Bitcoin Forum

dont trust blockstream, dont trust core, dont trust coinbase, dont trust classic, dont trust obama.

stop being the whiny little girl seeking for some daddy comfort, this is bitcoin.

@macbook-air
Personally, I think that you should stop trusting anyone by default (even me), and start to try to hear every voices/opinions ...

How is this different from Gmaxwell dropping his commit status without notice - Is this an issue to you because in your eyes blockstream now has no liability nor prior commitment to what was determined last weekend?  I'm going out on a limb here but perhaps they didn't mention this because it could be blown out of proportion? 

Why does this even matter? I took the change to indicate that Adam was merely attempting to be humble and go into the meeting representing himself and his ideas rather than representing his company.

Remember Blockstream employees signed a pledge indicating that their primary allegiance is to Bitcoin before themselves or Blockstream, Adam Back being listed as an individual makes sense in context:
https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702288186265903104

This being said, you should have a healthy level of skepticism with everyone.

Is this really the first manipulative shady thing you've seen them do? The past few weeks have been littered with all kinds of shit from Maxwell and Adam. You miners need to think for yourself. Bigger blocks means you collect more fees, while smaller blocks + LN gets blockstream more fees.Bitcoin works by people acting in their own economic self interest, it's time you miners start acting in yours.

As a miner, what is your real interest? To have a full block until july 2017, allowing people to spend more fees for making a transacion or to have a more scalable solution by 1 month ?

Give me a break - new low in the discussion, this was released days ago and just now they come out with this concern.  We need to get some real leadership around this discussion and stop giving the drama queens a microphone.  

So you poeple are waking up to Blockstream Core disingenuous tactics? Its about time.

This. Just this!

Feel free to start your own coin then - enjoy your own empty blocks.

Bye.

If that is the biggest issue in this meting I really don't understand your culture. I would say that allowing only one side that has good funding present there case is much more problematic...

There are probably also things you need to know. Do you know how overwhelming support is defined? I don't think you know this but I don't think there will be there in June 2017... At lest not to Core definition. Why?

https://medium.com/@elliotolds/lesser-known-reasons-to-keep-blocks-small-in-the-words-of-bitcoin-core-developers-44861968185e#.gwesnyqjs

Great.

What an idiot.

Like anyone in the community didn't know who Adam Back is.

Does appear a bit ridiculous... so Either there is some unmentioned other reason, some cultural difference, or just an excuse to back out... it really doesn't make much sense in context.

Ya because they realized they were duped into adopting SW in exchange for something they could do anyway without blockstream permission.

My assumption is that Adam originally signed as Blockstream President, then when other members of Blockstream said that they were not on board with his plan he went back and changed his signature to individual.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07h0xc?context=3

IMO this is pretty serious, you cant change a contract after you sign it, and there is a big difference between his signature as an individual and that representing Blockstream.

Perhaps next time the contract should be hashed and the hash stored in some decentralized immutable ledger ;)

That is very insulting to the Chinese miners and f2pool... I seriously doubt they have remained ignorant of segwit and its implications that have been so openly discussed for months.


This is likely the case... and if anything reflects how ridiculous the notion that Blockstream or core is a monolithic organization with a single goal, when it is represented by many individuals. Likely an oversight by Adam, and one that can be quickly rectified as other blockstream members already agreed.

Already Resolved-

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.4k6pihqla

https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736

I'm not sure continuing to edit a document that was supposed to remain unchanged from the beginning sends the right message. Whats to stop someone from editing it further in the future?

Would it have been annoying to have F2pool later say they only showed up as individuals and the pool would continue to mine on Classic? See a similarity?

The issue is that there is a very good chance that Blockstream as a whole refuses to go along with the HF, which is fine, but what exactly is the point in having Adam as President of Blockstream then? He might as well just be "guy that doesn't code at Blockstream" then.

Hello - CoinCadence

The signers perseverance of their reputation. If code is not delivered and well intention effort is not made , than their reputation will be permanently besmirched. Saving the statement to the blockchain doesn't really change anything as anything with enough interest posted on the web is permanently recorded by caching servers regardless.

serious question: anybody knows the reason why Adam Back's title was changed in the first place (from president of BS to individual)?

>90% of core contributors haven't signed that doc. Code will be delivered, but there's zero assurance that it makes it into Bitcoin Core.

I think it's fairly obvious. Blockstream employees are relatively independent and didn't want Adam speaking for the organization or them at this event. Does anyone have a reason to think otherwise?

This... but the reversal signals that blockstream is now behind this statement as a company.

Yes to the first quote, and no to the second I would say...

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07h0xc?context=3

You are not negotiating from a position of power...
First you need to run classic. Then go the round table discussions.  Negotiate from a position of power.

we already know we can't trust Block$tream so where's the issue - switch to classic

They might as well have pledged to put sustainable
development, world peace and mental health of rainforest insects
before themselves or their company.

Totally meaningless.

Changed back to Blockstream this morning: https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/702498440920436736

Now that probably doesn't mean much because I don't see Adam compelling Blockstream employees to write code or support a HF they might be opposed to. It does go to show that those that attended the meeting have high expectations that the HF will take place. If it doesn't, expect Classic to gain steam...

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-366#post-12890

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/476xgc/decoding_the_recent_consensus_a_recent_front_page/

"If you've worried bitcoin will end up with two different coins, leading to a market crash - you should rest assured. The major result of the meeting is: Core agreed to add 2MB hard fork in code, and in exchange, Chinese miners agree to continue to run core. There will be only one framework where we determine when and how to HF/SW. The risk of splitting is thus reduced greatly."

"To ensure core will release a version containing hard fork code, Chinese Miners will agree to deploy SW. In other words, if core refuses to deliver a HF version, or the software is with inadequate activation prerequisites (such as HF triggered only with 95% or more hashrate agree), our miners can refuse SW."

As you can see, core used a 2mb HF as a negotiating chip to get miners to adopt their SWSF, which is a requirement for their company building LN/SC in order to make a profit and pay back their 55 milion $ investors.

What? F2pool does not run their in-house bitcoin client? Watta joke... ::)

They definitely do - all mining pools compile and tweak themselves. We know this since validationless mining isn't available in Core or Classic.

IF this is accurate, it looks like consensus is falling apart.  Why the hell did Back do this? To give BlockStream a way out?  Perhaps they never intended to honor this agreement in the first place.

it maybe a reaction to mark friedenbach and his attacks on the made consensus.

if it doesn't expect friedenbach to be kicked out

Thats like saying "i pledge my allegiance to the flag/queen/country..." as if it means that you would therefore act 100% outside of your own personal interests, or the interests of the company you are president of

Its a painfully clear conflict of interest that core devs work for bitstream as defined by ethics, and as such the right thing to do is clearly acknowledge it and make sure systems or oversight is in place that it does not result in misuse. I think its great that some of the core devs found work at a company in the bitcoin industry (as they should), but it needs to be a clear and meditated approach so that the act in the interest of bitcoin rather than blockstream. simply hiding the "blockstream" label from people like Adam Back's signature is just shifty and looks like obfuscation

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.th28ftnjh
Per Adam's request:
Adam Back President Blockstream
Now it's matching the Chinese version

I've been hodling since 2011 and for the first time I'm seriously diversifying a large % into altcoins. I guess it will take longer before the mainstream and non fanatics do this. But it will happen, if you miners don't get your shit together.

Maybe when your mining income gets to $0 you'll wake up?

No shit you've been cheated. Stop listening to God Emperor Adam Back and start forming your own opinions. Take some actions without permission. Grow a spine.

I don't trust your statement about not trusting you... ;D

I dont know what u guys thought while preparing this so called consensus. Neither do I understand, what is written in Chinese. But, in English it is clearly written...

1. This hard-fork is expected to include features which are currently being discussed within technical communities, including an increase in the non-witness data to be around 2 MB, with the total size no more than 4 MB, and will only be adopted with broad support across the entire Bitcoin community.

2. If there is strong community support, the hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017.

But, maaku7 of BlockStream has already expressed his discontent to this Consensus - https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07gqic

So, whether Adam Back signs as an individual or as BlockStream president, broad support across the entire Bitcoin community is still absent. Hence 2mb is not happening.

Blockstream have a conflict of interest, their business is greatly enhanced by limited block space. The conflict is they control the majority of developers set the addenda and direction for the development of the Core the dominant Bitcoin Client, and are pushing to limit block space.  

Arguably GMax has already resigned from assigning BIP's and contributing to the developer’s mailing list as a result of the conflict of interest.

Adam Back, changed his designation for one of 2 meager reasons, lesser reasons may be given.

1) He implied to prioritize benefits his employers (the shareholders) would not commit too.

or

2) He wanted to avoid punting Blockstream in the position of a conflict of interest.

Interestingly other Blockstream employees didn't identify as Blockstream employees.



somewhat troubling is the pretense of Han Solo - a reported Litecoin Miner (https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47cz6q/round_table_paper_signed_by_han_solo_is_that_a/d0c0sga?context=3) dictating and deciding the future of Bitcoin in a closed door meeting.

@ the Bitcoin Chinese community it’s worth noting Satoshi handed Bitcoin over to Gavin to maintain, under Gavin's lead bitcoin has grown up. Adam Back is a late comer to bitcoin dismissing it as insignificant for the first few years of Bitcoins existence.  

He claimed to have almost invented Bitcoin but didn't recognize it as significant until it traded over $1000 years after launch while under Gavins lead. Blockstream have taken control away from the steward who brought it to where it is today. Following Blockstreams lead blindly disadvantages us all, you need to act in your best interest not Blockstreams to maintain decentralized consensus.

Fees don’t halve, and they won’t go up in value, (people will just use other competitive fee solutions like Litecoin) you need economics of scale to maximize revenue.  

According to Mark Friedenbach, Blockstream developer:

"Thankfully we at Blockstream are given the freedom to speak and act as individuals on this matter. Even Adam is attending as an individual, his signature not carrying the weight of representing Blockstream in this instance.

I cautioned against going and was not in the room (I feel this meeting was antithetical to Bitcoin and no good outcomes were likely) so I only know second hand like you what was or was not said. But regarding the "consensus" document that was posted on medium, no I am not on board with that outcome."

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07gqic

I think it's great that Blockstream employees are given independence, but that doesn't stop Blockstream the company from having an official position. Charlie Lee has different opinions than Brian Armstrong, but that doesn't mean that Coinbase can't have an official stance.

Mark's no compromise attitude is genuine and is probably shared by a number of core contributors. It's part of the reason that there is a swell of support for alternative Bitcoin implementations and if not for a compromise, we'd see the continue tug of war in the community eventually expressed in PoW longest accepted chain.

Like it or not, the community can ultimately override any individual or minority group's wishes. Today that minority is Classic. Tomorrow that minority could be stubborn Core contributors.

That bold statement underlined was written after Adam asked his credentials be removed and he be represented as an individual, rather conveniently.
still relevant is the host thought he was more than an individual off the street.

the statement is intended to give credit to the decentralized decision making process that resulted in a consensus for a delayed increase independently of Blockstream.

It's a joke given the reality of the situation, the authors commenting history and the control Blockstream exsert over Core. Your using it out of context and overlooking its intended meaning.

political consensus defining majority rule using censorship and closed door meeting is not going to benefit bitcoin in the long run.  

ok lets do it, i'm with you

lets move on.

i'd say go on without friedenbach. if he really opposes the consensus and is not willing to compromise just ignore and move on!

Consensus = An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole

Really?  This is what we're getting all upset about today in Bitcoinland?   ::)

You owe Adam an apology for assuming he was responsible for the change in title, instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt and seeking clarification.

The whole "zomg y u cheat me" thing is such a third world negotiating tactic.  It's really tacky.

You've been looking and reaching for things to get offended about for days.  And this is the best you can do?

Really?  A discrepancy between draft revisions, one of which was released prematurely (without permission?) is no reason to get all whiny.

Why don't you just rage quit like Mike Hearn, if your feelings are so hurt and fragile trust so grievously wounded?

SHA3 is looking better everyday we have to watch the ASIC miner tail struggle to wag the Bitcoin dog.

yes, and with this definition of consensus you won't be able to do ANY progress at all. you would also need 100% miners agreement for example to call it a true consensus. that means that only ONE miner could potentially block any change you make to the protocol. because, hey its not consensus if not everybody agrees right?

true consensus is utopian.

People are waking up iB..

Tick tock.

Resetting to SHA3 just weakens bitcoin hashing power temporarily and then maybe permanently. I say permanently since miners may discount their profits by taking into the possibility that the greater bitcoin community will make their investments worth zero at any time.

While a PoW hash reset could be used in the event of a mining attack, don't kid yourself - no one is seriously pushing for a beyond-controversial PoW change at this time.

I missed the part where you defend macbook's overwrought poutrage and hurt fee-fees over basically nothing.

You can do better than an appeal to popularity followed by some vague reference to a time bomb.

No one except Guy Corem and his co-signers at https://medium.com/@vcorem/lesson-learned-from-the-classic-coup-attempt-or-why-core-needs-to-prepare-a-gpu-only-pow-6a9afe18e4b0

Talk is cheap. Answering a semi-controversial 1M->2M HF with an uber-controversial SHA2->SHA3 HF in which the miners are automatically opposed to the change - near insanity. Best of luck with that one! :)

I think that the joker burning the money is probably about as appropriate as you get!

Given this a thread for f2pool in the mining section and macbook-air has brought up this discussion I'll leave it up to him to decide whether the direction the discussion is taking is on topic or not for the thread. In my eyes this thread has been derailed with yet another core vs *other discussion that is no longer on topic for f2pool but if macbook-air is happy for this discussion to continue then I'll leave it be. Otherwise I'll delete the last two pages of derailed discussion.

I for one think the posts are an example unprofessional practices on the part of F2Pool, and are of topical interest to miners considering using the pool. I hope history isn't whitewashed through their removal.

Splitting off is always an option instead of deleting.

inb4 deletion

Who cares if Adam Back signed as Blockstream President or not? It seemed pretty clear to everyone that this was a meeting for Blockstream and the top mining pools to come to an agreement. The bigger concern, for me, is that everyone signed on to a (maybe) HF capacity bump 1.5 years out into the future, while we are hitting new transaction records right now.

Bitcoin "consensus" doesn't/shouldn't happen at an 18hr meeting in HK organized by Samson Mow.

Hardforks, yes, even "contentious" ones, are the mechanism by which Bitcoin is to upgrade itself. The only consensus mechanism in Bitcoin was outlined by satoshi:

https://i.imgur.com/UxrfOqo.png (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf)

Yes, a "contentious" hard fork could be a scary time for the market, as it involves a large amount of uncertainty. But, for many of us, it is not more scary/dangerous than squandering our utility and first mover advantage in a cloud of paralysis, stalling, and indecision.

Once again, not surprised that threats of PoW change start getting tossed around when someone steps out of line... "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse."

Wait, the agreement was first signed "Adam Back, Blockstream" and then reverted to "Adam Back, Individual" (and finally back to "Adam Back, Blockstream"), and this is somehow F2Pool acting unprofessionally by calling them out?

My take is that people are catching on to Blockstream/Core's semantic trickery, and it's beginning to backfire in their faces.    

don't delete or split this discussion -ck

We are testing Classic mining on stratum.f2xtpool.com at port 3333.
F2XTPool is currently powered by Bitcoin Core v0.12.0, with -mempoolreplacement=false, only block version is set to 0x30000000. We are not going to run Classic node in production, for the “foreseeable ”future.

That is an excellent point of inquiry upon which to expound.

Macbook is obviously reaching for any purported excuse, no matter how far-fetched, to find fault with Evil Adam Back.  This isn't a new trend; he's been at it all month.

His shitty negotiating tactic of eagerly leaping to a conclusion of bad faith, based on a Seinfeldesque misunderstanding over nothing, is merely a way to put Dr. Back on the defensive.

Most of us Bitcoiners are here for the revolutionary technology, but a few of us (mainly noobs) are more concerned with politics, status, and social grooming.

The concern troll fussiness over whether or not Dr. Back can order his Evil Blockstream subordinates to play nice with Classic hard forkers delineates the divide with a bright line.

For example:


quod erat demonstrandum

Unprofessional how? I say this without malice. Greg, you're not much of an ambassador - leave the negotiations to someone else and stick with the tech explanations which you are very good at.

Are you a representative for f2pool?

Unprofessional because without Adam Back's HashCash, Bitcoin would not exist.

I don't give a wet fart about meeting the CEO of Blockstream anymore than the CEO of Coinbase.

OTOH it is a great honor to be in the presence of legendary cypherpunk Adam Back, no matter which hat he is or isn't wearing.

If you are too young or low-information to remember the crypto wars and PGP t-shirt, you may be forgiven for prioritizing titles over demonstrated expertise.

I think Adam's a great guy, obviously has lots of street cred. I agree that he and others in the community have earned more respect that they receive.

With that said, clearly Gavin has stewarded Bitcoin development well enough for 3-4 years after Satoshi took his hands off the wheel. How about you show some respect based on his past contributions too?

And now, this is totally off topic and I'm cluttering up F2Pool's thread. Bowing out.

Let's not change the subject to Gavin.

You asked what was "unprofessional" about macbook's posts, and I answered you in the form of explaining how astronomically churlish it is to whine about which titles somebody like Adam Back (who needs no such honorariums) does or does not deploy in a work-in-progress draft document.

Eagerly jumping to conclusions and making public accusations of bad faith based on a giant nothingburger is unprofessional.

Thanks for asking.  I'm glad we had the opportunity to cover that point in more detail.   :)

See Peter Todd's nice explanation on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/47cjb5/f2pool_to_withdraw_support_from_round_table_due/d0byl5a


Since an earnest piece of confusion existed here the professional way to handle it would have been to first simply send an email "Hey, what happened here?"  Not to issue a public ultimatum; especially when the subject matter in question was a title on a on a document, and doubly so when the party being attacked didn't even have the technical ability to change it themselves. Even in the least charitable interpretation of the facts, F2Pool making a public fuss and threatening to change their operating behavior over this matter does not give me an impression of a thoughtfully managed organization.

Mistakes happen, however, and I do not think they should be vilified for it, but nor do I think it should be flushed from history.

Cheers.

Well not sure I understand everything here however I noticed F2pool isn't in the top 3 anymore in winning blocks since this change.

Too bad. No one cares what you think. It's clear that blockstream is fully of shady shit and subtle manipulation tactics like who signs as what are clearly important to your operandi. Miners are to do what is in their best interest, not what your shitty company tricks them into thinking is in their best interest. How does your own medicine taste?

Can't see how it's related. All I see is a bad luck patch for f2pool.

The miners gave a lot in this "consensus agreement". I doubt they did so in order for Adam to give them a BIP that would be dropped in a heartbeat. When Adam & co met they should have understood that the people on the other side of the table expected them to represent Core in a way that would lead to an enforceable agreement.


The "cultural difference" is that they're done playing games. It takes two to tango, so you have to stick to the agreement as well. When one of the key signatories changes from "Blockstream/Core" to "bearded middle-aged man" after the agreement is reached, you broke the deal.


If all the other miners on their pool left f2pool, the difference would be marginal. Their in-house HW would still be enough to effectively block anything you throw at them.

In short: If you want to be angry at someone, be angry at the people who attended the meeting on behalf of Core and Blockstream without having the authority to represent neither.

Sound about right...

Hmm, couldn't all the pools just go with 2MB and tell the devs who think they control everything to stop trying to make themselves feel important?

Bitcoin is by design controlled by the consensus of the miners, not by centralised control.
It would seem that there are all sorts of parties trying to control bitcoin and I guess they all simply fail to understand the design.

Doesn't really matter how important devs think they are, if they want to be a relevant part of the blockchain decisions then they need to be miners.

...

BlockStream/Sidechains/SegWit all sounds a lot like trying pointlessly to control altcoins and make something like a partial SPV ... to me.

Still, miners controlling bitcoin would be an overstatement.

Whether 51% or 75% attack they'd loose big if they try anything like that (probably all of us).

So nobody controls bitcoin. And that is good news.

---

But please proceed with the defiance, politics and cheap mainstreameries.

Bitcoin unaffected, if not strengthening, feasting on all that (negative) energy.

http://www.insightete.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/its_alive.jpg

Wow!

If you're game it shouldn't be much of a problem. Much of the code should be easy to implement and as far as I can see it shouldn't be too hard to get at least something like 93% of the network to start running it fairly immediately. This way it will be Core +2MB without the politics. No dev war, less drama behind the scenes.

I think you are greatly overestimating miner importance.

If all of Bitcoin's miners started mining Dogecoin tomorrow, would that make Dogecoin the new Bitcoin?

Kano, I'm happy to say, we've found something we can agree on ;)

Blockstream (BS) is trying it's hardest to force an artificial fee market before it's time so that developers will be motivated to work on off-chain solutions and users will be incentivized to use them.

While Lightning sounds cool in theory its not ready yet and BS has successfully captured Core development to steer it towards those things it needs to release LN (RBF, SegWit, CLTV, etc...).

Now they are trying to capture large miners to expedite adoption of RBF of and SegWit by making promises they know they can not keep.

BS has become so entrenched in protecting their position by limiting Bitcoin's capacity that they can not see the forest through the trees.

I applaud Blockstream and LN developers working independent of Blockstream like Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja who recognize that Bitcoin cannot scale to compete by simply kicking the can over and over and increasing the blocksize. It isn't an appeal to authority but simply a recognition of the facts and data that we would be much better off focusing on building multiple payment channels that resolve and support the bitcoin blockchain. It sets a dangerous precedence to not follow the evidence and best recommendations and instead be swept up with politics or fear that a fee market event will cause tremendous damage to Bitcoin's ecosystem in itself. No one has any solid evidence that this will occur instead of simply pushing some spam off chain.

Your explanations aren't a secret and I and many others are quite direct that bitcoin cannot possibly resolve all tx's on the chain and be efficient and scale. It has to become a settlement network to compete and serve at its intended purpose.

It would be good advice going forward if not only developers, but everyone was more involved in mining and we strive to incentivize a more diverse group of miners. It would also be wise if large mining pools contributed more to development so they have an influence in the direction of bitcoin and at minimum understand the process to a greater degree. More implementations that don't break consensus rules are also wise but encouraging a contentious hard fork with such a low threshold is akin to attacking the ecosystem.

P.S... I look forward to reading Bitcoin Classic's Scaling roadmap and am open to any evidence or proposals they suggest, but without a proposal even available to discuss Classic should not even be up for consideration until a plan is proposed and reviewed.

Current network already can handle traffic at 16MB, if the volume doubles each year, that's no problem for another 4 years. And there is no point to forecast anything beyond 4 years (Government might ban bitcoin at that time, or bitcoin out-competed by a world coin setup by world largest banks using blockchain, too many uncertainties)

Currently fastest fiber network can do 255Tbps
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/192929-255tbps-worlds-fastest-network-could-carry-all-the-internet-traffic-single-fiber

And if you can successfully do a hard fork, it is very beneficial for bitcoin, means in future, many changes and optimization can be done on the current architecture cleanly without using deceptive soft-fork hack

There are many of us who don't have the bandwidth to run a full node at home right now and are going to be forced to only run hosted nodes at 15 dollars a month and up because of the capacity increase in April. You are citing theoretical best performance networks when what we should be focused on is finding a balance where we don't have progressively more nodes dropping off and higher costs to run a full node. Advocating for extreme blocksizes ostracizing many people and places a dangerous precedence that we can simply scale bitcoin in a really sloppy manner by increasing the blocksize.

It is also extremely inconsiderate to not acknowledge many of the other concerns with TOR , and the firewall in china when considering the impact that a large block size will have upon the users.

http://snag.gy/Iy385.jpg

^^THIS!!

Yes, there are some difficulties for individual home users, but similar to settlement and clearing based design, I prefer a settlement and clearing design for data traffic instead of financial transactions: The settlement layer is enterprise level bitcoin mining hubs and full nodes around the world run by bitcoin companies (there are thousands of them today, should be enough to reach the same level of decentralization today - 6000+ full nodes, and they have motivation to run them due to their own business requirement), and the layer two is home users running SPV client or pruned nodes, webwallet, exchanges etc... The settlement layer can afford magnitudes higher bandwidth, also the processing power is much higher. And layer two can use a variety of different off-chain transactions to reduce the traffic on-chain and get instant confirmation and zero fee /refund benefits

Regarding the TOR, if you have specific reason to use this kind of service, then you should use an alt-coin, which is much less regulated. Indeed, china's firewall is the biggest question now, but if there is a bandwidth bottleneck, I think in that case sidechain/LN does not help either, since they just moved the transaction out of bitcoin data traffic to some other type of data traffic, the total bandwidth requirement do not get less. Suppose you are sending 1 bitcoin from china to US, they would have to send exactly the same amount of transaction data no matter what technology they use (maybe even more data need to be sent)

We are currently under DDoS attack.

That's the Bitcoin community for ya. A three year old with a bot net.

Fixed it for you.

Mess with the honey badger and you get the claws.  Plus the teeth.

https://i.imgur.com/TIa0kam.jpg

Well, time to forget about the whole HK agreement, and break free from their tyranny.

Fatman, are you sure he's three already?

Really? DDoS attack is not what makes bitcoin consensus strong and it can be easily countered by the most well capitalized businesses getting larger and more centralized.

Were you running Classic? ;)

Idk. He reminds me of a character in Alien 3 called 85. Except he would probably be closer to 64.

Honey badger's characteristic ferocity creates disincentives to attack him.

As for your happy talk and gross generalizations about the broad category of DDoS attacks, whether or they they are "countered easily" depends on their scale.

By now you should know the Core Defense Network and small block militia have demonstrated capacity sufficient to take down entire ISPs and data centers for hours or days.

The fact macbook is here disclosing the attack indicates it is not trivial.  I forget, did they ever get stratum working through Cloudflare?

Let's see how breezily you gloss over 500Gbps of energized particle beam when La Serenissima's orbiting battle stations have you in their crosshairs.   ;)

       ^   
Make that 47

Scumbag tactics from the "economic majority".  ::) Color me unsurprised.

Scumbag tactics?  You mean like attempting to force a contentious hard fork at a 75/25 split with only 28 days warning, while using FUD as a thin wedge to insert a governance coup?

Don't cry to me when you poke the Honey Badger and he rips your face off.  You knew that was bound to happen.  Remember XT?  LAAAWL!

The HK meeting was far more effective at getting agreement than a few bits sent at mining pools or nodes. The day when Bitcoin needs individuals to perform DDoS attacks to survive is a day when the Honey Badger is on life support.

Honey Badger doesn't need to rip your face off if you tickle him.  That's just how he rolls.

Write his obituary if it makes you feel better about delicate snowflake Classic's utter lack of antifragility.  He doesn't really give a damn.

My opinion is that there is no relevance between DDoS, Honey Badgers and Classic - it's all just a semi-annoying by-product of individuals who feel their ideology is threatened. If the network users decide that there are to be larger blocks, there will be larger blocks. If not, there won't be. XT died because end users said so.

A HF to 2MB blocks in 2016 is debatable at this point. In 2017, I think that most agree it's happening one way or another.

Last year the XT pushers told us


If Classic can't shrug off a few silly script kiddies and their flimsy DDoS attacks, why does it deserve to replace Core?

I agree, Classic hasn't earned the right to replace Core. It has however influenced Core to improve communication, meet with miners and likely to update (euphemism clarify) the roadmap. Competition, even if uneven is a good thing.

And this thread is still about f2pool?  ::) Split coming up soon.

You do realize that Classic is Core with a few parameter tweaks, right?  I'm generally pretty agreeable around here, but are you actually mentally challenged?

Pretty sure they still are.  But fuck F2 for giving users a choice of what implementation they'd like to see, right?  Resorting to DDoS attacks to try and prevent Classic just proves that small block supporters are getting desperate.

Really icebreaker? So you are endorsing DDoS attacks now? So much for consensus.

Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that the weaker side is the one that has to resort to using force to get their way. Core will fall, you can count on it.

I don't hear coredevs or blockstream condemning the DDOS attacks.

Thanks f2pool for standing up!

Meh, it is just the free market doing its thing.

You wanted competition? there ya go.. teh interwebz is mean y know.

https://supercultshow.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/tumblr_lw7n7581bf1qa7374o1_500.gif

Dumbest counterattack ever.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47luh3/f2pool_is_under_ddos_attack/d0dxlvr

Hah, yeah I saw that.

This iCEBREAKER guy is the most toxic member of a the community I've seen in a long time.

Indeed. And I don't understand why people like iCEBREAKER and hdbuck, who clearly have the mental age of a toddler judging by their tantrums, are still taken seriously by people here.

They're the hard core of the Core.

If that's the case, Core is lost.

Cry more.

I'm surprised by how easy it is to manipulate you guys. It could have easily been a Classic supporter that was doing this in order to make it look like it was someone from Core. This is becoming a joke. It is quite unfortunate that this is happening to F2Pool, but don't make blind accusations.

Oh really? So the same thing happening to XT was just a coincidence?

Are DDoS False flags really a thing now?

I think it's more likely that the people who have financial incentive invested in seeing one side succeed over the other would engage in these tactics.

So both sides? Great, this helps out out.

What makes you think that XT nodes were the only ones under DDoS at that time?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdeWd4p0GiI

Ok, so core supporters should be given the benefit of doubt no matter what, but with the other side it's all cloak and daggers?

The "weaker side" is the one getting pwnd by DDoS attacks voting.  

It used to be called XT, but they have now rebranded to Classic.  Same shit, different pile.

Stating well-known facts about Honey Badger isn't "endorsing" anything.

But don't let that stand in the way of your quest to make this all about *me* (ie personalize the debate) instead of the real issues at hand.

Core will not "fall."  Classic will be #R3KT like Stannis at Winterfell.   8)

iCEBREAKER, the more you post, the more my IQ continues to drop. I have a sinking suspicion others feel the same way.

I never said that either side was clean. Some cases are very obvious though, such as this one. The tactic is quite simple: Some major player does something related to Classic -> DDoS them -> blame Core. Since when did we start believing such tales when there is zero evidence of something?

https://i.imgur.com/DEHVBxs.png

btw he was member of the hashfast-scam.

is it official blockstream is not supporting roundtable?

its my understanding that f2pool will support the roundtable, if blockstream does to.

Obvious to you. To others it's even more obvious that this is a straight out attack from core supporters. Miners and nodes were discouraged by the XT ddos attacks. They work. A blame game would be pointless when the nodes and miners don't dare run the software.

?
?
?

Hey! That was my point!

What is this? The Twilight Zone?

can mods rename the thread to reflect this reality?

 :)

Hahaha that's hilarious! iCEBREAKER, I think *you* are the one who constantly tries to make the discussion about *you*, as every other post by you is a personal attack or attempt to piss people off. Your attention seeking is transparent and pretty fucking pathetic. Get a life :D

Yes. I should have done that all along instead of getting drawn into this pathetic trolling.  ::)

It's about time to end this close-door roundtable consensus process.
Complete goes against Satoshi's consensus-forming process.

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/702726905435389952

wrong. satoshi's "consensus-forming process" is PoW a.k.a. hashpower. what we are seeing now is nothing else than the miners trying to find a mutual solution before they make eventually use of their power, which is totally fine and a sign of respect.
 

Miners have little to no power in Bitcoin.  If you insist on hanging around and opining, you really should lean how all this stuff works.

Here's a good place to start:

http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/

https://i.imgur.com/NfJ7bKY.png (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark)

If the majority of hashpower agreed to do that via a hard fork protocol change then it would happen. The thing is the miners have invested a lot in bitcoin, and by changing the coin distribution they would destroy bitcoins value, soooo, not gonna happen.

Changing the block max size on the other hand, would have no such effect.

Who is jumping the shark?  Prof. Sirer, me, or both of us?

Quick, go tell Cornell their CS Dept. has a shark jumper among the faculty!  I'm sure they will care about your opinion.

Only in your fanciful hyperreality does "miners can't mint 1m coins == miners have little to no power"

You are distorting what Prof. Sirer's essay actually says.

Perhaps if you bother to RTFA, its conclusions would seem less like "fanciful hyperreality."

right.

it's a bit of catch 22

miners want to mine coins that everyone wants, everyone wants coins that the most miners are producing, because users want coins with the most secure blockchain.

who ultimately has the power is unclear to say the least....

but devs have no power at all, if a group of devs don't produce the software that users and miners want to use, some other group of devs will...

This is a fantasy, unsupported by six years of history.

History gives us btcd, well developed, but completely ignored and irrelevant.

History gives us Mike Hearn, who is damaged, alone, and bitter.

History gives us Gavin Andreson, unsure of his own identity, not committed to Bitcoin, comfortable in his sofa of virtual coin.

History gives us XT, Classic, and Unlimited, "let's put on a show" high school science fair projects put together by Cypherdoc, Peter R, the Toomim brothers, and other pretenders/scammers.

That leaves the Core devs.  Cryptographers, C++ experience, professionals.  Not perfect, but responsible for everything that BTC lovers hold dear.

The idea that you can stop a car on the street and turn the occupants into developers of the next great cryptocurrency is an exercise in

denial
delusion
wishful thinking
fantasy

If you want a coin developed by a random group of computer hobbyists, choose among the 1000 alt coins.

If you want a virtual currency with an established network and infrastructure, choose bitcoin and the people who brought it to 1200, 420, and 6 billion dollars.

That's only true if you have lots of alternative implementations, and when there are lots of alternative implementations, a fork will happen sooner or later when two different implementations differ too much in design philosophy. But they can't fork since that will destroy the promise of limited coin supply, so eventually they have to come to agreement or make compromise, otherwise it will be deadlock or hash war ... war never changes

 :'(
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1311502.msg13987810#msg13987810

There needs to be some minimal amount of devs willing to dev different versions of bitcoin that poeple want to see. but i'm thinking we are starting to push past this point.

today, if there is enough demand for an alternative client then there will BE an alternative.
There was some demand for bigger blocks BOOM XT was born.
There was some demand for 2MB blocks BOOM Classic was born
There was some demand for "unlimited block space" BOOM Bitcoin Unlimited was born.

The power / willingness to change bitcoins rules goes from the bottom up; devs at the top, miners in the middle, and users at the bottom.

it's a comforting notion.

There. Now can we relax? :)

that happened under Gavin's leadership... ( and he's helping classic and unlimited now...)


yes this is the thing about my wild notion that devs have no power, its only true if there's enough of them. aslo the users need to understand this idea and not take anything any one group of dev's say as gospel.

Au contraire blackadder, I was *quoting* your characterisation of TFA

Again, you guys seem to be very easy to manipulate. Maybe Core should DDoS itself and you'd blame Classic supporters this time? Unless there is evidence of such (and there isn't), don't make baseless accusations.

This is the thing that people here don't realize. Astounding logic that wants to throw everything we've worked for for a 'high school science fair project'. ::)

Speaking of 'high school science fair project', the Raspberry Pi 3 is about to be released soon. Does this mean it's safe to increase capacity?

I believe that was one of the major hurdles for you, Lauda.

Either he is paid by the big blockists to look the small blockers even more disgusting than they already do, or he is to dumb to realize how ridiculous his war memes/texts/pictures are. Why are iCE and Lauda running censored threads? They have to hide the truth.

A lot of these things that you fail to acknowledge are important for decentralization. Anything is still better than promoting the Sybil attack for $10/month. Here you go, ignoring the fact that the chances of Classic supporters being the ones behind the DDoS are equal as expected. There is also a possibility that it has nothing to do with either.

At this point I'm certain that both sides are scared, as shown.

Huh?

I think I gave my view on the ddos a couple of posts back.

This was just a friendly jab at your earlier Raspberry Pi rant in one of the echo chambers.

Summary for those coming to the thread late.