During the recent Understanding Bitcoin conference in Malta, the opening panel on day two focused on potential upcoming improvements for Bitcoin. The panel featured Blockstream CEO Adam Back, Blockstream Chief Architect Lawrence Nahum, and Blockstream Researcher Christian Decker. BHB Network Director Giacomo Zucco moderated the panel. Schnorr signatures, Taproot, and Sighash Noinput are three of …
If [the online exchanges] say, ‘we don’t take transactions that are private,’ users will just switch service providers ultimately.
I disagree with this. We see how some businesses will not let us use their services, citing our nation is not allowing it or their site just doesn't want any grief that would follow from our government.
I feel like supporters of Segwit are probably in support (or at least not against) the development and discussion of these implementations.
It is still up to the devs to create, implement, test, vet, and present their work. I will not accept anything less than a thoroughly-vetted process to make sure the implementations are conservatively implemented. I want as minimal risk as possible to security loopholes, inefficiencies, etc.
Where soft fork (not hard fork as that requires much stronger levels of consensus) lock in for new upgrades can occur fairly quickly once 95% of hashrate within a set window activates the soft fork
Otherwise a ~6 month delay occurs before a lower threshold of 80% of hashrate can activate the soft fork
If this is not met another ~6 month delay (total 1 year) before a flag upgrade UASF of all upgraded nodes occurs where the uncooperative miners either decide to go their own way or comply with users wants like we saw before with UASF148/segwit2x
That doesn't sound realistic. Information and research is a free flow of information and who is a researcher, developer or economic user is full of blurry lines.
Roles are fluid and information flows freely.
Consensus is always formed by all the parties, especially economic market discovery.
Different questions will be discussed at each level. I won't participate in the decision of how to implement a specific feature or where to put it in the codebase, simply because I don't know the codebase enough and don't really understand the different ways each feature could be implemented.
However, I had an opinion about the decision of changing the block size or not because it affected the bandwidth and storage space I need to run my node. Businesses would probably have other concerns about things that might impact maintenance or downtime linked to an upgrade.
What OP describes is the type of points that will be discussed at each step. We can't talk about how a change will affect us before that change has been precisely defined an it's impact measured.
And that's a very reasonable position of you!
But my argument is that reality is messier, things are going to overlap, there are nuances to many arguments, and the idealized order of proceedings is just idealized.
I don't expect Bitcoin to be anything else than that and I expect the community will have to rise up to even greater challenges. And we won't have a clue.
BIP8 was not UASF. The concept of a UASF never had a generic BIP, but there was a specific BIP for activating Segwit fia UASF: BIP148. If we wanted to create a generic UASF BIP that could be used with any softfork upgrade, we'd need to come up with one.
BIP8 is like BIP9 except miners don't have any more input than anyone else.
Bitmain failing to IPO from getting wrecked on BCH + mistiming the ASIC cycle is a beautiful thing for Bitcoin. They were such a parasitic bad actor on the space. There is a huge list:
- backdooring ASICs
- mining using customer inventory before shipping
- secret ASICs
- covert ASIC boost
- opposing SegWit
- propping up BCash
- offensive patents
- mining empty blocks
- mis-use of version but space
We've finally crossed the ASIC monopoly and now have an emerging competitive market. Bitcoin has won
From what I have heard on Podcasts, governments aren't opposed to the privacy tech.
But then there's the issue with the word "government" it's a lot of different departments that have different ideas and desires.
Eth is a honeypot for ICO scammers, stablecoin schemes, DAOS, and all other sorts of noise. Regulators, scammers, idiots, victims, and such are all busy there, so that takes some of the crap out of the bitcoin ecosystem.
Likewise, Monero is a honeypot for the dunning-kruegerites, amateur privacy nerds, darknet marketeers, forensics firms, spy agencies, and the IRS. It keeps those groups busy and also away from BTC.
Other than the purpose of wasting the time of some bad groups and weak hands, alts serve no purpose and have no future.
Ethereum presents all the qualities that would be desirable for authoritarian governments such as socialist control, centralised seignorage and plutocracy.
It's an easy mark. If Ethereum gains widespread enterprise and government adoption then everything from the previous playbook can be ported from the old world to the new.
Blockchains that have Enterprise Alliances, Diversity initiatives and constant global campaigning are being primed to power the future control system. Make no mistake.
Which is fine. I dig it. Bitcoin will continue to absorb and emerge as the single value transport system that is free from control and influence.
> Ethereum presents all the qualities that would be desirable for authoritarian governments such as socialist control, centralised seignorage and plutocracy.
> It's an easy mark. If Ethereum gains widespread enterprise and government adoption then everything from the previous playbook can be ported from the old world to the new.
> Blockchains that have Enterprise Alliances, Diversity initiatives and constant global campaigning are being primed to power the future control system. Make no mistake.
> Which is fine. I dig it. Bitcoin will continue to absorb and emerge as the single value transport system that is free from control and influence.
Im with you 100%. As soon as Eth forked, the governments and global corps were all over it, particularly with the EEA. They scream "Anti-bitcoin, anti-bitcoin, (Eth reverses a transaction) CHEERS TO ETH!!!" They want something they can track users and manipulate accounts.