SegWit = Space travel door ways
-
This as well doesn’t factor in the cash society in india and china with is trillions of dollars that are expressed interest in a new form of currency.
Registered statistical numbers should create a thorough understanding of what is coming. Factor in “off book” numbers = the same or greater then recorded… thats just craziness. -
If we want to get SegWit implemented in time, not like v0.11 which took almost 2 years and not ready still, we need a team to work on this and some financial backing. People can do some work for free, but they are reluctant to spend a lot of time without motivation.
-
only reason to add SegWit to ftc would be to hop on (and ftc is already late too the party) the SegWit excuse for a pump.
99.9% of people pumpin the SegWit line have no idea what SegWit even is.
-
@kelsey said in SegWit = Space travel door ways:
only reason to add SegWit to ftc would be to hop on (and ftc is already late too the party) the SegWit excuse for a pump.
99.9% of people pumpin the SegWit line have no idea what SegWit even is.
Agreed. there’s a lot of people who call them selves “traders” or people who are involved with CryptoCurrencies and they don’t even understand the basics.
-
@kelsey said in SegWit = Space travel door ways:
99.9% of people pumpin the SegWit line have no idea what SegWit even is.
@kelsey +1 :)
BTW I have read description maybe 3 times but not sure that I understand correctly. I personally see no reason to have SegWit ar FTC, but this could be just because I am dummy :P
And it is too late for sure. And even more - nobody knows how will be with BTC… Most probably useless upgrade despite bug corrections. -
@Ghostlander On why development has took a step back from 0.11.
The reason we held back 0.11 was to fix the issues and documentation and tests with 0.9.6 first. Partly also on members advice that the major functionality improvement in 0.11 was not needed urgently in FTC (we already have an under used, fast coin).
We have also been working on other stuff like fixing the problem of having no “secure binaries” moving to a new forum and web site, helping new contributers get up to speed.
Auto build service and a more secure way of deploying binaries being the urgent consideration.
If we so wish, we now can bypass 0.11 and move straight to head and auto build FTC as each new patch to Bitcoin comes out.
By being at head we can stop repeating the work Forking and keep up to date from then on.
We can have a policy, say accept all stable Bitcoin patches, unless there is some objections and a maintainability study. This means we recognize we stand on the work of Bitcoin and are not relying on rockstar programming to gain new features.
Whereas, FTC contributers have a lot of experience with builds, releases, forks, bug fixing … and other areas of course. Also, a number of members have started contributing by sharing their knowledge on. So I do see the require infrastructure for Feathercoin is maintainable. A few more technical contributers and we could even speed up.
However, a lot of work has been done on Feathercoin-qt wallet v0.11, FTC 0.9.6 fixes / commits can be moved over to there, that haven’t already by @Lizhi. That is why it 0.11 needs testing, to check all FTC features are working and included.
There doesn’t seem to be any major issue in moving to 0.11 after testing / documentation etc.
The work of of testing 0.11 can be used to document all the FTC code changes and settings, to document and facilitate a smooth and public, change over to Bitcoin head.
We have got it to a stage where it does not require a huge programming effort, if we have a public documented set of commits, which change the Bitcoin code to Feathercoin.
-
@tmetaphysical said in SegWit = Space travel door ways:
My vision for FTC:
The Global leader in digital assets management/transactions, periodDon’t get me wrong please, this enthusiasm is terrific and I’m with you in supporting this coin enthusiastically, but I don’t think this is a realistic vision. FTC’s goal should be to maintain relevance within the pack- it’s never going to be coin #1. Never. This is my favourite coin, but no way its going there.
That said. FTCs relevance to the pack has been its profitability to small scale miners. When mass adoption of cryptos happens, that will be an incredible place to be.
I also worry about unforeseen risks with segwit too. It’s a more complicated code. Lets wait and see if LTC, VTC and such have any problems they didn’t expect.
Also. I understand the value of fixing transaction malleability, but is that a relevant problem here and now? Its not causing security issues at this point, the network is secure correct?
Suppose BTC never adopts segwit, but 2 years from now adopts/invents something better. Then what? FTC drops segwit to adopt the new thing instead? Sounds like a mess!
-
This coin’s market cap is 5 million. There is a billion dollar club of coins forming- a moderate move up in the pack would be huge for us all. Lets work at making FTC the #1 choice for small miners, a reasonable goal. That way as that billion dollar club expands, maybe in a few years FTC will be a member. That should be the long term goal i think and segwit doesn’t seem to serve that.
-
Just throwing this out there, sorry way beyond my know how… What is the chances FTC devs could create a version of segwit that fixes malleability problem, but is simplified and doesn’t do the scaling things that aren’t needed?
-
It is quite credible that FTC will need to adjust the parameters for Seg-wit, to be in line with FTC block times , or other settings … For instance, Bitcoin suggest a block size (for 10mins) we may require to change that to 1/10, because we do 10 blocks in 10 mins, etc etc …
But these are all the customizations the “Devs” need to do, i.e. chores, which absolutely necessary to make the forked, Bitcoin designed features, work with FTC settings. The process is needed to have, at least someone, a guide or references, so anyone researching can understand these features as well.
One draw back is, it was @Lizhi who has done a lot of research in this area, Seg-Wit, but wasn’t bringing along support, or producing the full package of documentation and finish, releasing unofficial and buggy binaries, that has slowed us down. From my comms @Lizhi isn’t available to do the high quantity of code (has was paid for), would continue to assist and advice and run his Chinese FTC site.
Certainly his mining of v4 database compatible blocks has caused us issues, which we have a backlog to fix to get back to square one, so his work is accepted, and he is still an Admin on FTC Github, everyone must comply with a release procedure and @Wellenreiter is overseeing that. It’s a minimum requirement of being involved in a (community) software project, even admins or rockstar programmers, follow some sensible guidelines.
