5 ms·

No it didn't. It had 80-95% consensus among miners, maybe, but that's not the same.

Dylan16807 9y ago
There's a little room for difference, but if something stays at 95% of miner support then everyone else is almost certainly going to be dragged along for the ride.
- jstanley 9y ago
  I think the opposite is true: if 95% of the community wants to use something, miners will be dragged along as mining anything else would be unprofitable.
  - biafra 9y ago
    There is no way to determine what 95% of the community want for the future of Bitcoin. There is no community voting in Bitcoin. Only miner signalling. People can stop using Bitcoin after a change but there is no way to get their opinion in advance.
    - exit 9y ago
      > There is no community voting in Bitcoin. Only miner signalling. no, there is the open market. 2x futures traded well below btc's value.
- exit 9y ago
  there seems to be a lot of room for difference, since the segwit2x cancellation notice explicit states that consensus was weak (certainly not 95%): from https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000685.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x... : "Unfortunately, it is clear that we have not built sufficient consensus for a clean blocksize upgrade at this time."
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    That comment is more about a theoretical scenario that actually has solid consensus. The real problem with segwit2x is that the consensus was dropping and was trending toward a very weak level. It had strong consensus for long enough to do a switchover, as far as I understand, but it didn't take the opportunity and then people eventually started to change their minds.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  Not at all. Miners choose to mine the cryptocurrency that is most popular; they don't choose which cryptocurrency will be the most popular. They are at the end of the chain of causation. Hashpower follows price. If 95% of miners wanted something, but nobody else did, then every single block they mined would be ignored as invalid by the rest of the users in the ecosystem. They'd be foregoing huge profits by the minute, and inevitably would start defecting in ever-increasing numbers. The only way a hard-fork ever has a prayer of taking over the main chain is if it gets implemented in the most popular software programs used on the network (e.g. Bitcoin Core). This is what killed Segwit2X, despite seemingly having massive miner support. Note that the miners immediately capitulated; such easy capitulation does not lend much weight to the importance of the 90% figure. They're full of hot air.

There's a little room for difference, but if something stays at 95% of miner support then everyone else is almost certainly going to be dragged along for the ride.

jstanley 9y ago
I think the opposite is true: if 95% of the community wants to use something, miners will be dragged along as mining anything else would be unprofitable.
- biafra 9y ago
  There is no way to determine what 95% of the community want for the future of Bitcoin. There is no community voting in Bitcoin. Only miner signalling. People can stop using Bitcoin after a change but there is no way to get their opinion in advance.
  - exit 9y ago
    > There is no community voting in Bitcoin. Only miner signalling. no, there is the open market. 2x futures traded well below btc's value.
exit 9y ago
there seems to be a lot of room for difference, since the segwit2x cancellation notice explicit states that consensus was weak (certainly not 95%): from https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000685.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x... : "Unfortunately, it is clear that we have not built sufficient consensus for a clean blocksize upgrade at this time."
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  That comment is more about a theoretical scenario that actually has solid consensus. The real problem with segwit2x is that the consensus was dropping and was trending toward a very weak level. It had strong consensus for long enough to do a switchover, as far as I understand, but it didn't take the opportunity and then people eventually started to change their minds.
CydeWeys 9y ago
Not at all. Miners choose to mine the cryptocurrency that is most popular; they don't choose which cryptocurrency will be the most popular. They are at the end of the chain of causation. Hashpower follows price. If 95% of miners wanted something, but nobody else did, then every single block they mined would be ignored as invalid by the rest of the users in the ecosystem. They'd be foregoing huge profits by the minute, and inevitably would start defecting in ever-increasing numbers. The only way a hard-fork ever has a prayer of taking over the main chain is if it gets implemented in the most popular software programs used on the network (e.g. Bitcoin Core). This is what killed Segwit2X, despite seemingly having massive miner support. Note that the miners immediately capitulated; such easy capitulation does not lend much weight to the importance of the 90% figure. They're full of hot air.