Talk:Segwit support - Revision history

Gmaxwell: found another non-deleted tweet.

2017-06-21T05:11:35Z

found another non-deleted tweet.

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:11, 21 June 2017
Line 93:		Line 93:
	== Sleazebag participants ==		== Sleazebag participants ==

	I'm somewhat uncomfortable having my name in a list which includes [https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Segwit_support&diff=63489&oldid=63487 sleezebags] whos only apparent involvement in Bitcoin is tweets [https://twitter.com/movrcx/status/864990114442858496 fake their competence] in order to [https://twitter.com/movrcx/status/867760221820784640 pump] some random Bitcoin unrelated [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1819977.0 altcoin]. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)		I'm somewhat uncomfortable having my name in a list which includes [https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Segwit_support&diff=63489&oldid=63487 sleezebags] whos only apparent involvement in Bitcoin is tweets [https://twitter.com/movrcx/status/864990114442858496 fake their competence] in order to [https://twitter.com/movrcx/status/867760221820784640 pump] some random Bitcoin unrelated [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1819977.0 altcoin] and [https://twitter.com/movrcx/status/870527842789892096 try to convince] other gullible criminals to pay him a million dollars to buy "exploits" against Bitcoin. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

	I'm not sure what all the libel and hostility is about but I am a known and legitimate exploit developer although I do contribute code to various Bitcoin-related projects. A recent one is a contribution to the SegWit2x implementation. https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/35 I would like to have my voting status reinstated. Thanks. --[[User:movrcx\|movrcx]] ([[User talk:movrcx\|talk]]) 00:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)		I'm not sure what all the libel and hostility is about but I am a known and legitimate exploit developer although I do contribute code to various Bitcoin-related projects. A recent one is a contribution to the SegWit2x implementation. https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/35 I would like to have my voting status reinstated. Thanks. --[[User:movrcx\|movrcx]] ([[User talk:movrcx\|talk]]) 00:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Movrcx: /* Sleazebag participants */

2017-06-21T00:52:40Z

Sleazebag participants

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:52, 21 June 2017
Line 94:		Line 94:

	I'm somewhat uncomfortable having my name in a list which includes [https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Segwit_support&diff=63489&oldid=63487 sleezebags] whos only apparent involvement in Bitcoin is tweets [https://twitter.com/movrcx/status/864990114442858496 fake their competence] in order to [https://twitter.com/movrcx/status/867760221820784640 pump] some random Bitcoin unrelated [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1819977.0 altcoin]. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)		I'm somewhat uncomfortable having my name in a list which includes [https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Segwit_support&diff=63489&oldid=63487 sleezebags] whos only apparent involvement in Bitcoin is tweets [https://twitter.com/movrcx/status/864990114442858496 fake their competence] in order to [https://twitter.com/movrcx/status/867760221820784640 pump] some random Bitcoin unrelated [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1819977.0 altcoin]. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

			I'm not sure what all the libel and hostility is about but I am a known and legitimate exploit developer although I do contribute code to various Bitcoin-related projects. A recent one is a contribution to the SegWit2x implementation. https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/35 I would like to have my voting status reinstated. Thanks. --[[User:movrcx\|movrcx]] ([[User talk:movrcx\|talk]]) 00:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Gmaxwell: /* Sleazebag participants */ add some cites, too bad many of the most fun tweets-- trying to sell exploits to attack bitcoin, blatering on about ICO gameplans, etc. have been deleted.

2017-06-20T21:04:57Z

Sleazebag participants: add some cites, too bad many of the most fun tweets-- trying to sell exploits to attack bitcoin, blatering on about ICO gameplans, etc. have been deleted.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:04, 20 June 2017
Line 93:		Line 93:
	== Sleazebag participants ==		== Sleazebag participants ==

	I'm somewhat uncomfortable having my name in a list which includes [https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Segwit_support&diff=63489&oldid=63487 sleezebags] whos only apparent involvement in Bitcoin is ~~dishonest~~ tweets ~~about~~ their competence in order to pump some random Bitcoin unrelated altcoin. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)		I'm somewhat uncomfortable having my name in a list which includes [https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Segwit_support&diff=63489&oldid=63487 sleezebags] whos only apparent involvement in Bitcoin is tweets [https://twitter.com/movrcx/status/864990114442858496 fake their competence] in order to [https://twitter.com/movrcx/status/867760221820784640 pump] some random Bitcoin unrelated [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1819977.0 altcoin]. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Gmaxwell: /* Sleazebag participants */ wiki style external link

2017-06-20T20:48:26Z

Sleazebag participants: wiki style external link

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:48, 20 June 2017
Line 93:		Line 93:
	== Sleazebag participants ==		== Sleazebag participants ==

	I'm somewhat uncomfortable having my name in a list which includes [~~sleezebags](~~https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Segwit_support&diff=63489&oldid=63487) whos only apparent involvement in Bitcoin is dishonest tweets about their competence in order to pump some random Bitcoin unrelated altcoin. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)		I'm somewhat uncomfortable having my name in a list which includes [https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Segwit_support&diff=63489&oldid=63487 sleezebags] whos only apparent involvement in Bitcoin is dishonest tweets about their competence in order to pump some random Bitcoin unrelated altcoin. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Gmaxwell: /* Sleazebag participants */ new section

2017-06-20T20:47:45Z

Sleazebag participants: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:47, 20 June 2017
Line 90:		Line 90:
	:: I see, so one would select "No" for BIP148 if they felt that the community of users was unprepared for SegWit, or felt that the community of users did not want SegWit to be activated for some reason. And someone would disparage BIP 91 if they were against "aggressive" orphaning (where aggressive is determined somewhat arbitrarily).		:: I see, so one would select "No" for BIP148 if they felt that the community of users was unprepared for SegWit, or felt that the community of users did not want SegWit to be activated for some reason. And someone would disparage BIP 91 if they were against "aggressive" orphaning (where aggressive is determined somewhat arbitrarily).
	::--[[User:Psztorc\|Psztorc]] ([[User talk:Psztorc\|talk]]) 02:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)		::--[[User:Psztorc\|Psztorc]] ([[User talk:Psztorc\|talk]]) 02:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

			== Sleazebag participants ==

			I'm somewhat uncomfortable having my name in a list which includes [sleezebags](https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Segwit_support&diff=63489&oldid=63487) whos only apparent involvement in Bitcoin is dishonest tweets about their competence in order to pump some random Bitcoin unrelated altcoin. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Psztorc at 02:08, 17 June 2017

2017-06-17T02:08:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:08, 17 June 2017
Line 87:		Line 87:

	:--[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 20:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)		:--[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 20:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

			:: I see, so one would select "No" for BIP148 if they felt that the community of users was unprepared for SegWit, or felt that the community of users did not want SegWit to be activated for some reason. And someone would disparage BIP 91 if they were against "aggressive" orphaning (where aggressive is determined somewhat arbitrarily).
			::--[[User:Psztorc\|Psztorc]] ([[User talk:Psztorc\|talk]]) 02:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Luke-jr: /* Can't we improve these definitions? */

2017-06-16T20:30:29Z

Can't we improve these definitions?

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:30, 16 June 2017
Line 79:		Line 79:

	Sincerely, psztorc		Sincerely, psztorc

			:"Community support" means from the entire community of users - not necessarily unanimous in the case of softforks (and it is up to each entity to decide what level of support they require for this, and when it has been met). Miners may also be users, but merely mining does not give a say in protocol changes.

			:BIP 141 and BIP 91 vary in the same way that BIP 148 and BIP 149 vary: they are different methods of deployment. Being okay with BIP 141 does not necessarily imply being okay with BIP 91.

			:Multiple "Prefer" makes sense, so long as the preferences are compatible with each other (both can be done together).

			:--[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 20:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Psztorc: /* Can't we improve these definitions? */

2017-06-16T20:10:24Z

Can't we improve these definitions?

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:10, 16 June 2017
Line 57:		Line 57:
	First, let me start with the "community support" part.		First, let me start with the "community support" part.

	What is included, in "community"? Clearly it ~~deliberate~~ excludes miners... (how else could there be an apples-to-apples comparison, on "community support", between BIP 148 and BIP 141?). Ok, fine, I suppose...given that we can already measure miner support using the bit signaling. But if it excludes miners, how can there be any difference between the responses for BIP 141 and BIP 91? And yet the responses are very different.		What is included, in "community"? Clearly it deliberately excludes miners... (how else could there be an apples-to-apples comparison, on "community support", between BIP 148 and BIP 141?). Ok, fine, I suppose...given that we can already measure miner support using the bit-signaling, we don't need to measure it again. But if it excludes miners, how can there be any difference between the responses for BIP 141 and BIP 91? And yet the responses are very different.

	Does "community" only refer to "the technical community". In such a case, however, the table would seem to imply some circular reasoning -- how is one to know the community support, before the table is filled out? Surely we can just use the table itself, over the entries in the table...		Does "community" only refer to "the technical community". In such a case, however, the table would seem to imply some circular reasoning -- how is one to know the community support, before the table is filled out? Surely we can just use the table itself, over the entries in the table...
Line 77:		Line 77:
	Unacceptable = I do not support this (and would not, unless core central aspects of it were changed).		Unacceptable = I do not support this (and would not, unless core central aspects of it were changed).
	LOL = This is unacceptable, and anyone who feels it is acceptable should be ashamed.		LOL = This is unacceptable, and anyone who feels it is acceptable should be ashamed.

			Sincerely, psztorc

Psztorc: /* Can't we improve these definitions? */ new section

2017-06-16T20:08:46Z

Can't we improve these definitions?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:08, 16 June 2017
Line 51:		Line 51:

	\|}		\|}

			== Can't we improve these definitions? ==


			First, let me start with the "community support" part.

			What is included, in "community"? Clearly it deliberate excludes miners... (how else could there be an apples-to-apples comparison, on "community support", between BIP 148 and BIP 141?). Ok, fine, I suppose...given that we can already measure miner support using the bit signaling. But if it excludes miners, how can there be any difference between the responses for BIP 141 and BIP 91? And yet the responses are very different.

			Does "community" only refer to "the technical community". In such a case, however, the table would seem to imply some circular reasoning -- how is one to know the community support, before the table is filled out? Surely we can just use the table itself, over the entries in the table...

			And what does a "No", even mean, given that the respondent "might or might not go along with it with sufficient community support". This would imply the 'community support' is powerful enough to override any individual's preferences...making their response logically equivalent to the traditional meaning of the word "Acceptable", I think.

			If "community" refers to businesses, we should just have them report in the table below. Why would an expert developer necessarily know anything about what a business supports?

			Second, many people are answering "Prefer" for more than one column. That doesn't make sense...

			In general, I feel that the table would have more legitimacy if some of this crazy were removed. I don't know how to fix it all, but a simple thing would be to add new categories, and hope that people switch to those.

			Specifically, I would keep "Evaluating", and then impose an ordered series "Prefer > Endorse > Acceptable > Needs Revision > Unacceptable > LOL" ; ...where you can only promote one of your Endorse to Prefer (and you can only demote one of your Unacceptable to LOL).

			Prefer = Is my personal favorite / what I would do as dictator.
			Endorse = I support this, and like it.
			Acceptable = I will support this, even though I don't like it.
			Needs Revision = I would support it if a few peripheral details were changed.
			Unacceptable = I do not support this (and would not, unless core central aspects of it were changed).
			LOL = This is unacceptable, and anyone who feels it is acceptable should be ashamed.

Flix: /* company list */

2017-06-15T12:07:57Z

company list

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:07, 15 June 2017
Line 25:		Line 25:
	! [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki BIP 141] !! [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki BIP 148] !! [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0149.mediawiki BIP 149] !! [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawiki BIP 91] \|\| Segwit2x \|\| [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014445.html COOP]		! [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki BIP 141] !! [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki BIP 148] !! [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0149.mediawiki BIP 149] !! [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawiki BIP 91] \|\| Segwit2x \|\| [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014445.html COOP]
	\|-		\|-
	\| Bitfury \|\| miner \|\| {{Prefer}} \|\| {{Acceptable}} \|\| \|\| \|\| {{AccJuly}} \|\|		\| Bitfury \|\| miner \|\| {{Prefer}}[https://coin.dance/poli] \|\| {{Acceptable}} \|\| \|\| \|\| {{AccJuly}} \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| Bitsquare \|\| exchange \|\| {{Prefer}} \|\| {{Prefer}}[https://forum.bitsquare.io/t/bitsquare-will-support-uasf-bitcoin-not-bitmaincoin/2265] \|\| \|\| \|\| \|\| \|\|		\| Bitsquare \|\| exchange \|\| {{Prefer}} \|\| {{Prefer}}[https://forum.bitsquare.io/t/bitsquare-will-support-uasf-bitcoin-not-bitmaincoin/2265] \|\| \|\| \|\| \|\| \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| Coinbase \|\| wallet \|\| {{Prefer}} \|\| {{Evaluating}} \|\| {{Weak}} \|\| \|\| {{AccJuly}}[https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77] \|\|		\| Coinbase \|\| wallet \|\| {{Prefer}}[https://coin.dance/poli] \|\| {{Evaluating}} \|\| {{Weak}} \|\| \|\| {{AccJuly}}[https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77] \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| Xapo \|\| wallet \|\| {{Prefer}} \|\| {{Evaluating}} \|\| \|\| \|\| {{AccJuly}}[https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77] \|\|		\| Xapo \|\| wallet \|\| {{Prefer}}[https://coin.dance/poli] \|\| {{Evaluating}} \|\| \|\| \|\| {{AccJuly}}[https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77] \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| Blockchain.info \|\| wallet \|\| {{Prefer}} \|\| {{Evaluating}} \|\| {{Weak}} \|\| \|\| {{AccJuly}}[https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77] \|\|		\| Blockchain.info \|\| wallet \|\| {{Prefer}} \|\| {{Evaluating}} \|\| {{Weak}} \|\| \|\| {{AccJuly}}[https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77] \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| Kraken \|\| exchange \|\| {{Prefer}} \|\| {{Acceptable}} \|\| \|\| \|\| {{AccJuly}}[https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77] \|\|		\| Kraken \|\| exchange \|\| {{Prefer}}[https://coin.dance/poli] \|\| {{Acceptable}} \|\| \|\| \|\| {{AccJuly}}[https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77] \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| Bitstamp\|\| exchange \|\| {{Prefer}} \|\| {{Acceptable}} \|\| \|\| \|\| {{Acceptable}}[https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77] \|\|		\| Bitstamp\|\| exchange \|\| {{Prefer}}[https://coin.dance/poli] \|\| {{Acceptable}} \|\| \|\| \|\| {{Acceptable}}[https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77] \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| Bitfinex\|\| exchange \|\| {{Prefer}} \|\| {{Acceptable}} \|\| \|\| \|\| {{Acceptable}}[https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77] \|\|		\| Bitfinex\|\| exchange \|\| {{Prefer}}[https://coin.dance/poli] \|\| {{Acceptable}} \|\| \|\| \|\| {{Acceptable}}[https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77] \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| Bitpay\|\| wallet \|\| {{Prefer}} \|\| {{No}} \|\| \|\| \|\| {{Prefer}} \|\|		\| Bitpay\|\| wallet \|\| {{Prefer}}[https://coin.dance/poli] \|\| {{No}} \|\| \|\| \|\| {{Prefer}} \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| Localbitcoins\|\| exchange \|\| {{Prefer}} \|\| {{Acceptable}} \|\| {{Weak}} \|\| \|\| {{AccJuly}} \|\|		\| Localbitcoins\|\| exchange \|\| {{Prefer}}[https://coin.dance/poli] \|\| {{Acceptable}} \|\| {{Weak}} \|\| \|\| {{AccJuly}} \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| Poloniex\|\| exchange \|\| {{Prefer}} \|\| {{Wanting}} \|\| \|\| \|\| {{AccJuly}} \|\|		\| Poloniex\|\| exchange \|\| {{Prefer}}[https://coin.dance/poli] \|\| {{Wanting}} \|\| \|\| \|\| {{AccJuly}} \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| Bitmain\|\| miner \|\| {{No}} \|\| {{No}} \|\| \|\| \|\| {{Prefer}} \|\|		\| Bitmain\|\| miner \|\| {{No}} \|\| {{No}} \|\| \|\| \|\| {{Prefer}} \|\|