijnfs 2017-01-17 10:23:22
they think of ways to block the counting of locktime, but then we can just delay transactions indefinitely
moli_ 2017-01-17 10:23:25
marijnfs, one step at a time dude
moli_ 2017-01-17 10:23:35
and segwit will create bigger blocks
moli_ 2017-01-17 10:23:59
i don't believe chinese miners want bigger blocks because bigger blocks will give them less fees
frib 2017-01-17 10:24:42
moli_, prepare for bitcoin price plummit before they accept!
marijnfs 2017-01-17 10:25:21
moli_: actually, lower fees also increase demand, so often bigger blocks will create more fees
marijnfs 2017-01-17 10:25:42
unlickely that this is the optimal price point given price * demand
