nvk [6:33 AM]

Let me know folks, I'm curious https://twitter.com/nvk/status/847441005661925379

Rodolfo Novak @nvk

Do you think it's time for #Bitcoin Core to make an official release with UASF to activate #SegWit?

TwitterMarch 30th at 6:30 AM

[6:33]

There is a poll in there

Quentin LS [6:34 AM]

No

Letkor Nigusta [6:35 AM]

set the channel topic: User Activated Soft Fork - Discussion, Reviews, Comments, Emojis :) .

Quentin LS [6:35 AM]

Bitcoin Core should not exposed themselves until we have an economic majority agreement.

nvk [6:38 AM]

that's a fair point, but I think we already have the economic majority.

Quentin LS [6:42 AM]

I think we should wait for an announcement from major exchanges. In the mean time we can keep signalling BIP148. If BIP148 fails, Core will not go down with it. (edited)

nvk [6:56 AM]

Maybe they are just waiting for users to voice their opinion :wink:

Quentin LS [6:57 AM]

I hope

[6:57]

have you seen the poll from 21.co ?

mkwia [7:39 AM]

Where can I see it?

Alphonse Pace [7:45 AM]

just some random assortment of shitcoin developers?

Quentin LS [7:49 AM]

@alp shitcoin dev ?

[7:49]

https://medium.com/@21/using-21-to-survey-blockchain-personalities-on-the-bitcoin-hard-fork-1953c9bcb8ed (edited)

Alphonse Pace [7:49 AM]

yeah, its unclear who was surveyed, but the one part about holding zcash and ethereum seemed like it was a bunch of shitcoiners

[7:50]

37% hold zcash?

[7:50]

gtfo

Quentin LS [7:50 AM]

I thought it was all the guys listed here

[7:50]

https://21.co/blockchain/ (edited)

Alphonse Pace [7:51 AM]

thos eare all the people who you can pay to contact, and i doubt all responded

mkwia [8:13 AM]

We need more reviews of UASF code.

[8:14]

Plain and simple

Alphonse Pace [8:15 AM]

no one is going to put effort in reviewing if community is not behind the concept

mkwia [8:15 AM]

the community won't get behind the concept until the code is reviewed

Alphonse Pace [8:15 AM]

thats silly

[8:15]

concept doesnt need code

mkwia [8:15 AM]

Fair point.

Alphonse Pace [8:15 AM]

and businesses wont understand the code anyway

mkwia [8:17 AM]

But look at what people are saying

[8:17]

When and how to get UASF to economic majority

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/62ddb6/when_and_how_to_get_uasf_to_economic_majority/

reddit

When and how to get UASF to economic majority • r/Bitcoin

The following is unlikely to happen, but if Bitcoin Core merged the UASF to the next version of core, even with a user selectable option to...

[8:18]

If core can't really just add UASF on their own, perhaps with a signed open letter by the economic majority asking for it, they can then add it?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/62doh7/if_core_cant_really_just_add_uasf_on_their_own/

reddit

If core can't really just add UASF on their own, perhaps with a signed open letter by the economic majority asking for it, they can then add it? • r/Bitcoin

11 points and 4 comments so far on reddit

Yoghurt [8:18 AM]

frankly I wouldn't put any money on core merging a UASF soft fork with an activation date of august

mkwia [8:18 AM]

Most people are saying they are behind the concept; want backing from "smart guys" (edited)

cdelargy [8:18 AM]

i don't want core to do it. users should do it.

mkwia [8:19 AM]

Also what @cdelargy said

cdelargy [8:19 AM]

if anybody needs help, they should be able to find user help. if not, we'll fail

Yoghurt [8:20 AM]

I as a user don't wanna do it either with an activation date of august, summer '18 more like

Hampus Sjöberg [8:20 AM]

Core can release a signed binary without endorsing it

Yoghurt [8:20 AM]

october was stretching it already

Hampus Sjöberg [8:20 AM]

I rather not download any binary outside from Core's repo

[8:20]

And many others probably think the same

mkwia [8:20 AM]

I could release binaries right now, people don't want that. People want them from someone legit.

cdelargy [8:20 AM]

core moved to BIP9 soft forks

Alphonse Pace [8:20 AM]

yoghurt: BIP148 has a fundamentally different incentive structure and goal than other UASF forks.

Hampus Sjöberg [8:21 AM]

> I could release binaries right now, people don't want that. People want them from someone legit.

Yes that is my point

Yoghurt [8:21 AM]

@alp miners have the same activation incentive

cdelargy [8:22 AM]

demanding a core signed binary for something that doesn't do anything other than the existing core binaries for many months = virtue signaling with no commitment

Alphonse Pace [8:22 AM]

yes, they do.

Hampus Sjöberg [8:22 AM]

If Segwit isn't deployed by november, millions of dollars worth of dev work are lost.

cdelargy [8:22 AM]

not lost- delayed

Yoghurt [8:22 AM]

@alp the upside of BIP148 is that _if_ it works, _then_ it will be a grand success because its effects will be amplified through BIP9 segwit users, but the initial _if_ is the same for any UASF

Hampus Sjöberg [8:22 AM]

It would require all 80% of segwit nodes to upgrade once again. I don't think we have another shot at this

Martijn Meijering [8:23 AM]

people upgrade regularly

cdelargy [8:23 AM]

delays happen in software. _especially_ when they require coordination.

Hampus Sjöberg [8:23 AM]

> the upside of BIP148 is that _if_ it works, _then_ it will be a grand success because its effects will be amplified through BIP9 segwit users, but the initial _if_ is the same for any UASF

Agreed! It would be a clear statement that miners don't have all power in the network

[8:24]

> delays happen in software. _especially_ when they require coordination.

This isn't just normal software though. It's a network and a protocol (edited)

mkwia [8:25 AM]

Should I just make a PR to bitcoin/bitcoin with user toggleable BIP148 code?

Hampus Sjöberg [8:25 AM]

Yes I plan to do that

[8:25]

But I think we should wait and review our code and decisions first

Quentin LS [8:26 AM]

I don’t think Core should endorse this at all for the moment

Hampus Sjöberg [8:26 AM]

It would also be good to see some kind of support from exchanges before we try something like that

mkwia [8:26 AM]

The code is solid right now. The BIP is not likely to change anymore.

[8:26]

August is soon...

cdelargy [8:26 AM]

core is already BIP148 compatible if >50% of miners follow

Hampus Sjöberg [8:27 AM]

The moving to august decision did not receive agreement among all UASF segwit-supporters. Me personally see UASF as a last measure, only to be activated should miners not have deployed it earlier

[8:28]

> core is already BIP148 compatible if >50% of miners follow

Indeed

cdelargy [8:28 AM]

What is your objection to the 8/1 date?

[8:28]

BIP148 is specifically segwit-flagday. It requires activation in advance of BIP141 expiration.

Hampus Sjöberg [8:29 AM]

I think it's too early. And as I said, I view UASF as something only to be considered as a last measure.

In other words, I would like UASF to be in the normal BIP9 Segwit release (with activation the absolut last month + some margin)

cdelargy [8:29 AM]

You should read why the date was moved.

Hampus Sjöberg [8:29 AM]

I understand the reasoning

cdelargy [8:29 AM]

The margin is Aug 1.

Hampus Sjöberg [8:30 AM]

It was moved if not 95%+ of the miners would join the segwit chain, which is a mistake in my opinion. UASF should make sure that no miners would be stupid enough to try to "fork off"

[8:30]

brb

cdelargy [8:31 AM]

I don't understand the logic of your last statement.

[8:31]

UASF is ignoring miner consensus in favor of a chain split in <50% miner support condition.

[8:32]

If you don't like that then you want BIP9.

mkwia [8:37 AM]

BTW, most of the UASF nodes are on version 0.2 which is the August activation, not the October activation

Quentin LS [8:57 AM]

@coco I don’t think signed binaries are a priority at all. Also keep in mind, that only a couple of nodes needs to enforce BIP148 (Major exchanges).

Erik Voorhees [9:11 AM]

joined #uasf by invitation from @mrhodl

mrhodl [9:11 AM]

Maybe you can help with progress Erik?

Nic [9:12 AM]

joined #uasf. Also, @meedamian joined, @yr joined.

mkwia [9:18 AM]

@alp is https://github.com/uasfdiscussion/general/blob/faq/FAQ.md finished?

GitHub

uasfdiscussion/general

general - We will see what comes out :)

1 reply 5 days ago View thread

arron [9:50 AM]

joined #uasf

Gregory Sanders [9:51 AM]

A successful UASF requires two tracks: The development of the code that is safest, and getting community support for the idea as a whole. Runnable binaries are after those two finish.

Alphonse Pace [9:52 AM]

I think its as close to finished as its going to be

[9:52]

good enough to merge mkwia

Gregory Sanders [9:52 AM]

Maybe, still discussion ongoing

[9:52]

and community support is still lagging it

[9:52]

so time to tweak

[9:52]

no rush to run binaries..

nvk [10:04 AM]

replied to a thread

mkwia 9:18 AM

@alp is https://github.com/uasfdiscussion/general/blob/faq/FAQ.md finished?

https://bitcoincore.slack.com/archives/C4QBHNJHE/p1490890725301465

1 reply

Rodolfo Novak (nvk) 10:04 AM

mkwia: It's here now http://www.uasf.co/faq/

https://bitcoincore.slack.com/archives/C4QBHNJHE/p1490893458395762?thread_ts=1490890725301465&cid=C4QBHNJHE

Quentin LS [10:06 AM]

Also linked in UASF github

[10:06]

wiki

nvk [10:10 AM]

Sure, open a PR or give me the link

Quentin LS [10:11 AM]

https://github.com/UASF/bitcoin/wiki (edited)

nvk [10:15 AM]

The FAQ was made offline for a few more reviews before pub (edited)

Quentin LS [10:15 AM]

ok

nvk [10:15 AM]

The wiki is emptu

[10:15]

empty

mkwia [10:15 AM]

we have the wiki, uasf.co and uasf.github.io

[10:15]

choose 1

Quentin LS [10:16 AM]

and uasfdiscussion

nvk [10:16 AM]

uasf.co > github.com/opuasf

Eric Lombrozo [10:39 AM]

joined #uasf

Hampus Sjöberg [12:39 PM]

> I don't understand the logic of your last statement.

> UASF is ignoring miner consensus in favor of a chain split in <50% miner support condition.

@cdelargy Miners don't want to lose their income.

In a successful UASF, there would be no split.

> I don’t think signed binaries are a priority at all. Also keep in mind, that only a couple of nodes needs to enforce BIP148 (Major exchanges).

Fair enough.

John Sarf [12:47 PM]

Miners will also have to run BIP 148 compatible software.

Hampus Sjöberg [12:48 PM]

To not be orphaned? Yes

Alphonse Pace [12:48 PM]

running BIP148 compatible software = signalling segwit support, and running BIP148 border node.

Hampus Sjöberg [12:48 PM]

As UASF code mandates segwit signaling

Alphonse Pace [12:48 PM]

not exactly rocket science

John Sarf [1:02 PM]

neither is getting a C++11 compiler running... so I think binaries should be made available at some point

Hampus Sjöberg [1:03 PM]

Which miner had that problem?

John Sarf [1:03 PM]

f2pool, I believe

mkwia [1:05 PM]

What did f2 have issues with?

Hampus Sjöberg [1:05 PM]

Right.. I don't understand how it could be a real problem. IIRC they were using Debian... you should just be able to install the GCC version you need really. Perhaps the version required wasn't available for the specific Debian version? (edited)

aceat64 [1:08 PM]

I don't think miners have to run BIP148 software, they just have to signal for segwit

Peter [1:08 PM]

what if we create a release plan for UASF? Lets say, we plan to release 3 binary versions until 1th august (if nothing comes between)... so people can expect that they are not running the latest code in august, and keep watching the changes? (edited)

aceat64 [1:08 PM]

all UASF is doing is rejecting non-segwit signaling blocks

John Sarf [1:08 PM]

aceat64: and not build on blocks that haven't signalled for it

Hampus Sjöberg [1:08 PM]

> I don't think miners have to run BIP148 software, they just have to signal for segwit

They do, UASF BIP148 requires _all_ blocks to signal for SegWit in the active period (aug-nov) (edited)

Peter [1:08 PM]

instead of just trying to release one single binary

aceat64 [1:09 PM]

@servo ah, good point

Hampus Sjöberg [1:09 PM]

If they do not run BIP148 themselves, a chainsplit will happen

[1:09]

Even for conforming segwit miners

Alphonse Pace [1:11 PM]

they dont have to run BIP148 other than as a border node.

Peter [1:20 PM]

does someone know, on which exchange blocks, which are mined by jihan/viabtc/... are sold?

Alphonse Pace [1:20 PM]

guess you have to watch where the coinbase tx go

Peter [1:21 PM]

yeah probably hard to find out... i mean it would be nice.. we could start a campain to encourage exchanges to not buy bitcoin from jihan miners (edited)

[1:22]

but i think its too easy to obfuscate the origin of bitcoins

doffing81 [1:22 PM]

A UASF may just end up being a testament for the power of decentralization in Bitcoin, compounded if it is wholly user activated (not necessarily supported by Core)?

Hampus Sjöberg [1:22 PM]

> they dont have to run BIP148 other than as a border node.

Yes, perhaps I should've been more clear

[1:23]

> A UASF may just end up being a testament for the power of decentralization in Bitcoin, compounded if it is wholly user activated (not necessarily supported by Core)?

Indeed. I see UASF as a way to show that miners do not have all power

doffing81 [1:24 PM]

I mean, to gain support, it may help to point out the ramifications it has for aspects of the system, which are huge (edited)

Alphonse Pace [1:25 PM]

I think Prediction Markets will be the safest way for the economy to be able to judge safety ahead of time

[1:25]

I'm trying to figure out the best way that can happen.

[1:25]

Bitfinex has something similar for BTU vs. BCC.

[1:25]

Im not sure if that exact approach is best, but it can at least provide some insights

[1:25]

Offer tokens redeemable at some date for sides of a chain split. If BIP148 has no users/blocks on it, or has low value, if you have BIP148 tokens its worth nothing

[1:26]

if BIP148 annhilates any other chain, then the Pre-BIP148 tokens are worthless

Peter [1:26 PM]

uploaded this image: looks like its clear from the economical side

Add Comment

Alphonse Pace [1:27 PM]

who votes in that? businesses?

3 replies Last reply 5 days ago View thread

Alphonse Pace [1:27 PM]

while exchanges and businesses can have some weight, it will come down to what buyers of coins, those that receive and hoard bitcoins want.

mkwia [1:31 PM]

Maybe UASF should be added as a proposal on coin.dance

nvk [1:31 PM]

They verify each vendor/claim with a public link to a statement

Hampus Sjöberg [1:32 PM]

LOL... of topic, but coin.dance/poli shows Schildbachs wallet as Emergent Consensus supporter

[1:32]

I'm pretty sure that's not true

nvk [1:32 PM]

lol, let them know, they fix things

Alphonse Pace [1:32 PM]

they removed support of BU from BitcoinIndia after their :poop: block :disappointed:

nvk [1:34 PM]

I'm too lazy, but this kind of info should be on a open source site.

Hampus Sjöberg [1:34 PM]

@nvk Yes I'm working on fixing it. Reading the source

[1:37]

Well... he actually likes both it seems

mkwia [1:38 PM]

What's the most useful thing i can make for uasf right now?

Yoghurt [1:40 PM]

there needs to be a proper and simple but clear analogy for the decision miners face when users are determined to activate new rules

[1:41]

something non technical joe user understand

mkwia [1:41 PM]

miners are supposed to have a fairly good understanding...

Yoghurt [1:42 PM]

yeah but this is to explain it to joe user

[1:42]

nothing like conveying game theory to joe by explaining it in terms of football :troll:

[1:43]

joe needs to know why miners would have no choice but to comply in the face of an economic supermajority, I doubt joe does atm

mkwia [1:44 PM]

is it correct that as long as there is 1 non-uasfer and 1 non-compliant miner there will be a fork?

Yoghurt [1:46 PM]

yes

Alphonse Pace [1:46 PM]

thats incorrect mkwia

Yoghurt [1:46 PM]

though it is only a sustained fork if the non-compliant miners have majority hashrate

Alphonse Pace [1:47 PM]

because the majority of hashpower will orphan non-complient miners

Yoghurt [1:47 PM]

still a fork

Alphonse Pace [1:47 PM]

so the miners have the power to stop a chain split pretty easily.

Yoghurt [1:47 PM]

it'll be reorged out, but yeah

Alphonse Pace [1:47 PM]

1 miner creates a block, then it gets orphaned some time later.

[1:47]

then they create another block

[1:47]

and the non-uasf users would see a block, then it would disappear

Yoghurt [1:48 PM]

it's only orphaned for the non-upgraded users, it's invalid / a fork to the UASF users

Alphonse Pace [1:48 PM]

yes

[1:49]

though that kind of behavior happens all the time now too

[1:49]

stale blocks happen

Yoghurt [1:51 PM]

@mkwia it should be noted that the non-upgraded chain is compatible with the UASF chain, but the UASF chain is not compatible with the non-upgraded chain -- meaning, the non-upgraded chain can be reorged into UASF if ever the UASF chain gets more work (majority hashrate), but not the other way around

[1:51]

which, then, means, that miners have a massive incentive to run UASF code because it has no chance of being reorged in case of a sustained split

Alphonse Pace [1:53 PM]

its a HUGE difference between soft forks and hard forks

[1:53]

hard forks have the same vulnerability as staying put in the case of a soft fork

nvk [5:48 PM]

someone just did a lot of leg work https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/62hipj/antifud_the_bip148_enforcing_client_a_walkthrough/

dts [6:10 PM]

joined #uasf

Alphonse Pace [6:28 PM]

anyone in here reasonably studied in game theory?

nvk [8:21 PM]

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/canadian-bitcoiners-fork-this

Motherboard

Canadian Bitcoiners: 'Fork This'

Sixteen Canadian bitcoin companies and traders signed a letter rejecting the Bitcoin Unlimited hard fork. (108KB)

Juan S. Galt [11:23 PM]

joined #uasf

Joonas [11:39 PM]

https://mobile.twitter.com/billbarhydt/status/847665203948822529

Bill Barhydt @billbarhydt

@Technom4ge @bendavenport Count us in!!

TwitterMarch 30th at 9:21 PM

----- March 31st -----

mkwia [12:15 AM]

That was such a good post on reddit.

chek2fire [4:39 AM]

https://twitter.com/bigstoneBTC/status/847763439376187393

Tetsu bigstone Oishi @bigstoneBTC

my $50 small node is mighter than jihan's million dollar ASICs.

run your own full node. participate UASF !

@Excellion https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8PcRrrUAAAUnfJ.jpg

TwitterMarch 31st at 3:52 AM (134KB)

Quentin LS [6:51 AM]

Who is maintaining uasf.co ? You can update your website with UASF Ready businesses.

[6:52]

https://twitter.com/billbarhydt/status/847665203948822529

Bill Barhydt @billbarhydt

@Technom4ge @bendavenport Count us in!!

TwitterMarch 30th at 9:21 PM

mkwia [6:52 AM]

@nvk

brg444 [7:03 AM]

joined #uasf. Also, @mattsantos joined.

Martijn Meijering [10:44 AM]

Ripple is getting payment channels, maybe that's behind the price rise?

[10:44]

good thing Jihan Wu is trying to stop them for Bitcoin

Alphonse Pace [11:34 AM]

ripple has no liquidity so super easy to bump it all up, prob some insider bullshit going on

sambiohazard [11:53 AM]

someone is just going through altcoin list on polo/bittrex

[11:54]

this happens after every pump & dump in bitcoin price, new money wants to try alts & pro alt traders just eat them alive

Henry Brade [12:04 PM]

joined #uasf

Henry Brade [12:04 PM]

I think a list of businesses supporting a SegWit UASF is a good idea.

[12:05]

Seems Abra is in. My company (Prasos) is also in. And Opendime founder is very vocal about it so he is in. Bitfury is in as they're signaling for it. That's for starters. :slightly_smiling_face:

[12:05]

Greenaddress also most certainly in.

Quentin LS [12:16 PM]

Okay I can try work on that this week end. For now we will probably list them on uasf.co or uasf.github.io depending on how reactive is @nvk .

nvk [12:17 PM]

just make a pr on uasf.org, we can draft on the pr and only merge when ready for public

Martijn Meijering [12:17 PM]

Greenaddress is part of Blockstream now

Quentin LS [12:22 PM]

It would be great to have something like coin.dance politics tab where you can see the percentage of company that approve and are ready (edited)

Alphonse Pace [12:23 PM]

I would imagine many companies might want to stay private about it until there is a groundswelling of support.

Henry Brade [12:28 PM]

Perhaps. Then again the support for SegWit is already at such a level that UASF is not a radical leap of faith. It's the logical next move. But yes, some will be ready for publishing right away, some later.

Alphonse Pace [12:29 PM]

its a radical idea for some, but its time people realized their own power

aceat64 [12:31 PM]

I think UASF would be a win for the value of Bitcoin, since it shows that miners have a say, but so do the companies, investors, and users

Alphonse Pace [12:32 PM]

yes, I think worst case scenario for a UASF is still better than status quo

[12:32]

the way to stop a bully isnt to submit, but to punch him in the face

[12:32]

you might get punched back but at least you show you are not an easy target next time

Henry Brade [12:32 PM]

Fully agreed. The current toxicity is poisoning Bitcoin. The 100% sure way out of that is UASF since it will resolve the issue one way or another.

[12:34]

Also the longer there is a stall the more it will solidify the miners power position. They will get ever more arrogant.

[12:34]

The level of arrogance is unbelievable.

[12:35]

Talking about some of the miners as well - there are more humble ones.

Alphonse Pace [12:35 PM]

no one wants to have a difficult conversation with them

Henry Brade [12:41 PM]

Conversation seems quite difficult since the compromises one side asks for are impossible to deliver. There is no way to "make a deal" that includes a HF since it would require everybody to sign the deal. And as long as there is a SF way of doing it instead, it doesn't even make any sense.

Alphonse Pace [12:42 PM]

remember the whole thing is about power not any technical or even feature

[12:42]

so there is nothing to negotiate

Henry Brade [12:42 PM]

Sure, exactly. And that's why UASF is so important.

jarret [12:55 PM]

joined #uasf

Peter [2:16 PM]

do you think we have already enough review to beg core developers to make an in depth rewiew? (edited)

[2:16]

not sure how long we should wait for the next step?

Alphonse Pace [2:17 PM]

the code is pretty simple, I dont think review is any kind of holdup

[2:17]

did you see the guy review it on reddit?

Peter [2:17 PM]

yeah I saw it

[2:18]

i also think we have enough review for the first "release"

[2:18]

in terms of asking if businesses are fine with this current version? (edited)

[2:19]

if we have a fixed release, it's easier to discuss about it seriously with key actors (edited)

[2:21]

btw: anyone knows how long it will take to activate segwit on litecoin? (f2pool is mining segwit blocks on syscoin before, now litecoin and probably bitcoin afterwards) https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/847910867152719873

Charlie Lee @SatoshiLite

F2pool just mined one block signaling for SegWit. It's happening! https://twitter.com/minajati/status/847906465377550336

TwitterMarch 31st at 1:37 PM

(edited)

Quentin LS [2:29 PM]

8064 blocks period which is 14 days

[2:29]

so with a bit of luck it will activate by mid april

Peter [2:31 PM]

but do you know if they can merge mine with bitcoin at the same time? (i mean, can they also mine segwit blocks at the same time or will they just activate segwit first for litecoin and maybe then for bitcoin afterwards)?

Quentin LS [2:32 PM]

Also Luke said it will review BIP148 ("I'm planning to review it, but I'm pretty busy the next few weeks, so it may be a bit.”)

[2:32]

No it will activate for litecoin only

[2:33]

On bitcoin segwit will be roughly 42%

Alphonse Pace [2:34 PM]

Get it to 50%, and interesting things can certainly happen

Quentin LS [2:36 PM]

Still waiting for BTC.com , Hao BTC and BW Pool

Peter [2:38 PM]

why should btc.com activate segwit? Isn't it roger's pool?

Alphonse Pace [2:38 PM]

bitcoin.com is rogers

[2:38]

btc.com is owned by bitmain IIRC

Peter [2:39 PM]

also not better :joy:

Alphonse Pace [2:39 PM]

so many of them, hard to keep track

Quentin LS [2:39 PM]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/where-bitcoin-mining-pools-stand-on-segregated-witness-1480086424/ (edited)

[2:39]

ok

Peter [2:41 PM]

but it's really funny that - even with all these astroturfing on reddit, comics,.. other bs.. - they still have not faked more BU supporting companies at coin.dance

[2:42]

i mean 34 are pro BU, and 40 against it

[2:42]

they really lag behind there in comparison to all their other fake stuff

Peter [11:44 PM]

*f2pool disabled BU support again - but continues to signal SegWit*

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pool/discusfish (edited)

3 replies Last reply 2 days ago View thread

----- April 1st -----

doffing81 [2:01 AM]

Still April 1st

Martijn Meijering [2:03 AM]

Yeah, I'm really curious what will happen tomorrow.

cdelargy [7:13 AM]

bitcoin-dev

[bitcoin-dev] hard-fork "X+Y" compromise discussion re-run

2017/04/01 -- Adam Back via bitcoin-dev

Posted in #mailinglistsApril 1st at 6:25 AM

Gregory Sanders [7:21 AM]

They are mining real commitments apparently

[7:21]

Who knows

Samourai Wallet [1:44 PM]

joined #uasf. Also, @drosen joined.

----- April 2nd -----

Quentin LS [9:38 AM]

Shaolin Fry received the 7btc bounty for BIP 148

[9:38]

F2pool no longer signaling

[9:39]

Let's UASF

Alphonse Pace [9:42 AM]

makes me think f2pool wants to signal but has pressure not to, therefore UASF is good excuse for them to signal

nvk [10:37 AM]

More support, from PayCase now https://twitter.com/josephweinberg/status/848589048209965057

Joseph Weinberg @josephweinberg

@nvk @Coin_Dance how's this for @PaycaseFin support of @bitcoincoreorg ? :relieved: always have & always will (unless Ver becomes a core dev...:thinking_face:)

TwitterApril 2nd at 10:32 AM

Justin Camarena [11:35 AM]

I think they just want to see it activate on litecoin first

[11:35]

which is fair

Peter [1:02 PM]

this whole segwit+2MB hardfork is such a nonsense

[1:02]

people are not able to learn somehow

[1:02]

it's unbelieveable

Alphonse Pace [1:54 PM]

or its intentional stalling to avoid UASF

Peter [1:55 PM]

yeah maybe

Martijn Meijering [1:55 PM]

how would it stall UASF?

Alphonse Pace [1:55 PM]

it definitely is

[1:55]

look at who is pushing it

[1:55]

look at who is paying him

[1:56]

simple

Michel Foucault [2:18 PM]

joined #uasf. Also, @ptcgroup10009 joined.

----- Yesterday April 3rd, 2017 -----

anduck [4:27 AM]

@alp tell us!

piotr [4:51 AM]

joined #uasf

Peter [5:16 AM]

https://twitter.com/desantis/status/848712371652755456

Andrew DeSantis @desantis

"MGT Capital said it appointed Bruce Fenton to the company's Cryptocurrency Advisory Board, effective immediately."

https://www.owler.com/reports/mgt-capital-investments/mgt-capital-investments-appoints-exec-director-of-/1466119555633 https://twitter.com/brucefenton/status/848710870796574725

TwitterApril 2nd at 6:42 PM

Bruce Fenton @brucefenton

What is these are your four choices?

TwitterApril 2nd at 6:36 PM

anduck [6:03 AM]

as i said, @brucefenton has influence

Julien "weedcoder" Guitton [6:09 AM]

joined #uasf

Julien "weedcoder" Guitton [6:10 AM]

just built 0.14.0.uasfsegwit2

[6:10]

https://dropfile.to/s1m7RQ5

[6:10]

for OS X

moli [6:12 AM]

weedcoder which branch did you use?

Julien "weedcoder" Guitton [6:12 AM]

uasfsegwit2

[6:12]

on UASF/bitcoin repo

Quentin LS [6:13 AM]

maybe we can ask for signed binary

Julien "weedcoder" Guitton [6:13 AM]

i can sign it

Quentin LS [6:14 AM]

I mean from a core dev

Julien "weedcoder" Guitton [6:15 AM]

i don't think a core dev will sign.

Quentin LS [6:15 AM]

Incoming update for UASF

[6:15]

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/commit/60d4b512b8ca9d57b479a5ee63c6825415ac0b20#commitcomment-21581456

GitHub

Update BIP148 · bitcoin/bips@60d4b51

Adjust start time to Aug 1st 2017 Fix code sample logic.

Alphonse Pace [6:15 AM]

anduck : Rootstock has BitMain as a major investor.

Julien "weedcoder" Guitton [6:17 AM]

no segnet for uasf148 i guess?

Whale Panda [6:23 AM]

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/848887710462787585

Roger Ver @rogerkver

51% from multiple pools and miners from around the world isn't an attack, it's the longest chain. http://Nodecounter.com

TwitterYesterday at 6:19 AM

anduck [6:23 AM]

loll

transisto [6:27 AM]

Vitalik suggesting replay protection for BU "the idea is to soft-fork some OP_TRUE opcode into OP_CHECK_BLOCKHASH_AT_HEIGHT, which takes two args off the stack, <n> <blockhash>, and confirms that (i) n is less than the current block number, (ii) the hash of block n actually is blockhash.

This could be used for replay protection as follows. Suppose block 500000 is the block where 1MB and BU split, and let H1 he the hash of block 500k on the 1MB chain and H2 be the hash BU side. Then, an exchange that has BTC can send a transaction to a script "OR(AND(CHECKSIG(pubkey1), CHECK_BLOCKHASH_AT_HEIGHT(500k, H1)), AND(CHECKSIG(pubkey2, CHECK_BLOCKHASH_AT_HEIGHT(500k, H2))". From then on, they have BCC accessible only with pubkey1 and BTU accessible only with pubkey2."

Julien "weedcoder" Guitton [6:45 AM]

my fingerprint is 0CF1 BADA 7943 9587 9733 6EF2 6833 831A A0F9 9850

Julien "weedcoder" Guitton

https://dropfile.to/s1m7RQ5

Posted in #uasfYesterday at 6:10 AM

[6:45]

```-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQIcBAABCgAGBQJY4lGhAAoJEGgzgxqg+ZhQ/BgP/2dI0Iv3256uwUVsU1AwTbwe

leYJFuhHKE2YmPIW5/CqmbgJud+dQmDf5me65OVBfnNBvYqBSj3c6RehgVHae82I

xqUdAE/F+O5AKGvt6Dy87mDASKD+PtYvLHADSu71XszkDFz/dl4jMvP2satiWsHy

r/rppKodv63tdotiggZMInHov279o7E9gFepfJjyewNQxWwb4yu20WvY5rmGvY95

EeBdU6GoUhVzIK6km0lS10nOaJLSa+zIeMSoc+7tLIJGNXPuIRYST/SLwuBGfok3

1T68jhPV06fyZitCVJ39yBPuelNWNslwK5UdGqcNNlntg55EToAcOW+nsyiJtMxF

ETSZnezVCoBLclPgMAyGEHudRDx8tIMetqsa+hmNOeAlBw5Ofn2DSP4IH8x77PDL

NiDjsmfsp2G86p96Z/1nbQdmqSF9QZ8qM/crAGB1B/EyphnH8egG1c8yEgXrX32H

udWthEDXtxZoHGHeP5yC/ZUK9m8hqabJkTuWD10pUIXsmhF+IDDov8C+sDrG8cJm

nPj3Tw6/OWhH4hlIDD1TONS/zkGDJ6CSBQ/llD6yNAlge1XLEJzgAx9Syj91S65s

uvHXlrTfhipOnCEH0iLEnVTWiMVBMs8sYfVaEti4bh7O7BXgzLNEeDirBHDls4q3

Q6pjFAtLlNptvhXvE1oE

=/BRW

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

```

[6:46]

0.14.0.uasfsegwit2 for OS X btw

Gregory Sanders [6:53 AM]

@transisto it violates the "once valid always valid" rule, but maybe that's fine for replay protection

Quentin LS [7:28 AM]

@shaolinfry what is your plan for BIP148?

Julien "weedcoder" Guitton [7:31 AM]

@shaolinfry plan for a specific testnet?

nvk [7:32 AM]

You might want to release that on github. N00bs would be safer getting it from there.

Julien "weedcoder" Guitton

my fingerprint is 0CF1 BADA 7943 9587 9733 6EF2 6833 831A A0F9 9850

Posted in #uasfYesterday at 6:45 AM

Quentin LS [7:33 AM]

Not sure how can properly distribute it though

[7:33]

We could link it on the UASF repo (edited)

nvk [7:33 AM]

As a repo release, you can have binaries there.

[7:33]

even on personal forks

Julien "weedcoder" Guitton [7:33 AM]

i could add the file to the release on UASF/bitcoin repo, but i'm not the owner :wink:

Quentin LS [7:34 AM]

I could aks for add the file

[7:34]

however

nvk [7:34 AM]

Since it's your personal key, just put on your personal fork.

Gregory Sanders [7:34 AM]

can someone just compile a Core binary that has "UASF-curious" in version string?

[7:34]

:wink:

nvk [7:34 AM]

noobs don't know how to verify sigs

Quentin LS [7:34 AM]

How can people trust your binary ?

[7:35]

Also it is built with gitian ?

nvk [7:35 AM]

no easy/good way, so better to put it on personal and let people take at face value

[7:37]

regardless make a PR on https://github.com/UASF/bitcoin/releases

GitHub

UASF/bitcoin

bitcoin - Bitcoin Core integration/staging tree

Julien "weedcoder" Guitton [7:39 AM]

i didn't use gitian for this

Quentin LS [7:40 AM]

I can try to create binary with gitian however I am concerned that we will receive a lot of critics from r/btc people for releasing untrusted binaries

nvk [7:40 AM]

yup

Quentin LS [7:41 AM]

IMO UASF repo should stay clean

nvk [7:42 AM]

not my repo... my suggestion is, keep your releases signed and on your own repo.

Quentin LS [7:42 AM]

Okay I have an idea

[7:42]

maybe we can release them on uasf.github.io

[7:42]

Signed by Julien ?

[7:42]

@weedcoder

nvk [7:43 AM]

that's better, a list of links to the originator.

Quentin LS [7:43 AM]

yes

[7:44]

okay before that we also need to know if @shaolinfry will update BIP148 ref implementation (edited)

Julien "weedcoder" Guitton [7:48 AM]

we may open an issue on that github

Quentin LS [8:52 AM]

@alp Can I copy your FAQ on uasf.github.io ?

Alphonse Pace [8:53 AM]

hold up on it for now, there's an effort to review/modify it.

[8:53]

I will let you know when thats done

Quentin LS [8:54 AM]

okay thanks

Julien "weedcoder" Guitton [9:01 AM]

do you consider uasf as a weapon of deterrence?

Quentin LS [9:42 AM]

who ?

[9:46]

I think as soon as BIP148 is reviewed we can deploy binaries.

Alphonse Pace [9:46 AM]

what is rush for binaries?

Quentin LS [9:47 AM]

The only way for a fast adoption is widespread support from the bitcoin users

Alphonse Pace [9:49 AM]

support is different than binaries

[9:49]

no one should run binaries without widespread support first.

Quentin LS [9:50 AM]

How do you measure widespread support?

[9:50]

From the user base

[9:50]

I see it as node count

[9:54]

That’d be great if @shaolinfry could tell us his plans for BIP148

Sponge BobCoin [9:57 AM]

joined #uasf

Gregory Sanders [10:00 AM]

@quentinls if Naive User #2 loads a binary that will fork off without making sure everyone is forking off as well, that's dangerous

[10:01]

Step 1 is getting support, step 2 is people running binaries that execute

Yoghurt [10:02 AM]

also if naive user #2 forks off and the network/economy is on some other activation date, they have just lost a ton of legitimacy because non-attempt #1 by user #2 was ineffective

mkwia [10:33 AM]

>shaolin submits incomplete/broken code

[10:33]

>gets bounty

[10:33]

nice.

Alphonse Pace [10:39 AM]

u mad bro

[10:39]

the value isnt the code, its the method

[10:39]

BIP148 is pretty ingenious

Sponge BobCoin [10:40 AM]

First version is always broken. Even bitcoin was broken in first version. Method is what matters.

Alphonse Pace [10:41 AM]

and the mistake was a very minor error

mkwia [10:43 AM]

i was channelling my inner /r/BTCer

aceat64 [10:43 AM]

at least the code didn't asset(0) from untrusted input

Julien "weedcoder" Guitton [10:43 AM]

shaolinfry deserves those coins.

mkwia [10:43 AM]

yep

Alphonse Pace [10:43 AM]

prob more

Julien "weedcoder" Guitton [10:45 AM]

we should ask @samson to fund a second bounty to have a uatestnet and a full gitian & travis :troll: (edited)

Peter [10:58 AM]

i think it would be good to release some linux binaries first, with no-gui & no-wallet flags.. so nobody can get harmed, because to run this version you have to know what you do (edited)

Alphonse Pace [10:59 AM]

please do not run binaries.

[10:59]

Signal in a ua comment if anything

Peter [11:06 AM]

but don't you think we would get more publicity if there are some binaries out?

mkwia [11:09 AM]

I am unsure why we aren't doing binaries at this point tbh

Alphonse Pace [11:11 AM]

because you dont want to fork yourself off the network

[11:11]

more publicity and people running binaries that fork themselves off hte network is the surest way to get people to lose money and pissed off

Peter [11:16 AM]

not if there are just binary without wallet und gui support?

[11:16]

classify them as "pre testing" binary and still warn other users to not use other binaries.. no problem? (edited)

Quentin LS [11:17 AM]

not sure what the difference is

Alphonse Pace [11:18 AM]

you are assuming people will be smart

[11:18]

there is no benefit to it and only drawbacks

Peter [11:19 AM]

you are right... but without binaries we also get less attention... idk..

[11:19]

when would you take the next step?

[11:19]

or what is the next step :smile:

aceat64 [11:20 AM]

at this point, does BIP148 and associated code have more peer review than EC? :slightly_smiling_face:

mkwia [11:22 AM]

@alp what do you suggest we do now then? (edited)

Alphonse Pace [11:22 AM]

modify your user agent comment to say BIP148, promote BIP148 on social media.

[11:22]

talk to people about BIP148

[11:22]

find concerns

[11:22]

see if they will support it if economy supports it (edited)

Peter [11:23 AM]

yeah but this is not so funny.. i think a lot of people are waiting for binaries, because just changing uacomment feels like bluffing... (edited)

[11:24]

maybe we should just create binaries with a changed version string

[11:24]

but this would also be nonsense, if a lot of people wouldnt switch afterwards to a working binary :confused:

Alphonse Pace [11:27 AM]

no one should run a UASF without support of the economy, its a guaranteed way to lose money/fail

[11:27]

once there is a groundswell of that public support for it, people will be able to commit

Quentin LS [11:29 AM]

I see what you mean @alp, you want economic first and then user adoption (which is not really necessary at that point). But @bitcoinreminder_com see user adoption as a way to start economic adoption.

Alphonse Pace [11:30 AM]

user activated soft forks work like this "I want to support this if enough other people do!" then a lot of people say that. then eveyrone can say "lets do this"

[11:30]

you dont jump to step 3 first.

[11:30]

do not go leroy jenkins on this

Peter [11:31 AM]

yeah i would also prefer to wait for big players to start promoting it

[11:31]

but at the moment its quite silent

[11:31]

we also dont have sooo much time

[11:32]

if we dont want to release binaries, we should maybe think about something different how to promote it

Quentin LS [11:33 AM]

Okay I see @alp but not sure what you think will happens next now if we wait for exchanges to move on.

Peter [11:33 AM]

... its like you show your followers "yeah, this is the best sword ever here, we will win with this sword"... but when the first one wants to touch it, you just say: "nonono, only talk about it".. :smile:

[11:33]

but I get your point @alp

Alphonse Pace [11:33 AM]

bitcoinreminder_com: there is time

Peter [11:33 AM]

just dk how we should continue

Alphonse Pace [11:34 AM]

remember, BIP148 works by not needing the entire ecosystem to updgrade.

mkwia [11:34 AM]

While I see @alp's point I think you've got it backwards

Alphonse Pace [11:34 AM]

so you run code, and if support is not there, you need to remember to uninstall it.

Quentin LS [11:34 AM]

yes

mkwia [11:34 AM]

yes

[11:34]

you commit to something

[11:34]

not bluff

Quentin LS [11:35 AM]

what would be the loss in reality ?

Alphonse Pace [11:35 AM]

exactly, you cannot commit until you are REALLY willing to commit.

[11:35]

running code is the commitment

mkwia [11:36 AM]

how else are you going to demonstrate that we are serious?

Alphonse Pace [11:36 AM]

quentinls: someone creates a block that follows the last valid segwit signalling block (maybe tons of work without it). It pays you but already is double spent. Now you have no bitcoins

[11:36]

mkwia: get a lot of people who are serious

Quentin LS [11:36 AM]

sure @alp there will be a chain split

Alphonse Pace [11:36 AM]

well there likely will be a chain dead end without support, but that will end up with someone just creating a block to try to scam someone.

Quentin LS [11:36 AM]

but if there is no support by July 31 I'm pretty sure everybody will uninstall (edited)

Peter [11:37 AM]

to be honest, my point is also, that I even don't want USAF to be necessary

[11:37]

if we can show enough UASF support before, we may even get segwit activated even before 1th august (edited)

mkwia [11:37 AM]

All I'm saying is we won't get anywhere by waving little flags and hoping at some point we will all jsut agree there is sufficient support

Alphonse Pace [11:37 AM]

quentinls: you think EVERYONE will uninstall? that seems very doubtful

Quentin LS [11:38 AM]

The idea is to pressure exchanges into running BIP148 because a tremendous number of user wants it

Alphonse Pace [11:38 AM]

running UASF code now without support = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hooKVstzbz0

YouTube DBlow2003

Leeroy Jenkins HD (High Quality)

Peter [11:38 AM]

no, at the moment its just building pressure on businesses and miners

[11:38]

nothing more at the moment

[11:39]

maybe we should create a mailing list for all UASF fans

Quentin LS [11:39 AM]

@alp I understand what you mean but I don't see what kind of events might motivate exchanges to activate BIP148 (edited)

Peter [11:39 AM]

and send out a reminder 1-2 weeks before 1th august

Alphonse Pace [11:39 AM]

exchanges want segwit

[11:39]

that is their motivation

[11:40]

im gonna guess most uasf fans arent gonna want their email collected :slightly_smiling_face:

sambiohazard [11:40 AM]

no pressure or coercion needed, just tell them how they get what they want

Quentin LS [11:41 AM]

Exchanges don't want to lose customers. Only way I see is a statement from the top exchanges in the world but that's seems unlikely

Peter [11:41 AM]

@alp free to subscribe... it's not facebook :smile: no peer pressure (edited)

sambiohazard [11:41 AM]

maybe someone can goto upcoming Consensus conference & talk to people

Quentin LS [11:41 AM]

@francispouliot ?

[11:41]

He's going to consensus and in favor of UASF it seems

sambiohazard [11:42 AM]

or yeah ask someone who is going to talk about it

Francis Pouliot [11:42 AM]

I am thinking about doing a presentation on UASF at the Toronto Bitcoin Meetup

[11:42]

I think there are like 500 attendees

mkwia [11:42 AM]

what are you going to say?

sambiohazard [11:42 AM]

this is how you get user support, businesses will then follow

[11:43]

it would be a good place to start, Canada is pretty pro Core/SW

Francis Pouliot [11:43 AM]

I'm interested in writing some articles on Bitcoin's consensus model (e.g. role of miners, nodes, users, game theory, etc.) and frame in a more "academic" style

[11:44]

I would talk about UASF as a decentralized governence process for blockchains

mkwia [11:45 AM]

TBH, I wouldn't want to see UASFs too often

Francis Pouliot [11:45 AM]

There is a lot of misinformation about UASF right now too. People have a hard time wrapping their heads around how it will play out.

mkwia [11:45 AM]

it would indicate tension and disagreement

sambiohazard [11:46 AM]

it would be nice if we can get a video of your talk, easy way to educate people about UASF

Francis Pouliot [11:46 AM]

What UASF needs is to have more research, debate and brainpower

sambiohazard [11:47 AM]

i see meetup & conferences as best way to get support for a user driven system

Francis Pouliot [11:47 AM]

I'm not particularly in a rush to go promote UASF adoption to economic nodes, not until there is more public knowledge and understanding

sambiohazard [11:47 AM]

from the ground up, city by city, meetup by meetup

Francis Pouliot [11:48 AM]

the grassroots effort still needs some effort for it to really take off, and then if it does take off efforts can be focused on convincing the larger players

sambiohazard [11:48 AM]

totally agree

Michail Alexandrowitch [1:28 PM]

hmmm, what if core would release bitcoin14.1 in 2 versions, one with uasf integrated one without...That way you have the relative code security for the user and the free choice...

Alphonse Pace [1:29 PM]

either the economy is behind this or not.

[1:29]

its pretty binary

[1:29]

there either needs to be decisiveness (edited)

newliberty [2:41 PM]

joined #uasf. Also, @laurens55 joined, @spyrod joined.

aceat64 [2:58 PM]

I've been to two bitcoin meetups in my area, no one even knew what the two sides were just "dunno, something about a debate on blocks"

Yoghurt [3:02 PM]

:open_mouth: crikey

aceat64 [3:04 PM]

to be fair, the last one was ~4 people and they were all newbies

[3:05]

(and I think 2 of them were going to try pushing some MLM bullshit)

Alphonse Pace [3:05 PM]

yeah most meetups ive seen are just people who dont have anything better to do and scammers

chek2fire [3:19 PM]

@alp i was play warhammer online back then :stuck_out_tongue:

[3:19]

we had the best team in the server :stuck_out_tongue:

Thomas Kerin [3:38 PM]

joined #uasf

Thomas Kerin [3:38 PM]

where do I get my hat?

cagoda [3:40 PM]