Bitcoin Forum

I think it says a lot about the Bitcoin protocol when even after all the manipulations to get SegWit added, its STILL FAILING:


LAST 1000 BLOCKS  (past 7 days)

Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 441  ( 44.1% )             
Classic blocks: 10  ( 1% )             
SegWit blocks: 321  ( 32.1% )       
BIP100 blocks: 93  ( 9.3% )

LAST 24 Hours

Unlimited + Classic hashrate is ~2088 PH/s (51.4%)


Even with the sockpuppet brigades, the bought off miners and manipulations, the non-stop stream of BS articles in mainstream-controlled media like 'CoinTelegraph', the outright lies from Core devs, the censorship on this sub and reddit, and all the other facets of this attempted takeover - YOU STILL FAILED!!

You had a good head start, but slowly but surely people are figuring out what SegWit is and they're saying 'No'.

Hey, at least you guys got Litecoin, right?

Bow down to your pool operator overlords!

It all make sense now that you opened our eyes to the truth :) tomorrow at this time we shall revolt against BS, dethrone them and after that we'll just pray that our fees could get Wu's a hard on to include them in ASICboost blocks, like 2 recent blocks mined in 30 seconds. or get a 2.5BTC as fees in every block.


https://i.imgflip.com/1os0ex.jpg

Lets have a look how SW performes on LTC first..

Stay tuned, we all want bitcoin to succeed.

I detect heavy (chinese) mining centalization which has to be removed asap.

Same holds for the 5 core devs. Too central.

A bunch of Chinese fellas who probably couldn't fill the top floor of a bus doesn't say much about what everyone else wants. Pitiful that so few have so much weight.

As far as I can tell most people who aren't in charge of warehouses full of blinking boxes want Segwit. That's probably down to it being the least shit option more than anything.

If Unlimited and its various options had been produced by people who are actually competent and it had the best ideas then the majority would get behind it and I'd be fine if that activated too. It's not. They haven't. So I would not be.

The silence from Core is deafening. Blockstream Chief Strategy Officer Samson Mow must be having lots of meetings to discuss "media outreach" and "reputation management". Isn't Samson a Chinese miner BTW?

The Litecoin pump may continue for a few weeks, but I think it will dump after the news cycle expires. It's already showing signs of weakness... I'm very glad LTC implemented Segwit however - it's a great place to find the real-world defects of Segwit. Also it's a consolation prize for Core devs' egos.

Same was I thinking but time for that will come when price will start crashing.
Anyone now is believing that miners will activate Unlimited :D ?
Who would ever buy that coin after so many fails.

Miners will never go for unlimited they just show middle finger for segwit.
With segwit most alts would go for fast correction without it alts have space to grow and fill after BTC fail.
Only true support will be seen  after split into 2two coins .
But I would add POW change on top the split to FUCK HARD Jihan to make him impossible go back to mining BTC again : ) that will be real punishment.

Miners (JIhan ) want power he is probably with China goverment in team.
When whole mining will be in China hands they will force all changes they want more than 21m BTC...
KYC rules all you want , people will have no power to say no because they have no hash power.
 

We need to reevaluate who 'sold us a bill of goods'. You have abdicated your authority in the network. In reality, non-mining nodes are irrelevant. Indeed, in the original wallet, nodes mine - period.

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/main.h#L795
 
// Nodes collect new transactions into a block, hash them into a hash tree,
// and scan through nonce values to make the block's hash satisfy proof-of-work
// requirements.  When they solve the proof-of-work, they broadcast the block
// to everyone and the block is added to the block chain.  The first transaction
// in the block is a special one that creates a new coin owned by the creator
// of the block.
GitHub
trottier/original-bitcoin
original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

(emphasis added)

No problem mate (not that this thread isn't complete bullshit). UASF or a POW change is coming, whether you like it or not. The miners do not, and have never been in, control of the network. You can create your BTU coin that is completely controlled by Jihan and China for all you like, but the ecosystem will not be a part of it.

Absolute nonsense. This is sounding more like government agency talk. I thought you were a BU shill, what changed?

Hunh? I was never a BU shill, though I have been a consistent BU supporter. What is the relevance?

I have also consistently (for about a year) pointing out that non-mining entities (which I had formerly been mistakenly been calling 'non-mining nodes') have essentially zero power to influence the network, and provide essentially zero value to the network at large. I have, though, stated that such non-mining entities are what allow their owners/users to transact in a trustless manner. Benefit to the owner, no benefit to the network.

But what I have recently learned is that Satoshi's definition of 'node' is necessarily limited to entities that mine.


So you know better than Satoshi?


Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism....

Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism....

Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism....

Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism....

Hmmm... yeah.... I guess miners have always been in control of the network, after all.

ok guys put aside all the biased rhetoric and biased defense arguments.. and think real hard
who in late 2015 decided to make the vote pool only.
who bypassed the security of node consensus
who decided that bypassing nodes, which if not bypassed would have ensured a good full node count first to elevate pool orphan risk to then give pools more confidence to change the rules wouldn't hurt their change of winning blocks

pools didnt have the power of vote/veto until someone gave them that power.

this is why a node consensus first, then a pool consensus second would have worked better.

core shot themselves in the foot before they even started walking with segwit

How so?  Don't pools decide what goes in the blockheaders and always have?

what is
yep mandatory changes, nuking pools, dis-communicating with the natives, does very much sound like government agency talk.

pools can display a preference at any time. but unless they see that the orphan risk is low. they wont actually create a new block formation of new rules unless the risk of orphan is low.

EG a pool can happily write "i want 2mb" ... but they wont actually make a 2mb block unless they were assured a good node consensus would accept the blocks

pools can collate data in any fashion they like.. but if nodes see it doesnt follow node rules that block is likely not to get accepted by the network..
because just making a block that doesnt follow consensus rules means nodes reject itin seconds then wait a few seconds for another pools that has a solution that does fit the rules and accepts that one instead.

thats what the consensus/orphan security feature is all about.. thats what makes bitcoin better than just a mysql database..

pools who see that nodes are not at a consensus level to ensure the risks of orphans is only a few percent max. are not gonna change the rules so easily.

people can make as much social drama on forums as they like but unless there is good node consensus smart pools wont push forward. even if they are waving flags of adoration..

in short
NODES DO MATTER

and the 92% of Bitcoin Core original client reject this block because his size is over 1Mb.
simple.

miners make profit IF they build block with the "rules" of the relaying machine (the nodes).

if not, it's 1 miner VS. ... the Bitcoin network (48 000 nodes).

Right but if you're going to have signaling, then it has to be done at the pool level as long as there's pools.  So I don't
see how "core gave the vote to the pools".  What am I missing?

Who wouldn't trust this face? Jihan Wu is now in control we don't need to run full nodes any more. He will personally validate all our transactions. He is trusting he is good he is descended from gods and he does not shit.
Our dear leader Jihan Wu will lead us to a better future. Why can't you people see that?

Now get down and kneel before your god.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/567383388659523585/S15iNdqD.jpeg

at the moment
34% sgwit flag https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit
49% dynamics flag https://blockchain.info/charts/bitcoin-unlimited-share
=17% abstaining

lets say there was 100% dynamics flag for pools.. but at node level
only 10% nodes would accept a block over 1mb.. if a pool actually make a block any different than native rules. it would get rejected in 3 seconds

lets say there was 100% segwit flag for pools.. but at node level
only 66% nodes would accept a block in a segwit format. if a pool actually make a block any different than native rules. it would get rejected in 3 seconds by the nodes that dont have a segwit node to 'filter' 'bridge' them a stripped version.

the node network is slowly reconnecting and becoming a tier network, of the segwit nodes being directly connected to pools to allow the whole filter(gmax buzzword) bridging(luke jr buzzword) to help with the 'backward compatible' pretense.

its still not a perfect network setup and can still cause orphan drama.. so pools wouldnt try it if there was more then a few percent orphan risk.

this is why i said to gmax.. if segwit is so 'backward compatible' as promised. go get btcc to make a block thats segwit on mainnet and see how acceptable it is to give pools confidence to flag it..

gmax now knows that segwit is not as 'soft' / compatible as he/they promised in 2015 (before having production ready code..)

but in short
only counting pool flags is meaningless,

By nodes, do you mean mining nodes? 

remember:  Only miners get to vote in PoW.

i mean ALL nodes

pools can if they wanted, push out a block in any funky fashion.. but if nodes dont accept it.. it gets rejected

look at the 2013 saga
although pools thought 1mb blocks were acceptable.. as soon as they made a block that went over 0.5mb
half of the network (non-mining) nodes were not accepting the block.

this caused lots of drama of merchants not seeing certain blocks, and many things. and lots of orphan drama occured.
pools learned a lesson to not just push forward unless the nodes would accept the blocks meaning the merchants would see the blocks for pools to be able to spend their rewards.

this caused decisions to be made to get the nodes to unanimusly upgrade to a version that would accept a certain block formation. and they even altered the DNS seed to only list nodes that would accept a certain block formation, which is why there is no DNS listing of <0.8 anymore and no nodes on the network running <0.8 anymore..

because (non-mining) nodes of <0.8 would reject blocks of over 0.5mb data

But non mining nodes cannot vote on which chain is the longest PoW chain.  So, if the network introduces a new rule,
they don't get to vote.  They can only choose to go with a majority or minority split.

Anyway, I don't blame core for "giving pools the vote" -- it has to be that way.  But it's also dumb to blame ordinary users
for "worshipping the pool overlords" if miners are too lazy to switch pools or vote.

Bitcoin has to be based on PoW voting.  Any other way simply leads to Sybil attacks.

there is a symbiotic relationship.

full nodes exist, not just as a data backup, but as rule checkers too
nodes(non-mining) do have a an important role to play too..

thats the beauty of bitcoin..

yes there is a risk of sybil attack.
hense the need for diverse decentralised nodes

yes there is a risk of 51% pool attack.
hense the need for diverse amount of pools

Sure, but it seems to me that you don't really need that many 'rule checkers'...
An SPV client can connect to a few nodes, (miners or not) and
see if there is any disagreement on a block or a balance.

BU got max 5 devs...Core team got more than 100+, most of then are unpaid.

BU copied 98% and still failling hard...pathetic!

most are just grammar nazi's editing copyright dates or words in the documentation/comments/readme files..
and most are just hoping one day they can get a line of code in somewhere to get noticed enough to get paid by blockstream

but when you look at who is moderating the IRC/tech discussion forums/mailing lists/bips

those 100+ unpaid guys dont have much sway unless they kiss ass first

It's not going to change anything because Litecoins never had enough volume for segwit to ever matter. It's all just to create hype and buzz. Omg! Vertcoin is getting segwit!? Buy buy buy! Now where can I use these... Oh shit. Sell sell sell!

Thats irrelevant, it's only what they deliver. Segwitt is still the best possible update there is and Core is doing a great job at it.

They give trust and security, for the rest i dont care what they are doing.

Just take care of you, and they handle all of the thinking,
It is called Slavery.

https://behappy.me/picture/adaptive/106899?product=canvas

 8)

If BTC Core Devs were worth an ounce of being Competent,

They would hard fork BTC with a minimum requirement of 1000 transactions per block if the mempools had over 10000 transactions waiting, that way no empty blocks when the mempools are overloaded.

But they are scare of hard forks, and not competent either, ergo all of the problem and stupid soft forks.  :P

 8)

FTFY.

Which is complete nonsense.

No.

The whole "satoshi" thing builds upon the assumption that miners are honest. We know today that this is not true (ASICBOOST, AntBleed, empty blocks, et. al.). Due to this, everything that you've quoted is nullified. The primary thing protecting the network from mining cartel abuse are the non-mining nodes. Do not get me started on Satoshi's failure to predict ASICs, and his 1 CPU = 1 vote does not mean 1 ASIC Miner = 1 vote. Otherwise you're basically saying that 1 Bitmain = Bitcoin (assuming they stopped shipping devices for a while and using all of them). ::)

User-activated-soft-fork. Do you even Bitcoin?

Did the rest of you know lauda is a extortionist,

Funny thing is why does theymos protects lauda so much and not just perma ban her.

The reason is Lauda is Theymos favorite alt account to be an asshole.


 8)

Go fuck yourself. A 'shill' is an advocate for hire. Nobody but me pays me for my advocacy of BU. I have fat stacks of Bitcoin, and want what is best for the system. Addocrdingly, I advocate -- on my own dime, mind you -- for BU.


Wallow in your ignorance. If it were not for the fact that your misunderstanding causes you to take a wrong-headed stance on architectural directions for Bitcoin, I wouldn't care.


Care to refute what he clearly wrote? Or do you just know better then he/she?


Orly? Bitcoin is irredeemably broken? Then why do you expend so much effort upon it?


Explain to me how this efficiency gain is 'dishonest'. Bear in mind that nothing stops a true attacker from using ASICBOOST against us.


Explain to me how this misguided feature is dishonest. Bear in mind that there have been exactly zero reports of it being used.



Explain to me how mining empty blocks is 'dishonest'. Bear in mind that it has always been the miners' discretion to include in a block what the miner cares to.


Bullshit. It would remain true regardless. External circumstances do not affect the veracity of an independent claim.


Bullshit. The primary thing protecting the network from mining cartel abuse is the ability of the users to abandon the chain, leaving it worthless.


Your ignorance is showing again:

"At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node."
 - Satoshi Nakamoto


...aaand you fail to understand capitalism. If everyone else abdicates their power by refusing to compete with Bitmain, that is not anything you can blame on Bitmain. Don't destroy one of the greatest innovations of our lifetime in order to tilt the playing field. Get in there and build something.

Perfect spot on point-by-point refutation by jbreher of the long line of bullshit drama coming from Blockstream. If those guys spent half as much time actually doing some research and contributing as they do spreading FUD, they might feel better about themselves.

This has been pointed out to Lauda and others many times.  

Their argument by repitition is an indication of their desperate attempt at propaganda.

Yea, and LiteCoin will showcase what can happen when SegWit and later possibly the Lighting network is added. People like you might have to

swallow their words in the future, when everything is set in motion of LiteCoin to succeed. That is if the BU brigade and the miners would give

it a opportunity to succeed. They might just shift their attention to LiteCoin and bring that down too.  >:(

the difference is that litecoin was fully prepared to do a uasf. that's how they got segwit. i'd love to see the bitcoin miners try to do something to litecoin. they'd get bitten straight back.

Miners do appear to start to be more accepting of litecoins. Hashnest now offer mining with them along with the regular ASICs for Bitcoin mining that they offer (and based on their website, it looks more profitible than the bitcoin mining). If Bitcoin moved slowly towards that way of working (with the faster blocks and smaller transaction fees) then there would be more poeple using bitcoin and more people sending transactions over the network.