Bitcoin Forum

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/69318u/save_the_chain_enclosed_1_mb_transaction_with_273/

Thanks for sharing the link. Would definitely be a good payday for the miner that scores it.

The entire thread is golden.

Unfortunately, there is as of yet no tutorial on how to to take one of the anyone-can-spend outputs from the transaction, and bundle that with more bitcoin of your own. This would create a child transaction that would add to the miner incentive.

I'm gathering one will be along any moment now.

mewn.

Half a million dollars to increase the block size? But this doesn't really help. If it is just one miner who customizes his software and mines the block, it will be rejected by all the other nodes. So he will get just an orphan block and no bounty for all his efforts.

if the miners can organize to spend half the bounty to the next miner etc... it could cause miners to activate BU so they can get it.

Well the only way for someone to be able to score this payday is going to be if the maximum block size limit is increased, so it's not going to be a pay day in the future and I highly doubt it'll ever be a good payday. This is simply showing support and throwing money at miners to come to the side of BTU instead of the real solution that'll work, which we know is Segwit. I wouldnt expect anything less than this with Ver and his cronies who are just paying a disgusting amount of money to try to take over the Bitcoin.

Fuck you ver.

The real solution that'll work is simply increasing the blocks to 2mb for the time being.

Who has more of Bitcoin's best interest -- guys with lots of Bitcoin (Ver) or guys with lots of fiat (Blockstream).

just thinking out load:
transaction fees used to be 0.3-0.5BTC at best before the severe spam attack on network started. price was about $600-$700 (if i am generous with my calculations) meaning ~$300 per block was the bonus reward.

blocks are 1 MB, spam attack is at the peak, total fees are about 1.5BTC per block and price is $1500. miners are making $2250 bonus per block.

$500,000 is 333.33BTC = only 222 blocks fee reward (bonus).

144 blocks are being mined each day!

well a full day worth of blocks is a lot.  to a 10% mining pool thts 10 days...and a big % of net profit... not to mention, we can grow the honeypot :)

Ok, It looks like the mindset is as follows : If we cannot convince them that BU is the best scaling solution, we might be able to buy their support. So let's throw more money at the problem and see if they will fall for that. This is turning into a 3 ring circus show. ^lol^

Take a guess who is the clowns. ^hmmmmm^

My understanding of this is that the miners could reject both BU and segwit and still get the reward, right?

They could rally together and propose a new version of the software with just the one single change of raising the block size to say 2MB, rally nodes to accept just that one change, then mine the reward.

It is a hard fork, correct?

From what I've read on reddit
so it sounds to me like a bait to force BU hardfork.

I think that the transaction has a better chance to get discarded than accepted....

Great now we have another consensus mechanism, PoB (Proof-of-Bribery).

We can now add that to the other ugly consensus mechanisms, PoD and PoP (Proof-of-DDOS and Proof-of-Propaganda).

EDIT: Forgot PoCO (Proof-of-Contractual-Obligation).

This is the output that is being spent:
https://blockchain.info/tx/3cf91bf8163488bac8a884a0bc27462ef80f23f30fed23582c92f93a4e2e0fce
(You know, in case someone wanted to "follow the money").

It's fun to see a tx with 99943 new outputs!

Has anyone decoded this TX, it is too weird! I think it is spending more than it can.

Wonderful!

Let the one WHO PAYS MORE decide the fate of Bitcoin. not at ALL short sighted!.. technically SOUND!.. backed by good, solid, arguments.. 

Who decides !? Not the smartest, or most knowledgeable, or most invested, or the Users.. or etc etc.. but the RICHEST.. HAHA!

genius. great. brilliant .. ..

..

oh.. wait.. it's a totally shit idea.. Must be Ver's..

No, it would not. It would trigger a chain split, and considering the current amount of miners in support of >1 MB blocks, the whole chain would likely get orphaned. The only thing this would cause is losses.

fake news

BU is gone. No one wants this crap

Why is BU trying so hard to block _meaningful_ capacity increases on Bitcoin? Litecoin (etc) is showing how straightforward it is to implement Segwit and the Lightning Network as the core development community envisaged. Yet BU continues with their blockchain bloat proposal instead of solutions that would dramatically scale Bitcoin. Sad.

I have mixed feelings about this.

Firstly, I think that the technical idea behind this solution to motivate miners to upgrade blocksize and constructing such transaction is brilliant.
From the other hand, I don't believe that this is the way to go at all. It is a dirty way to influence miners and motivate their greed above all else.

What is the plan B of Core besides SW and if miners were to choose between a Core with 2MB support implemented and BU?

If blocksize is about to increase this way then better it be done with Core version rather than an unstable and often buggy version which is BU.

Absolutely.

The fact that adopting BU would address the blocksize war for all time makes it preferable, but the most important aspect is ridding ourselves of this stupid arbitrary production quota. I'd be more than happy -- at least until we again hit the ceiling -- with a simple maxblocksize increase.

Further, BU (as well as Classic, XT, the 8MB client, and any other client that accepts larger blocks) would be fully compatible with such a fork.

In my view this would be a hard fork and will have nothing to do with both SegWit/LN or BU.  ??? ... If they do this, it would not be permanent and

they would only do this to get the reward and then go back to whatever their original intent was. So nothing will be accomplished by doing this,

if it were not done to make a permanent change.  >:(

^^fake news.

Bitcoin is fueled by greed. Satoshi's grand innovation was in aligning everyone's greed with what is best for the system as a whole.

i am going to say it again:

BU = no one want this crap

 Once you have a block bigger than 1MB, that's going to be the new consensus rule.  It's not like miners are going to run code that says "well for this one block we'll allow a >1mb, and all other blocks, no"

bitcoin unlimited should be called

bug unlimited, how many more bugs? ;D

Whatever the goals are and how well intentioned this may be, this is nothing but bribery, this is basically enticing miners with money. If things go "as planned" nobody will take up on this and honor their opinions and everything will just be as it is now.


How has this been achieved?

A limited number.

On the flipside, core has had a fatal bug, known for years, that they refuse to address. This is, of course, the inability to process more than ~250,000 transactions per day.

I AM NOT TAKING A SIDE, Carlton.

It is ironic that those that support smaller blocks whine that "this is using greed to influence miners" on the one hand but yet are perfectly happy to say that the miners greed for the larger transaction fees caused by smaller blocks is perfectly natural and OK.

So "greed is good" if it is used to supports my personal belief regarding block size but "greed is bad" if it is used to support a different belief regarding block size.

Let's activate SegWit.

You mean the one that they've agreed to address through SegWit without screwing over node users by making them download far more data?

BU is one method of increasing transaction capacity, Core's method (SegWit) is another.  For the years that Bitcoin had been running before this hype, I bet you weren't complaining that the transaction capacity was too small.  The block size shouldn't just be increased every single time the transaction capacity does, there should be changes to make the protocol more efficient or partially offchain as well (extension blocks, LN etc), which are better for decentralisation.

Your argument is basically that people shouldn't support Core because their ideas haven't been supported yet.