Bitcoin Forum

Last 144 blocks (24 hours) , its only 20.1%.

I mean, come on guys...

Current proposal from core is not gonna happen.   If you really want Segwit, you need to back segwit HF.

No one reasonably wants to hardfork.
That is never going to happen anytime soon without a controversial hardfork.

If SegWit SF never gets accepted then other softforks will be proposed.
Hardforks, majority of the time, will only be implemented after an emergency.

Hardforks are an attack vector that is asking for trouble. If we can programmatically
avoid it and still get a gain, why risk it? We only risk it when all other options have
been exhausted. IMO, we haven't gotten there yet.

Wait when BTC and ETH will have same market cap that will mean ETH miners are getting 3x more $ fiat than BTC miners. There is space where they will move to tested working  solution.
Segwit will be tested by then on multiple altcoins VTC LTC DGB...
Today they have low motivation for changes but those will come with stagnation if not BTC then some alt will take over 1st place. ETH now gets all-most same $ fiat from mining as BTC.
It will be good when ETH miners will get more if ETH will have LN(Raiden) + some upgrades.

Increasing block-size alone is like increasing debt ceiling each year by US government because this time will be better and they will pay debt :D...

I disagree but thanks for commenting.

FTFY..

I'm not going to say that it will never hit 95%, but realistically there has never been any expectation (from me anyways) for it to hit 95% since the community is so divided about everything. Segwit is probably the ideal at this point since it is not going to require a hard fork and it doesn't start to centralize power more, but I have never thought for a moment it will ever be backed like that. Some people just like to disagree for the sake of disagreeing too.

95% is pure pie in the sky. There are probably enough miners who died while wiring something up but left the machines running to prevent it from happening. Then there are these people still signalling for 8mb blocks when I can barely remember anything about it.

Other approaches will be needed and at some point everyone's going to be incentivised to find some common ground. I've no idea what it'll look like though.

1) Variance.
2) Massive mining centralization due to Jihad prioritizing deployment of devices for himself rather than diversifying the network.
3) Segwit is happening.

---

What you do not understand is the following:
1) Supermajority of developers want Segwit over BU.
2) Supermajority of users want Segwit over BU.
3) Supermajority of the economy wants Segwit over BU.

---

Therefore, Segwit is happening either with:
1) MASF.
2) UASF BIP 148.
3) UASF BIP 149.

oh lauda. when you get some spare time.. look passed the butcheek of blockstream. and actually think about the bitcoin community.

65% of nodes is not super majority - https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/
35% of pools is not super majority - http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png

stop only getting fake results from your echo chamber of censored groupies..(luke JR and his fake 100,000 nodes lol)
what you are not understanding is that you are like a music bang groupy who thinks the band you adore is the best because all the other groupies you talk to love and adore it..

you are not realising that you are only talking to people on the music bands tour bus. so you cannot see anything beyond the tour buses headlights. you even want the tourbus radio to be tuned into a music station that only plays the blockstream tune

This has nothing to do with Blockstream. You are clearly obsessed with them and need to visit a nearby psychiatrist.

Core nodes represent over 90% of the network. 65% is a super majority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority).

I haven't mentioned pools. Are you really this stupid?

I am not.

segwit has nothing to do with blockstream??

care to check elements:segwit.. segwit is a blockstream invention.. not a 'independent core' concept
care to check P.wuilles employment who coded the main cludge of it..

it become a roadmap when gmax wrote the road map.

as for WHO decided segwit's activation
care to check gmaxwell and Luke Jr's going soft POOL ONLY vote

and where that POOL ONLY.. only has 35% vote which is no where near super majority.

as for things like UASF, care to check samson mows employment and what his current role is

seriously.. open your eyes

We can only hope.

I agree, no one wants to bilateral split, but I also think no one wants to perform
a hardfork (even within 95% consensus, hypothetically) only for the "scaling issue"
now because people are afraid of the unintended consequences, as well as the
anticipated one. The scaling debate really comes down to decentralization. If a
hardfork affects that, then the majority will not support it (majority of everyone
other than miners). A hardfork is almost always a "leap of faith" due to it's centralizing
side effects, IMO.

If hardforkers really demand hardforks as the main protocol changing mechanism,
they should not be creating EC type clients and other clients to change the protocol,
but create new supporting structures for verifying nodes and decentralization under the
current protocol. For example, when block propagation became an issue between miners,
as the blocksize grew from low levels to 1MB, Core Developer Corallo developed and
released the FIBRE network to help support the mining network. Instead of allowing
failures, that mining relay system was created, to mitigate the impact that scaling to
1MB created. That is the next step for scaling, not EC or other consensus changing
systems, but backbone systems.

If new support structures can be created that preserves the decentralized and
independently verifying node network, then majority (but not all obviously) of hardfork
complaints and fears would vanish. Until those systems are created and accepted by the
community as being sufficient, the scaling hardfork proposal will never be reasonably
entertained, IMO. Any movement toward EC without those structures will always be
regarded as an attack instead of a solution, IMO.

If scaling proponents are genuine, they should be building foundations first, then
push for scaling second. Not the other way around like currently.

What about the recent SPV fraud proof improvements from Bitcrust?

blockstreams tier network

vs

node consensus per network using consensus to grow without blockstream spoonfed limits...

you think the tier network is less centralised??

here is a lesson
1. unless nodes (important) are there and united and same level playing field to save off large orphan risks... pools wont do anything.

this means nodes have to unite around a consensus first. then pools will follow.
that is where blockstream went wrong.. trying to bypass nodes by going soft.
smart pools wont do anything unless nodes are there..

pools have said many times they wont do anything if theres more then a few % risk of orphans as that will hurt their income.
they can wave a flag or a hat to say they support something but they wont actually create it at any activation date if ther is orphan risk.

so its nodes that matter most.

solution.. ASK THE COMMUNITY FOR A SHOPING LIST OF FEATURES EVERYONE WANTS. and all unite in building a version of the protocol in all the different brands/langages that fulful that list.

call it planB
EG core v0.15B
EG BU vX.xB
EG classic vx.xB
and so on.

yep that means stop using these several roundtable meeting to be used as bribes and ass-kiss events.. but to actually use their EARS to listen and actually settle on features that will actually unite the community and solve the issues

things like
limiting tx sigops to 4k or below IN CONSENSUS.H
allowing a hardish rule for blocksize of 8mb (long term debate ender (even core devs and others know 8mb is network safe))
and allow NODES to set a secondary preferential limit amount below that, starting at say 2mb. that is dynamic. (yep EC)

thus keeping POOLS inline with majority below preference and way below consensus.
(imagine it like nodes having a lil more sway over when/if pools should have moved beyond 0.5mb in 2013, even while the 1mb consensus existed)

thus letting nodes have a little more say in when pools increment up without actually causing real orphan stress/drama
other features like xthin and compact blocks finding a united way to communicate across the network between the different brands and get the data they need.
where by the core devs WORK WITH other implementations (OMG did i just say core devs should try being independent and help the network.. yes i did)

I haven't read much about it, but from a simple look over just now, it
seems to rely on the miners flagging a block that has an invalid tx for
the Bitcrust nodes to understand its invalid, compared to your node
verifying the invalid tx itself and telling the miners.

My understanding of the Satoshi Fraud Proof idea was that it would
be a trustless way to verify for SPV. From my simple layman reading
just now, it doesn't seem to be doing that with Bitcrust. Though I do
need to read about it more since I have not heard of it till now.

Segwit as a hard fork is nearly the same as segwit as a soft fork. As a hard fork, it means that the witness commitment would be part of the block header. However, this is not desireable because the same data can be put into the coinbase transaction with no additional overhead and would make it a soft fork.

Yes it does not look like it will be activated. But the time to wait for it is until mid November right? Just wait for it until that time and if nothing happens then we should accept it. There is nothing wrong with waiting.

Of course it isn't going to happen.

The only thing that can succeed is a simple increase in blocksize.

Don't worry we shall activate SegWit on Bitcoin. It's already activated on LTC and we see how it's going, then get it on Bitcoin.

The difference is that as a hard fork, there's almost no reason why it couldn't also include a bump to the base (2mb).   

I think an hardfork or softwork will never occur even after many years past
it will only get implemented when we stand in a brink of destruction caue by bitcoin scaling
an hardfork will only happen if all the options has been used, we dont wanna risk hardforking an controversial HF or SF. Im sure many solutions will bw presented in up coming so why hurry hardforking.

Lots of reasons when there is a potential for 8 MB blocks to be created full of spam.

It will happen.

"Brink of destruction"? You truly are a shit poster.

Classic shit post.

---

There are three ways of activating Segwit:
1) MASF.
2) UASF with BIP 148.
3) UASF with BIP 149.

One of them is going to happen.

Yes, a tier network (second layer), as you call it, preserves the base network from
failure and centralization. Whether the tier network (second layer) becomes
centralizing or not isn't relevant for many reasons. One, it could be designed to be
decentralized. Two, different layers/tiers can compete against the others while all
still finalizing on the base network. Three, if it becomes a "bank tier/layer" that
becomes restrictive or censorship prone/etc, we can destroy it and create a new
second layer. We could "fork away" from this restrictive second layer, and Bitcoin
and it's base network will remain unharmed.

On the other hand, if we change the base network, there is no going back. If it
becomes totalitarian and mined by government controlled corporations with blacklisting
and etc, then Bitcoin is dead. The base network has failed.




Core only bypassed verifying nodes by using a SF because:
(1) it was possible with this type of proposal/hack,
(2) it is pretty impossible currently to get high consensus for hardforks,
(3) hardfork's byproduct is centralization and other issues.

I don't understand the significance of your pools % risk orphan comment.
Majority of node's using the Core client are not signalling for a blockincrease
hardfork, but for SegWit. If that is the case, then the pools could SF now and
those Core nodes would be supporting them, both non-segwit blocks and
segwit blocks.




I agree with your comment about roundtables and ass-kiss events.
But the problem with settling community issues with agreed upon features is
that some are fine and others are contentious. The 8MB hardfork (baseblock pre/no
SegWit or after SegWit?) you propose will never be accepted anytime soon. Maybe
some would agree to 3MB, but in the larger picture it isn't worth doing a hardfork
for just 3MB. That is why the issue has stalled. If we go all the way, it needs to be
near perfect, if not, we stay where we are now.

Until more systems are created that supports the base network, there will never
be high consensus for a hardfork. Those days are long gone now, not because of
blockstream or Core, but because people now understand that is the weakest point
of our network. It is both an upgrade mechanism and an attack vector.

A hardfork is a "God Key", it has the capability to do good and/or bad. The problem is
that we will never know if a hardfork decision was good or bad until far into the
future with hindsight. That is why SFs are currently preferred if possible. For example,
ETH & ETC split, no one really knows whether that was a correct choice or not. Anyone
claiming that it was a success or failure doesn't really know and is an opinion. Personally
I don't think it was the correct choice for the coin, but good for the devs legal liability.

Personally, I don't think EC can work. Nodes could be manipulated to create false
positives for block raising which could be financed by the largest miners, intended
not for more fees or txs, but to eliminate the least powerful miners. EC is just another
possible attack vector that leads to centralization, which is what we must strive to
mitigate. If the proposal could be reasonably exploitable, it isn't good IMO.

The problem is that you can not create an EC system where the minority voting nodes
can be ignored and over ruled. If there are 50,000 nodes and 49,500 nodes want 3MBs,
but 500 nodes still want to remain at 2MBs, they should stay at 2MBs until new systems
are developed that supports those 500 nodes, IMO. In the above example, imagine that
majority of that 49,500 was fake and those 500 where the only real nodes. There is no
way to mitigate that until Proof of Node is solved. My only concern is security, not
scalability. If we can have both that is great, but I do not think we can have both
at this moment in time.

The real discussion in the community is "who is willing to roll the dice and who is not?".

But, at the end of the day, I am not advanced in the technicals of Bitcoin. I am only
addressing my concerns and opinion as a low level Bitcoiner. I want scaling and
understand its overall importance, but I do not wish to roll the dice if it means losing
certain properties of Bitcoin that I think are novel and most interesting.

This doesn't make any sense.  How is a SF any different than a HF with regard to the change being good or bad.
In either case, you are stuck with the change forever, unless you make special rules to parse certain ranges
of the blockchain differently.

In the case you want to undo it, Segwit SF is actually much worse than a HF block increase, because
if you ever wanted to roll back the HF block increase, you can have a few lines of code set the max size based
on a condition of the block height.  However, with Segwit SF, you would have to have all nodes include the segwit
code just to undo it, in order to correctly verify the witness data for the set of blocks it was active in.

With a softfork, all non-mining nodes are preserved because the changes are
either backwards compatible or not in violation of the current protocol. On the
other hand, with a 2MB hardfork, all non-mining nodes that have not upgraded
will reject the whole 2mb blockchain as a violation.

Simply, a SF could be neutral, where as a HF will be good or bad. The full impact
of a HF is not know, where as with a SF, the impact is passive since it is not a
fundamental change, but could be ignored if requested. For example, RBF, CLTV,
and those SF could be ignored. But with a HF, those changes can not be ignored.

Whether a SF or HF is revertible is irrelevant and has no bearing on whether the
choice was good or bad. The issue is the future. Are you saying that Bitcoin would
revert a 2MB increase 2 years from now if the community decided that 2MBs
destroyed the decentralized network? No, at that point the deed is done and
we already entered a state of  failure.

SFs are better since any impact is passive in that the "features" are not dominate.
They are voluntary use. A HF is not voluntary, they are mandatory and that will later
be determined to be good mandatory or bad mandatory. In theory, no one could
use any SegWit SF scripts after activation throughout Bitcoin's life and it wouldn't
change anything significantly within Bitcoin.

On the other hand, a 2MB increase is not truly reversible. It is like childbirth, in
theory you can push the child back up there, but in reality the child is here. You
now must deal with the child and all of it's future consequences whether good or bad.

This topic is going to be very interesting to read. I think that this situation will take some time to resolve. In the meantime altcoins are eating chunks of BTC's market share and cap.

If nothing of these two camp give way or come into consensus and agreed to merge their proposal, then the solution for Bitcoin scaling that they proposes will never happen.  They will be forever in stale since both camp are holding aces that can prevent each other from implementing the "fix"  to scalability issue.

No winners, only losers. Do you think that the price is being jeopardized?

There's no two camp. There's Bitcoin community and small malicious group of chinese miners under control of Jihad wu and altcoin guy Roger-Doger, trying to take over bitcoin.

That's not really true, as I see things.  If most miners start including segwit transactions in blocks, then this definitely will dominate the network. What usefulness would there be for nodes that don't upgrade, since they can't validate the blockchain? 

Well, yeah. But I'm afraid the market won't wait. A future crash will be blamed on this indecision.

Just more nonsense from the usual anti segwit idiots. This is just (again) block variance giving the advantage to Buggy Unlimited, that's all. It's still A TIE! What's so hard to understand?

Meanwhile, Litecoin is flying into the moon as segwit activates. Of course, segwit deniers will not admit that the market values segwit positively.

Does this mean that segwit will definitely happen? I am looking forward to its results. However, with the options you give, I hope you can give your opinion on its effectiveness. Which method would be better for bitcoin? Besides these advantages, is there any disadvantage?

which means it wont get 95%.


In Lauda's self-created reality, yes, it will definitely happen.

I suggest compromise or walk away.  Prolonged contention is unlikely the best course.

I don't think it's going to end up being activated at any point through any means like this, we're going to need a full-scale assault pretty much close to what BTU was attempting to do in order to take over Bitcoin. I know they did some pretty scummy practices which probably consisted of bribes and such in order to try to get people to come along with his hostile takeover.

But I don't think it's going to get the approval it needs in order to go through, we're gonna need to incentivize it for the miners, even the ones using the practices of ASIC boost as they're going to be losing capital and do control a ton of the market. It's tough to want to negotiate with people who were scumming the network like this and stalling for personal gain, but that's how business works.

Agreed, compromise is always the best option for both sides. Competition always has consequences for both. However, in this case, I think competition is essential, I think bitcoin should be segwit.

And there's the rub; walking away means one "side" gets the legacy/brand and the other is an altcoin.

Correct. It will happen, with or without the miners. The only reason for which a POW change is not being deployed right now is because of a few friendly miners/pools (Bitfury, BTCC, F2Pool). If they were not supporting Segwit, these BIPs would probably be POW change proposals. The miners do not control Bitcoin. Never have and never will.

Classic shill talk. Wake up, BU is dead, with 0 or 100% of the hashrate.

Segwit is the compromise. How can you not understand this?

Saying a thing doesn't make it so.  We can pretty much tell if it is a compromise when both sides agree to it.

segwit is the compromise..

in terms of making it easier to trojan horse in new features softly by compromising the security and decentralisation of the network

compromise= weak/break security
not
compromise= agreement to end debate

lets just wait for another brand to use the 'soft exploits' to add features.. but this time something not blockstream endorsed.. and then see lauda rage that going soft is bad..

then he will be a hypocrit for his going soft is good stance.. when it hits him in the face

You saying this doesn't make your statement true. Segwit will deliver a great capacity increase considering the amount of people waiting to switch over. Segwit is the compromise and you don't negotiate with terrorists.

Absolute nonsense. BU is cancer and no compromise can be made with their destructive technology.

Yes, it won't most likely ever get 95% (anything possible tho, even if unlikely) but this does not mean Buggy Unlimited will happen, so at least accept Buggy Unlimited is dead.

Maybe Bitcoin will stay as it is. Unless there is an huge agreement to UASF by all parties except Jihad Wu etc to corner him, we are not going to see segwit. So we need massive UASF support or else it's not happening.

All other scaling proposals thus far are crap.

who's the ones with the PoW nukes?
who's the ones with the absurd banscores?
who's the ones with the manditor dictatorship deadlines?

meaning non-blockstream endorsed nodes make no threats and just plod along offering a free choice. no threats, no deadlines, no asic killer agenda

can someone please pass lauda the reality stick, i feel he needs to hit himself with it

Hey, don't you know? Doublespeak is kinda their thing. Like calling themselves and their Blockstream buddies 'the community'.

The Core fanbois are sounding progressively crazier. I've always felt that tech people are prone to extreme points of view and zealotry, this whole thought experiment is confirming that view. The UASF/MASF proposals are so fringe, I don't think they'll even reach past 25% approval (other than in "polls" on this forum). Carlton Banks an Lauda might get all hyphy about the proposals, but I suspect the other fanbois will be too busy screeching about how "trolls killed Segwit on Litecoin" when the LTC price crashes...

- ViaBTC

It certainly would for me at least. I'd be moving on to a coin that still had a chance of not becoming Paypal.

you're against bigger blocks? or just EC?

The only people here threatening with nukes are Jihan Wu and the other miners that wanted to 51%+ attack the network, so how do you expect Core devs to react if it's not with a PoW change? are they supposed to watch and see their hard work attacked by a bunch state sponsored chinese hashrate?

I'm not against bigger blocks. I just want the people who introduce them to be competent and not introduce the risk of even more centralisation than there is now. Nothing from the Unlimited crew has looked good enough so far.

Everyone apart from a few weirdos wants more scaling. If something is good enough then it'll be embraced. Going by what's come out so far from them it's not good enough. Of course there could be some Core poison in there, but that means they have to come up with something that's just undeniably better.

At any time, miners may choose to include or not include SegWit txs into their blocks.
Since they have that choice, it is voluntary. If they wish to purposefully exude segwit
tx in their blocks because they disagree with them or any unintended side effects
develop later, miners will just never pick them up ever again (The code will remain
within, but will not be enforced for future use).

That is why they can not "dominate" the network. The only way they will "dominate" is
if they are a mandated change that all users must follow and all miners must accept for
block inclusion. If all other tx script types were SF banned except for SegWit txs, then
your statement would be true, but that is not the case.  

You are semi incorrect about non-upgraded nodes. The issue is not that the non-upgraded
nodes will not verify, the issue is that their verification falls into a hierarchy structure that
is created by the SF mechanism itself (where as the HF just brakes them). In order to
preserve the current security as well as create new abilities, this hierarchy is formed. IMO,
the new node hierarchy would be like the following:

      (1) SegWit Upgraded Mining Nodes (Node Level 1):
          (a) can verify all SegWit and non-SegWit txs (Proposed system).
          (b) they choose what txs to include in blocks (voluntary).
          (c) they can verify or not verify their tx inclusions (Full or SPV mining).

      (2) Non-Upgraded Verifying Nodes (Node Level 2):
          (a) can verify all non-SegWit txs (Current system) (Check Miner's work).
          (b) must defer to Miner's block inclusion only for SegWit txs (Anyonecanspend).

      (3) SegWit Upgraded Verifying Nodes (Node Level 3):
          (a) can verify all Miner's work and approve work or invalidate (Check Miner's work).
          (b) if Miner creates bad SegWit block, Level 3's rejection of it falls down
               through Level 2 and to Level 1, causing an orphaning of the current block for
               all nodes, whether SegWit enabled or not.
               (Node Level 2 actually defers to Node Level 3 to check SegWit txs, not Level 1).

The above is my understanding and explains why non-upgraded nodes not performing any
function is a semi-incorrect statement. They are still enforcing the current protocol, but must
defer to new nodes (Level 3) for the new parts (Level 3 parts). In contrast, with a HF, only
new nodes (Level 3) will enforce the "new" protocol and all these old nodes (Level 2) are
destroyed and lost, creating a semi quantifiable security loss.

For HFs, assuming these nodes (Level 2) will just upgrade and rejoin is not something security
should be based upon. In theory, as the blocksize increases, more and more nodes will not be
able to keep up with such load and will ultimately be lost in more and more diverse world
locations. These losses increase the centralization and decreases the security of the network
over time. So, a HF (especially for blocksize increases) almost always has the side effect of
"burning security". In order for the network to gain something new (like increased scale), it
must destroy security as equivalent exchange, since that is the law of this universe.

The SF Node hierarchy system is an interesting way to prevent the "burning of security",
while still getting a new gain for the network. The HF mechanism demands sacrifice upon
it's alter. Are you willing to spill the blood of security for more worldly pleasures? Not me.

Easier said than done if it was that easy then we would be a lot closer to activation but we are so far away that it does not seems it is going to happen at all, don’t take me wrong I will like to get segwit activated as soon as possible but unless something drastic happens it is very doubtful it is going to happen.

@AgentofCoin

Your description of the mechanism seems correct, but I still see zero value to the network for non-mining nodes that don't upgrade.

You could say that a non-upgraded miner creating blocks of non-sw tx adds to the network hashrate, but on the other hand its still SPV mining, which is something that should probably be discouraged. 

For validation, the idea of 'well, its sort of compatible, sometimes, on certain transactions' makes "backwards compatibility" a misnomer. 

IF BTC price will crash :) and alts will keep rissing soon mining alts will get more $$ fiat than BTC then miners will make changes if not they will swap place with alt miners.
Since BTC asics can be used only in BTC then they are on lose side.
Alts will progress I don't have ETH but i cheer it to kick BTC out of road for while for mining centralization and lack of progress.

BTC miners need cold shower : D

BU == terrorists. Period.

There is already widespread support for UASF. The main question is just how exactly should we do it. BIP149 seems to be better than BIP148 but it would also take more time to deploy.

Someone who hasn't existed in the Bitcoin ecosystem until recently claims that they're the law and know what's best for Bitcoin. Seems plausible. You might as well let them add a master key into Bitcoin. ::)

EC is a complete disaster. Bigger blocks have issues worth mentioning on their own. Either movement goes towards, as you've said it, Paypal 2.0 which is what Ver says he wants anyways.

Am so impressed with the quality of minds here. Getting all this for free is mind blowing. Internet is a wonderful things.

IMO, the non-upgraded nodes (Level 2) still retain their security value for the network,
even though they are oblivious to the SegWit txs individually. They are still verifying
everything other than SegWit data. The SegWit proposal is only backwards compatible
as to that it does not break Level 2 nodes verifying nonsegwit txs, not that Level 2 nodes
can also verify SegWit, since that would be impossible.

One purpose of a SF is to preserve the old nodes, and in that sense the "new features"
are "backwards compatible" with Level 2, as that they do not violate Level 2 rules. That
is it basically.

To be really simple, SegWit nodes (Level 3) could be compared to a secondary layer
on top of the preexisting layer (Level 2)**. Over time, as more and more verifying node
versions enter and leave the network, Level 2 nodes will naturally phase out as Level 3
nodes (and possibly higher levels) increase. The purpose of this SF method is the slow
natural transition of security from one Level to the next Level. Eventually at some point
in the future, our current Level 2 nodes will become fully extinct and then Level 3 Nodes
will become the new Level 2 nodes. So security is retained and features are added without
any loss (in theory). This is intentional, playing the long game, and the opposite of a HF,
which breaks and rejects all Level 2 immediately and mandates Level 3 full compliance
(which automatically becomes the new Level 2, since old Level 2 is banned).

The issue that Level 2 nodes not being fully validating as equally as Level 3 nodes is
semi correct, but is not the actual intention of this type of design. It is basically, "some
network validation for now (Level 2), as we transition into full validation of the new script
format later (Level 3)". This design mechanism allows for slow upgrade change transitions
without sacrificing the node network's "overall" security. As I stated above, eventually
Level 2 nodes will fade away just as the Satoshi clients and Bitcoin QT clients have
faded away over time as new things developed.

Hopefully this isn't confusing. This is my understanding.


**[ As a side note: Level 1 are the miner's themselves and prior to the centralization
of mining by ASIC and etc, Level 1 nodes were intended to be the only Level. Since
mining became exploitable in many different ways (SPV and etc) and that the cost of
competition for average people became too high too soon, the verification system naturally
split between mining nodes and non-mining (verifying) nodes. These non-mining nodes only
exist for the sake of double checking the miner's work and holding them in protocol
compliance. In the event of massive miner collusion or etc, the only remedy users have
are non-mining nodes alerting them to such. This is why Level 2 Nodes must remain
individual, decentralized and unregulatable, since without them, mining becomes truly
illusionary since they become trusted within a system intended to be based on trustlessness.
This is the contradiction. Due to this natural occurrence that Satoshi did not fully anticipate,
Level 2 Nodes manifested as a byproduct of this unfortunate failure. (Interestingly, it may
be that non-mining (verifying) nodes who are purely altruistic, properly balance out the
nature of the pure greed aspect of mining. The greed nodes vs the altruistic nodes may
have created a more balanced system than Satoshi original envisioned (pure greed)).

So, in theory the original Satoshi experiment (and Nakamoto Consensus) failed within
short time due to exploits, but a new answer immediately arose to plug the error and that
safety plug are Level 2 Nodes. This is one of the reasons for the current scaling debate.
Scaling, if done improperly, will prevent Level 2 Nodes from operating as this safety
plug, and may irrevocably remove them forever. In that future scenario, miners become
trusted parties and have free will to do anything they wish. Bitcoin then falls back into the
failure that Level 2 Nodes naturally arose to fix in 2010-2011. The Protocols will become
as illusionary as like the Financial World's Credit System, making Bitcoin a shadow
of its former self, absolutely worthless in monetary value, and IMO an insult to what
Satoshi was attempting to solve originally. ]

A compromise would be a simple max block size increase. This would completely nullify any issue with BU code quality. It is only due to the fact that core iteratively whittled away this idea down to nothing, that gave big blockers an incentive to create BU to begin with.

Of course.

The Core team will not accept any compromise, though, despite many attempts to negotiate with them.

As recently as a week ago, I asked sir Gregory about Segwit+2MB (as others have done many times), and was told it was "toxic and risky".

the tier network.. well lets just call it what it really is
the centre main base of the network ... the "core" layer (no coincidence of names has been a plan in the works for years)
gets to do as they like
the outter layer the skin may pretend to protect the core from rot. but the outer layer is just the layer where all the much, bruises and holes are seen.
DNS seeds at the CORE can easily shed away the skin (much like we dont see 0.7 nodes anymore)
the skin layer then just acts as storage protection. and not validating/orphaning blocks to keep pools following diverse nodes whom have consensus unity rules.

if CORE becomes the only team at the centre.. bitcoin is centralised because there is no peer network any more to vote/veto out certain funky tx's/blocks.

tier networks (the way CORE are creating it) by bypassing node consensus and bribing pools, are trying to get the tier network in their sole centralized control



2. no.. if core actually listened to the community and stuck to agreements there would be a healthy majority of diverse nodes that would happily upgrade to a PEER network of new consensus rules that add new functionality FOR ALL.
its only impossible to get high consensus if the dev team make code the community cannot agree on.. core should use their ears more than their mouth. and things would have moved forward more quicker and with more of a united community ALL on the same playing field of a peer network.

3. soft forks/ hardforks both have the same risks.. but what most dont realise is that soft can cause splits too, and soft actually by using backdoors and exploits to bypass consensus can cause more centralisation.
hard forks can occur without causing splits without centralisation.. but many people are only highlighting softs best case scenario and hards worse case scenario, without even wanting to talk about the possibility of the opposite (softs worse, hards best)

Ok but what kind of a compromise do you propose and why do you think it is a good idea? I used to think the same way as you but I realized that it is easy to say "do a compromise", but when asked what kind of compromise I cannot answer or I realize I do not know much to comment.

1) You don't compromise with terrorists.
2) Increasing the block size limit without Segwit is both stupid and dangerous.

BU code is complete trash, and the developers are one of the worst that I've seen. Nothing can nullify that.

It is a very bad idea.

Segwit is the compromise.

More red ink from Lauda.

When are you going to tell everyone that you are really theymos just being an asshole?

 8)

FYI:
Lauda is an idiot.

Totally agree; saying compromise is indeed the easy part; creating it is the hard work.  In this particular case it will start with both sides agreeing to something important and then each side giving in enough to be meaningful.  For example, if both sides can agree to something like this;

"It is important to keep things decentralized."

If there is no agreement to something important then walk away.  If there is true agreement then proceed to the next step; each side gives up something meaningful, e.g.;

1) All will promote/encourage multiple independent development teams.  One dominate/central development team goes against our agreed to guiding principle.
2) All will agree to some small increment in the protocol at first and then measure/observe the impact and move towards results that work best toward decentralization.

This is just an example.  The actual negotiations would likely end up somewhere else.  When both sides feel heard and respected then there is the possibility of compromise.

Even in a walk away situation, it should be possible to negotiate inheritance of the legacy/brand; perhaps something along the lines of ETH/ETC.

I do think so. Chinese pools will never agree to activate it. We need to find another solution to solve the problem. If not, Bitcoin will be replaced by another crypto which is faster, cheaper and more convenient. Too many people join the bitcoin world but it seems that bitcoin does not want to grow up

Lauda isn't Theymos.  Actually, Lauda was removed from staff .

I get your point and as I said I used to think the same way. A compromise would be nice but I realized that the scaling debate is really a war for control. Lauda has pointed out that Segwit is the compromise but the Chinese miners does not want it. They want everything and want the hard fork to BU. Where is the compromise there?

If there really was a compromise it would have happened in the Hong Kong meet up between Core and the miners.

"Segwit is a compromise" is rhetoric.  Compromise between what?   sensible scaling and no scaling? 

Truth is:  segwit is something Core came up with own their own without consulting the users, that offers a tiny amount of scaling as a soft fork. 

Do you like spreading FUD?

pls, enlighten.

segwit was a secret project/altcoin as part of blockstream:elements, done separately from the bitcoin community from 2014-2015
consensus 2015 meeting was their first main roadmap that core decided to follow and have not listened/done the other things that the community asked of them.. its either the blockstream highway(roadmap) or no way..
no B roads, no diversion no secondary routes.. just follow blockstreams roadmap or get chucked off the network by the end of 2018

The only altcoin here is bug unlimited. Segwit fixes numerous problems, makes lightning network possible to work at full effect, provides endless technologies that actually make bitcoin possible for mainstream adoption and so on.

We have segwit working nicely on litecoin and the end of the world predicted by segwit fudsters never happened.

I would back a compromise of Segwit HF + 2mb.

If you do not, then I think its fair to say you are among those blocking segwit.

All Core vs except Luke JR I think which actually wants to make the blocksize smaller, want to eventually make the blocksize higher. Im sure we will sooner or later see a bigger blocksize, but for the time being we should enable segwit, let it run for a while, then eventually go 2MB, specially as more and more people start using LN since they will realize onchain transactions aren't worth it for small payments when you have LN unless you really need to because you are sending a decent amount.

That is correct. However, BU & their fanatics are not concerned with whether their "teachings" are related to reality/the truth or not. ::)

---

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

Regarding the UASF

From what I last heard it was mostly small services that agreed to signal it. However the larger exchanges and services like Bitpay they didn't want to signal UASF due to the controversy it might generate and cause loss of clients.

Interesting proposal dropped by Luke Jr a couple hours ago:

https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-cbv/bip-cbv.mediawiki


Block signaling with TX fees.

But Segwit is also a fix to the malleability problem and improve the network to make it more robust right? It also opens Bitcoin to make it easier for other technologies like LN and Mimble Wimble to be built on the network.

What is so bad about that?

Everyone waits for the development of bitcoin, however, the head does not agree with that, rather than choosing more robust and convenient bitcoin methods, they want to stay bitcoin, this Makes the bitcoin slow and many people leave.

I think the biggest problems anti-Core guys have is that they don't trust them. Core hasn't said a specific date where this blocksize increase would happen, I think they will not stop complaining until Core gives a clear date to raise the blocksize after the segwit activation, but I think if Core did that, they would still complain and don't trust them. They just hate them now no matter what they do.

Okay, BillyBob. Can you give one good technical reason why separating out witness data is a good idea and why?

People like me don't necessarily not like Core, we just realize they are working for the banks at this point. No, they don't literally work at BoA, silly buns, they are getting paid by big corporations like AXA that represent the same interests though.

As far as I can tell, the only rational reason for separating out witness data would be if you wanted to restrict access to it later in a takeover scheme.

How about you watching the video from the scaling conference from 2015? It is a *good technical reason* because it solves all the things that are clearly listed (including cons) on the Bitcoin Core website (https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/). Re-writing this list in a post is redundant.

This is complete and utter bullshit. Not only "are they" not working for the banks, they are not being paid by corporations (startup funding != being paid by) and Blockstream (if that's what you're referring to with the AXA propaganda bullshit) only represents a a part of the Bitcoin Core development[1].

Nonsense as always.

---

[1] - Here it is:

https://i.imgur.com/i9w2sB3.png

Hahaha you're funny man, do you really think that segwit doesn't get activated and BU guys don't agree to activate it just because they don't know the date when it would happen? It is definitely not the case, in my opinion they are afraid to lose the fees that they collect right now from including the transactions into the blocks because after a few decades that is going to be a real problem when block reward ceases. Though I am for BU as well because it raises the block size quick and to a big size, so we can avoid the massive fees that we are paying now.

It is not about the hate but its all about the monopoly. Both parties wanted to monopolize the bitcoin mining industry and if they will succeed they will have total control over the production of bitcoin. Thus it will mean huge profit from them and it could mean higher fees for us. What we need is the current bitcoin without bitcoin unlimited and without segwit. Bitcoin is good as it is.

Original Bitcoin did NOT have a blocksize cap. We clearly need to remove it. It never should have been added.

Bitcoin had unused block capacity for years for its entire history until just recently when all blocks started being full. This isn't difficult to understand.

Just because Satoshi said and did this or said that does not mean his word is law or he is correct all of the time. Did he not put the 1mb limit? Removing it now would centralize mining and make the blockchain unmmanageably very large.


You want it to scale, yes many people do. Why not fix the malleability issues first with Segwit and then make it scale through offchain means?

Malleability has never been an issue except to people who imagined it to be one. Just wait for a confirmation or two. Even if it was a problem, can you give a technical explanation why SegWit is required to address malleability double spends???

Yes I am aware that it is not really that big of an issue. But as an improvement for the protocol it will be always good for the longterm.


Segwit is required to open the network for other technologies to be developed on the network. Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?

Why would you want to add unnecessay software?

Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more secure? If so, how?

Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more robust? If so, how?

Do you realize that after SegWit, miners may collude to roll back to non-SegWit? Do you realize that every previous SegWit then becomes a real 'anyone can spend' transaction? Do you realize that if this is done, the colluding miners may claim the value stored in these 'anyone can spend' transactions? Do you agree that this rollback/theft may be an incentive for miners to act counter to the intentions of the rest of the Bitcoin participants (whether or not sufficient to entice them to do so)? Are you at all concerned about this possibility?

All valid questions..


If they did - Bitcoin would be OVER anyway. And the bitcoins would hold no value. They may as well hard fork back to the BUG where you could print Bitcoins for FREE..

There is a way to get rid of SegWit without this doomsday scenario playing out.. Everyone just has to send the money BACK to normal addresses before the HARD FORK. (All though all trust would be lost - and BTC would probably be dead..)


Yes - But only in a completely self-destructive Mad-Man way.


No.

Just WOW. I do notice a distinct wince from the Core-bois when "anyone can spend" is brought up. It just sounds BAD. I need to read up on the subject.

Yeah. Those bastards..

NOT ONLY do I not have to upgrade now, and do everything I could before, until I want to... BUT I DON'T EVER have to upgrade, (as far as ALL the wonderful scripting Magic is concerned), and do everything I could before, until I want to..

You inconsiderate animals. I WANTED to be forced.. HARD FORCED!

.. .. wince.

Meanwhile btc fees just keep creeping up.
https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

Because Segwit is an improvement for Bitcoin making it more secure and robust. It is making the protocol open to technologies that will help make it scale and help make it better. Technologies like Schnorr signatures that will help in Bitcoin's scalability, efficiency and privacy.

We get all that in the safety of a soft fork.

Do you deny that Segwit will improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?


I will message someone else to answer you to technically explain.

...but I was asking you.  You see, when you call in the reinforcements, instead of answering in your own words, it leaves the impression that you may have not actually thought through your position, but are merely repeating a position you have heard advocated by others.

You seem to be advocating that SegWit it would make bitcoin both more secure and more robust. Leaving the more complex questions aside for the moment, I would like you to explain to me first what these terms mean to you, and second how you believe SegWit accomplishes these goals.

Fair?

Complexity is the enemy of robustness.  Would love to hear anyone explain how adding 5000 lines of code, modifying dozens of files, and introducing new transaction types and data structures will improve the 'robust' aspect of Bitcoin, which has an 8 year track record of working fine.

You are a troll that spend hours upon days trying to convince people about something you're not even getting paid for....wait maybe you are. Racist Fox News lol

Take a break. Get some pussy, maybe dick for you. Get paid. You're pathetic.

That is fair, yes. But I humbly admit that I am not technically adept and I am not qualified to give you a good rebuttal. I have not mined Bitcoin and I am not a coder. But I am learning a lot and I will do my own due dilligence before I can reply which will take time.

Fair?

Fair. I just ask you to consider each position on the strength of its arguments, and not on the passions of the crowd.