Bitcoin Forum

It seems that Jihan and part of Chinese miners affraid that with lighting network they will lost their fee market.
This post came today from Jihan in chinese 8btc forum and is very clear to this

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60gem4/jihan_wus_latest_weibo_post_looks_like_an_offer/#oo

It seems is and the main reason why they block segwit activation obviously because lighting network cant work properly without segwit.
Always bitcoin ecosystem has different parts with different economical profit models.
Miners profits from fees, high bitcoin price and from many bitcoin transaction in blocks.
Exchanges profit from trade orders and price volatility.
Bitcoin startups like Blockstream profit when their technical solution can farther develop.
The problem now is how all of them come together and agree to a win-win solution?

Let BU fuck off and fork, the Core chain difficulty will plummet as the biggest miners are supporting BU, and for a while at least, the smaller guys can get some decent income, may even have GPU mining worth while for a short time.

the problem is that will never fork off that easy :P. the only can happen is bitcoin to be stall for the next months, years? who knows

BU and other non-core implementations never has and never will want contentious or bilater splits..  if they did they would have
set deadlines
set threasholds
added ban hammer code
.. oh and logically.. done something already!!

but no. non-core implementations want to use the real consensus of bitcoin to be part of a PEER network.

it is core that hate the other peers,
it is core that prefer a TIER network where they are the upstream filters
it is core that have the deadlines the zealous ban hammer scores the bip9 and UASF banning triggers
it is core that have begged non-core implementations to split but they laughed at core devs.

in essense it is core that are having the fear of losing their chance of being in control of a TIER network and having to either be part of a consensus PEER network, or activate their own banning mechanisms to start their own alt.

just ask yourself. BU, classic, xt and a dozen other implementations have been happily plodding away for 2 years on mainnet just leaving it up to the community to decide if they want it or not. so if non-core want to cause drama. why not set deadlines and split off like all the fake propaganda from core suggests will happen. because its just more drama by core to make people afraid of open diverse Peer network.

yet core have done all they can to drum up the drama and point fingers and play the victim card while desperate to push their money making LN hubs into action while keeping bitcoin native utility at a minimum to force it.

---

and that link to "jihan" is an article wrote by someone else. and has been taken out of context...

miners will still get paid their rewards happily for a few decades and get bonuses by means of all the open/close channels of LN's so its not going to impact miners pockets.

but i do find it funny how the twisting of words tries to make it sound like segwit is needed.

yeah the answer is Aliens... :P

Did not everyone know that was what miners were actually protesting about...?

You're naive


Don't the miners know that Lightning's orders-of-magnitude increase in transaction rate increase the network effect by the same factor, and in turn the market price of the commodity they produce? And that on-chain transactions will be required not just for Lightning, but in their own right?


The truth is, miners like ideas such as BIP100 or EC, as they know they will have far more control.




Did you know: when someone wants to deceive to get what they really want, telling lies is a requirement  ::)

Plus those lovely transaction fees that they won't get with LN transactions

pools know it.
pools dont care about fee's or no fee's, to them tx's and tx fee's are not the main income stream and not the real thing they care about today.
its the core propaganda that are putting words into pools mouths.

LN can function without segwit. so its meaningless to argue for segwit as its not needed. pools know this.
thier debate is deeper than the fee issue that they have been painted with

pools are more about the longevity of bitcoin as an open diverse peer network

Lets face it noone likes fees like 1$, but current price of BTC like 1000$ cause fee 0.0002 so 0.2$ and now we have slow inefficient bitcoin.
Bitcoin starts loosing ground for other alts. And you see that on coinmarket cap BTC have trading volume like 55% now with 70% market cap dominance ;)
Look at that in 3 years from now and alts will have 90% volume and BTC will have 10% becouse it cannot scale.

I feel that alts like ETH/Dash/Doge are good "LN" (lighting network and example ) those alts show that for end customer doesn't count "BTC" brand
but also costs and speed. You will never buy coffee without 2nd layer solution like LN.
Miners will see in market cap that BTC will lose value against alts.
Miner and fees are part of ecosystem but price rise becouse of USERS not becouse of miner...
If price of BTC would rise because more miners come and more hash-rate network have BTC would be never dumped... :D
Do you think that miners are more important than users :D ?

Do miners want see customers middle finger i think there is very close to that.
Sorry guys customers showed that finger already by falling BTC dominance.

Today customers have good alternatives ETH/DASH have quite good volume and are cheap.
Do BTC miners have any benefits form those alts rise :D ? They are helping those alternatives.
To be over pumped.

If we think about BTC of store of value people will always see BTC for savings like they pay premium for gold and silver.
Higher fees won't deter savers.

Ah one more thing most trades and transfers are now of-chain on exchanges miners have nothing from those trades and they have to live with it because it helps BTC network.
Lighting network will kick out of road most alt current pump and back $ capital to BTC.
Is better to have fees from 1000 billion market than 15 billions.
But miners will learn lesson with falling BTC price i bet on that.

for many ppl lighting network will have a huge rise to transactions and to miners fees.
I dont think Jihan not know this but they like the great opportunity that gives BU to miners to control fee market block size forever.
The next question is why Jihan is such in hurry for this? Because we can all agree that BU is completely broken with many flaws and can work as it is now.
Why he is in hurry? What he is afraid to happen if the time pass?

The solution is actually simple (in concept, if not in implementation): A mature non-segwit version of the Lightning network needs to be deployed NOW, with the segwit malleability protection requirement being added in the future when segwit activates. That way it can be made clear to miners that segwit is NOT required to create a 2nd layer network and LN can be created whether they want it or not. Alas LN isn't actually production ready yet and most implementations have segwit in mind (is my understanding at least.)

LN's issues are not solved by segwit.
LN has other problems and attack vectors.
many dev groups have been playing with possible LN's ever since the existence of multisig.

the real problems of LN is not malleation, or quadratics. but instead

1. lack of guarantee a tx gets added to a block (like any tx for the last 8 years)
2. address-reuse (signing many times allows the LN counterparty to consturst possible privkey from the data that gets signed multiple times within an LN for the ln counter party to sign both sides without the first parties consent)
3. the UTXO count of say 1 billion people depositing into a multisig = 2billion UTXO's (each channel having 2in-2out)
4. multiple other blackmail/extortion risks

multisigs are not 'broke' but nothing segwit offers guarantee's fixes either.

but the big picture is not about just getting LN live for user adoption as a voluntary side service. its to get core in control as the top tier upstream of the network. and also biasedly in control of what gets relayed to ensure their LN hubs reign supreme. as well as all the fee war tactics of rmoving efficient fee mchanisms to push onchain to being expensive to really force the need for commercial blockstream hubs to be the end goal

That's perfectly logical, but the real antagonistic miners are clearly not interested in thinking through the consequences of something as pesky as the code (and the consequences of the code).

Do you really think the behaviour of Bitmain is a consequence of them reading and understanding either the BU code or the Lightning code? Come on, now

you are not worry about miners that will central control fee market and you afraid about lighting network?
You are not afraid about the governance new system  from Bitcoin Unlimited with an elected president, even with ministry of propaganda and you afraid the developers that maintain bitcoin for 8 years now?

Not at all, but the actual deployment of LN would realise their alleged 'worst fears.' They won't need to understand code to know that it's already working.

LN has a niche.. as a voluntary side service

i do fear blockstreams TIER control and pushing people into blockstream managed LN hubs due to independant LN hops being more costly

alot less fear than blockstreams president.
BU wants to work with other peers on a level playing field and if core dropped blockstream dominance. so that core is back on the same level playing field by core adding a few lines of code to be dynamic capable. then it decentralises and diversifies the network back to independence where the network has no president. even if the "team" of each brand do...



core came around 2013 (4 years).. assuming core are the 'satoshi crew'/default bitcoin owner is misleading, false and a major laugh

the most of ppl in bitcoin ecosystem seems to be happy if you guys fork off the network because it seems you are the most toxic ppl.
Even in this post that made to anyone discover the root problem from miners action, even and here you came to spread your conspiracy lunatic theories.
gz... :p You will not miss you after the day zero of BTC. That for sure  ;D

I am clearly not communicating what I'm saying well enough, or you just don't want to hear it


If the miners are claiming that LN is their problem, they're lying. It doesn't make sense.



Presumably your explanation will be that these successful businessmen are sufficiently idiotic that they are incapable of understanding, despite being successful businessmen

lol
first you blockstreamers spread fear of a fork....
then you beg and demand a fork

yet the non-blockstreamers want to remain as one independant diverse consensus single network.

so i will just laugh at all the fear then begs of fork hypocrisy

yeah...ok...whatever :P

Look, I am one of the biggest BU supporters here and I would have no problem with LN + bigger blocks!
That way the market can at least have some free choice how it wants to scale.

But you have to understand core delayed delayed delayed.... They could come out TODAY and capitulate and propose
a blocksize increase and it would probably end this war...but they are so stubborn and arrogant
that they will fight to the end, even if it means trying to fight after a fork happens, even if it means
destroying Bitcoin in hopes that they remain in control.  

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

...Yes? This is the group that chose BU as their protest vote.

if they are in control why segwit not activate until now?

I read that Jihan owns 80% of hashing for LTC, which explains perfectly why they can't get SegWit passed on the LTC network.

Really childish, he doesn't want people to see the benefits of SegWit (great for users) so he's shunning it out.

This type of stuff is why BU is highly unpopular amongst users.

You don't know what you're talking about. Segwit has included 2 mb blocks.

it's pretty simple. Segwit is great for users, not so great for miners. Miners don't benefit from transactions made on LN. BU is in bed with big-name miners. They are colluding to keep Segwit out. Roger is a key player simply because he owns Bitcoin.com

The BU side is now propping up these useless alts that no one even wants to accept to try and drive money out of BTC. That is really dirty, will not be forgotten & ultimately ensure they will never see their vision pass.

The fear tactics they're using will ensure they will lose. Horrible politicians.

I don't support Segwit, and never implied to say that.  I said I would support "LN + bigger blocks", meaning simply changing the one line of code which has a block limit.


Its hard to change (get consensus) on major changes.  (But they are using that to their advantage to NOT change the 1mb limit.)

It's my understanding that Segwit already includes bigger blocks

"when segwit is deployed, that will mean 2 megabyte or larger blocks may need to be downloaded"

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/06/24/segwit-next-steps/

Ok... what's your point then?

" I said I would support "LN + bigger blocks" "

So you support SegWit..?

Lightning on the contrary will increase the number of transactions in the blockchain. The user base of bitcoin for micropayments will grow exponent. Therefore, bitcoin will need to synchronize more transactions into the blochchain (when payment channel close ) and miners give more commissions.

Let me rephrase my statement to more clearly communicate my position, since you seem to want to twist it.

I do not support Segwit.   I would support LN plus a blocksize increase via a single line of code change that raises the maxblocksize variable that is currently set to 1mb.

there is no reason why we need segwit to do this.
what we need is bigger blocks and TX_ID malleability fix.
both of these need to be HFs
because if you run a node its your responsibility to run a well oiled machine. not a half broken lets pretend it still works depreciated version

Capitalism began to develop rapidly with the specialization of tasks. This led to a roust of standard of living. The same principle applies to bitcoin.

Everyone should do what he does best. Let programmers Bitcoin Core (since 2009) do their work. The work of the miners is not to engage in politics and create their own Bitcoin clients. The task of the miners is only to confirm the transactions.

Sure, but A) why does it have to be 'core' necessarily?  I thought capitalism promoted competition, right? and B) you have core making economic decisions, not just programming decisions.  They should leave that to the economists according to your logic.  Developers are supposed to code what the client wants, not tell them they think they need.

segwit offers no 2mb PROMISE at activation nor 4mb promise

after activation. people need to voluntarily move their funds from native keys to segwit keys so that the ratio of segwit txdata:signature can change the weight
where the txdata sits in the base and the signature sits outside the base.

if only 10% voluntarily move funds and regularly use segwit keypairs expect ~1.1mb of total weight
if only 50% voluntarily move funds and regularly use segwit keypairs expect ~1.55mb of total weight
if 100% voluntarily move funds and regularly use segwit keypairs expect ~2.1mb of total weight

but dont expect EVERYONE to move funds to segwit keypairs.
oh and also spammers will stick to native keys and spam the base block to not give segwit key users space for their txdata. thus you wont get 2.1mb 'best estimate/hope'
oh and segwit does not prevent spammers... another segwit promise broken...


segwit is not dependant on activation its dependant on users using segwit keypairs AFTER activation.
segwit does not disarm or stop native keys from being used and so the malleation and sigop spammers will still use native keys to bloat the base block

actually miners do. miners dont care about tx fee right now its just a bonus. whether the tx they add is a LN multisig or a native tx makes no difference.

however segwit offers a 75% discount. so miners get less for adding segwit tx's...
EG
a native keypair LN earns a pool more than a segwit keypair LN.


care to take a stab at the VC funders behind BTCC and slush, which were both very quick to flag yes to segwit without waiting a few weeks to see what nodes do or peer review the code at launchday. they automatically just kissed segwit ass without thinking.

lol gmaxwell Monero Zcash
barry silbert (the big cheeze VC of the blockstream/corporation camp) monero zcash ethereum
(ever wondered why coinbase added ethereum.. (check out barry silberts $6m VC investment into coinbase)

fear tactics?
non-core have no deadlines no ban hammer no need for upstream filtering, no net for new keypairs. no desire to split the network.

its core that want non-core to split away, first using fear, then begging and pleading non-core implementations to actually fork. all because non-core believe in sticking with real consensus of multiple implementations all on the same playing field increasing diversity to secure bitcoins decentralisation of a peer network. where as core want a TIER control network

No, it is core's fee market, not Jihan's. Jihan is more likely worried about Bitcoin.


No, part of the miners job is to protect their business against attackers, thereby protecting the network.
You expect them to just stand by even if they think core (or any other) will destroy them/Bitcoin. You need to think again.

What makes a newbie like you think he know's better than Jihan?

Jihan is worried about how much he can mine $$$ Miners cares about profit that is why while there is full mempool
block were filled with 50% they gram only biggest fees.
Miners cares only about profits.

Whole hash-rate debate is currently about few big players while BTC community is tied in ring.
Etherum and Dash is taking its place - Nice / they always had problems with getting new people on board but now
BTC is helping them switch to alts. I think that market will make them broken at some point.
BTC looks like has good spot at 1000$ that fee 0.0002BTC is capping it :D

From me 1MB is nothing they need 10MB ti rise again like 10x then 100MB to next 10x.
More users more data but it can be offshore by LN and help them get 100x ...
Miners are short therm minded.

That case with LTC prooves where is BTC heading with one CENTRAL MINER :D
BTC wil be like LTC at 4$ all improvements will be blocked by miners.

I think it is natural that miners don’t like segwit that much since they feel their interests are going to be affected by it, if you get a reduction in your salary but you still need to work as hard, would you still be as happy with your job.