2016-12-15 11:30:24 Johnson_Lau:
I agree with all what Matt's say. This is the way I put it: a) In any softforks (not just segwit), it is very important for non-mining nodes to upgrade. After the softfork is activated, any miners trying to reverse it are just mining invalid blocks; b) A basic assumption of bitcoin security is at least 51% of miners are not malicious. Segwit requires 95% of miners to support. Any attempts to reverse it after activation is no different from other types of 51% attack; c) the P2SH softfork in 2012 was very similar to segwit in terms of adding rules to some anyone-can-spend scripts. It did really well in the past 4 years; d) we have much more experience in doing soft-forks than hard-forks, and that has been proven to be safe for introducing new features to bitcoin.
2016-12-14 16:01:49 Matt_Corralo:
Forks in Bitcoin are not forks unless users (and, hence, nodes) have upgraded. Before SegWit was released, we contacted nearly every western Bitcoin company, and while some didn't respond, not a single group responded indicating they would not run SegWit. Further, while nodes often misrepresent what real users are running, the fact that so many nodes have upgraded to 0.13.1 is a good sign that at least some users have upgraded. Given this, no, any such blocks after SegWit activates will be invalid, and treated no differenlty from any other blocks which do not meet the consensus rules of the nodes users are running - ie they will be completely ignored and only the valid chain will be used.
2016-12-15 11:28:47 Johnson_Lau:
I assume question 2 is just question 1. Although you asked me not to say "it's impossible" but that's really impossible. Since segwit requires 95% of miners to support, any minority hashing power (5%) failing to upgrade will get their blocks orphaned (if they are mining invalid segwit blocks). Such forks will repeatedly got orphaned and will be totally unusable. If some users do insist to use a version without segwit, they have to explicitly blacklist one of the segwit blocks, and decide to follow the chain with only 5% hashing power. If they are doing this, they are just creating their own alt-coin and anyone could create an alt-coin any time.
2016-12-14 16:02:15 Matt_Corralo:
As I mentioned in my previous answer, this seems highly unlikely. While there are certainly people who disagree with SegWit for political reasons, there is almost no one who would refuse to use a Bitcoin where SegWit was active. That said, I think avoiding community division is critical to Bitcoin's success. Hard forks inherintly have massive risk of community splits, and this is why work like Johnson's focuses on better hard forkr technology to avoid such splits.
2016-12-14 16:03:03 Matt_Corralo:
a. I'm not aware of any real possible bugs reported on reddit. Segwit has been tested on 5 test networks and multiple simulation frameworks. SegWit has been in development for more than a year and had testing and review from a number of Bitcoin Core contributors who have been building the Bitcoin protocol since 2011 or earlier. SegWit has also been re-implememented by two other projects (btcd and BCoin).
我还没发现Reddit上所提的任何可能真实发生的bugs。隔离见证曾历经5个测试网络和多种模拟架构的测试。而且历经一年多的发展，曾从2011年甚至更早致力于比特币协议创建的大量的比特币核心开发人员们，也对其进行了测试和审阅。而在另外两个其他项目（btcd和BCoin)中，隔离见证也再次被实施。
It is never possible to ensure software is entirely bug-free, but the level of testing of SegWit is incredibly impressive, and of course developers have plans or have already worked to address any possible bug that may be discovered later.
谁也不可能保证软件完全没有Bug，但是对隔离见证进行测试力度也是非常惊人的。当然，对于后续可能发现的任何可能的bug, 开发者已经制定了计划并已经着手应对措施。
b. Core does not get to decide on any forks. The community decides what software they use to enforce consensus rules. Several Core contributors continue to work on safe hard forks which prevent splitting of the community (see recent proposals by Johnson Lau and Luke-Jr)
Core对任何分叉不做决定。是由社区来来决定应用什么软件程序执行共识规则。Core的一些开发者还在继续研究安全的硬分叉方案，以便避免社区分裂（见Johnson Lau 和Luke-Jr的最近的提案）
c. Bitcoin development is highly decentralized. At least 4 companies fund full-time Bitcoin Core contributors. There are also many, many contributors who are not full-time who work for many different companies.
比特币的发展是高度去中心化的。至少有4个公司在为全职Bitcoin Core开发者提供资金支持。而且还有很多，很多来自很多不同公司的兼职开发者也在一直在付出努力。
2016-12-15 11:32:36 Johnson_Lau:
saying something "might have bugs" is basically a tautology. If that is about question 1 and 2 then I have responded. If this is about some totally unknown bug then there is no way to answer specifically. The first version of segwit was created in mid-2015, and the current version of segwit has mostly not been changed since March 2016. We created 4 special testnets for segwit, and it has been running on the normal testnet for about 6 months already. It is also reviewed by other developers who were independent from bitcoin core. We didn't find any bugs that'd cause users losing money
2016-12-14 16:04:55 Matt_Corralo:
(since they're partially the same question). Remember that lightning can be implemented without SegWit (and that while 4 or 5 companies are currently working on lightning implementations, it is entirely separate from Bitcoin Core). SegWit is only an easier way to do it and carries lots of features to bring new uses to Bitcoin, including a doubling of the block size. As for what happens next, that is up to the community. SegWit was a set of features, including a block size increase, which the community asked for, not something invented only by Core contributors. The community clearly needs better communication between the west and the east. It is up to the western companies and users who almost all support SegWit to communicate better with the eastern community and decide what Bitcoin should do.
2016-12-15 11:35:21 Johnson_Lau:
I'm just speaking for myself. Miners are mining for profit (and they should be). We learnt that from ETH/ETC. They will try to optimize their short and long-term profit. My worry is there seems to be a disconnection between the Western and Chinese community, in terms of the views towards different proposals. // If segwit were not activated, there are still other methods to make things like LN and sidechain to happen, just much less efficient.
2016-12-15 11:34:42 Johnson_Lau:
anyone should make their own decision by really looking at different proposals, and make sure any proposal they adopt are technically safe and won't harm the fundamental value of bitcoin. Miners also need to listen to the real investors of bitcoin: those people who are really buying bitcoin and storing value with bitcoin. At the end of the day, these people are the very important ones to make bitcoin valuable.
登录 或
Corallo和Lau致力于在特币协议扩展性、安全和网络可用性方面的开发。他们在不同类型比特币应用的软件开发方面有着丰富经验和杰出贡献。
活动时间：
12月11日下午3:30，由Shanghai Blockchain Meetup组织的“比特币区块链的开发者们 Bitcoin Core上海座谈会”中的Q&A环节，巴比特将带着大家的问题，现场向Lau和Corralo进行提问，并于活动结束后，在本帖中进行回复。欢迎踊跃提问！我们将选取8-10个问题，你的问题将会被现场讨论及优先回答。
现场活动链接：http://8btc.com/thread-42946-1-1.html，活动免费，欢迎报名参加！
活动现场还将进行视频直播，敬请关注。
暂未通过 (1 人)
13条回复
core 唯一被这些做空者抓住尾巴的就是香港共识，就是bs公司的老板Adam back，那二货私自代表core签署了香港共识，这样就被中国这些嘴炮将军抓住了他的尾巴
吴忌寒就拿这个大做文章
现在的解决办法有两个，第一是叫那个二货Adam back道歉说他无法代表core 第二就是core发布申明说跟bs公司没有关系
如果有做到这样，吴嘴炮如果继续捣乱，我们也有人专门对付他们这样婆婆妈妈无病呻吟的女人们、
另外，core一直威胁的硬分叉而导致的分裂，您所说的预防措施是否也可以预防这种分裂？
【三段论推理】
大前提：Core要求内部达成高度一致共识后，才能做出行动。
小前提：Core存在坚决反对大区块扩容+支持小区块的核心成员，不可能在大区块扩容上形成“高度一致共识”。
结论：虽然Core有部分成员支持大区块扩容，但Core作为一个整体，永远无法做出大区块扩容的决定——除非Core已经面临着被选下台的风险。
请问你们对这个问题怎么看。
对于近期reddit社区中讨论的SW方案存在的可能bug有什么处理方案？
你们考虑过硬分叉吗？在什么情况下会实行硬分叉？
你们认为比特币在开发上现在是去中心化吗？
对于BU你们怎么评价？
你们对中国很多比特币相关企业，比如比特大陆，BW，ViaBTC等，以及社区内意见领袖比如江卓尔、吴忌寒、昌用、闪电等都支持BU怎么看？
现场视频直播链接：http://h.huajiao.com/l/index?liv ... ebip=117.21.168.152
巴比特将带着大家的问题现场提问。