Bitcoin Forum

https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/an-open-letter-to-bitcoin-miners-c260467e1f0

He posts regularly here and starts far too many posts already about his anti-core sentiment. Why does he deserve another thread on his behalf now?

The solution's there already. Segwit will be deployed, it's just a matter of time. No, I'm not dreaming; I know the mining world better than most...

@-ck
It seems that many were sure that segwit had to be activated already, it seems not.

https://coin.dance/blocks

-ck's response.. close eyes, put fingers in ears and just scream go with segwit.
(facepalm)

1. segwit is not as 'compatible' as promised
2. segwits activation event itself, is not about solving quadratics/malleability scaling or anything else. its about setting up the tier network
3. moving funds to segwit keys after activation has a POTENTIAL to affect quadratics/malleability scaling or anything else.
4. but malicious people will stick with native keypairs and continue to do quadratics/spamming to prevent good utility
5. segwit does not stop/disarm/solve native keypairs. thus not 'fix' issues.
6. segwit just disarms innocent people who volunteer to move funds across while letting the network continue doing the same as usual.
7. the 'expected' potential scaling boost of segwit is the same potential scaling of 7tx's on chain of 2009-2017. which still has no guarantee of actual achievability

Segwit is perfectly fine.

You guys are the ones who block bitcoin's development. Bigger blocks also don't solve anything. If 1mb blocks get spammed and filled, 8mb blocks will also share the same fate in the future. What then, 16mb blocks? I don't see BU as a development at all.

Jihan either will accept Segwit or he will lose his job as a business owner, one way or another he will come around and you paid shills... You are pathetic.

Jonald's response:

---

Are you telling me you support the latter? ::)

How much time.We are waiting for Segwit for a long time and still nothing.
I`m not a BU supporter but all those confirmation time/transaction fees issues block the bitcoin growth.
I don`t see a point in making a thread about quoting some other thread.

This is quoted from a link in Johnny's post.. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-March/013930.html


.. This FUNDAMENTAL issue is what 'Jhonny & the BU Supporters' do not understand .. :(

( You could always start a Band as that sounds like a cool name ! )

How do you expect segwit to be enabled? and most importantly, when?

While segwit is the best solution to scale right now, and it's perfectly fine and there will be no doomsday as demonstrated in litecoin, I just don't see it happening. At least not for the time being, and it's not like we have a lot of time left. Litecoin is going to start gaining traction as the payment's coin thanks to segwit and lightning network developments.

@spartacusrex
What is a "typical personal computer"? Why do you see it as "every personal computer" ?

Bitcoin doesn't need that a node must be run on every personal computer, it just need to run on as many personal computers that it will cost too much to attack all of them.
Then all the other can be SPV clients.

This will enable both decentralisation and access to the onchain tx to the larger number of population.

He is not a 'real bitcoiner' he's altcoiner, like roger vermin and others that backing BU and want to destroy bitcoin

no, i think jonald is FLAWED to the Nth degree in his understanding of what nodes do. i have face palmed him many times. and corrected him also.

but someone personal beliefs of why they should or should not run a full node is not as big a deal as the empty promises/guarantee's/expectations of segwit which is more of a network wide issue

people should learn about what would truly benefit/hinder the bitcoin ecosystem and what would actually occur due to certain changes, proposals

here is a copy of a PM i sent to jonald as soon as i read this topic

lol
1. you using the buzzwords/script words "jihan" "paid shill" is foolish.
2. segwit does nothing to stop native tx's filling the baseblock which prevents segwit tx's sitting in the baseblock to put their feet up in the weight area.

a real proposal is to not allow ANYONE have 20% of the block area for a single tx.
a real proposal is to bring back a NEW and DIFFERENT priority formulae that reward infrequent/lean tx users with low fees. and punish frequent bloated users with high fee's. thus not forcing everyone into LN. but making it super expensive for the spammers (spending every block with loaded tx's). into wasting their funds faster or using LN if their frequent/loaded tx's are genuine.

EG reduce the 'large tx' to below 10% of block
EG reduce the sigops to below 20% of block
EG new priority formulae

the main 'minimum spec' people are trying to keep bitcoin to is the Raspberry Pi spec..

but since 2009. things have moved on.
libsecp256k1 is 5x better than 2009
internet speed averages are no longer basic ADSL/3G.. we are now in the fibre/4-5G era.
hard drives are cheaper than 2009
(list of effiencies is larger than just above)

meaning 2009's 1mb safe.. is now 8mb safe. even core know and accept this. but still want 4mb at most as extra 'safety'
so going up to a 4mb dynamic* single merkle block**, with the extra features people want. and yes the opt-in voluntary segwit/rbf feature and voluntary LN can all go together happily

but segwits 'soft' approach is cludgy, has no guarantee's and doesnt solve old issues.. and is just kicking the can down the road of hope..

*dynamic=network grows when network can accept it (network consensus growth not dev spoonfed growth)
** full network upgrade where everyone is on the same peer layer.. not the 2merkle tier network of full/stripped/filtered/prunned cludgy blocks for different layers of nodes

After all these years Segwit is still the best possible update Bitcoin can have.

I can understand if someone doesn't like it i mean not all people voted for Trump but in the end they need to respect market decision and move on.

BU had there shot but blew it big time. It doesn't matter how 'great' there updates are, BU code is bad. The remaining BU supporters seems to having a hard time to understand how important a well working code is.
( I dont believe Jonald got a degree in Computer Science  :-\ )

many people never read trumps books, manifesto's or plans.
many people never read segwits code, documentation or plans.

those that have end up seeing why people facepalm when they see supporters of both.
do you know the difference between what segwit activation does vs what the keypairs do
do you know the difference between what segwit activation does not do vs what the keypairs do not do

do you know what gestures/features/promises will actually get to be seen.

or are you just settling for the idea that because blockstream worked on it since 2014, that its too late to just ask them to try something different/better. due to the mindset of 'they put so much work into it, we should just accept it'

P.S even in 2017 the actual keypairs that segwit will utilise are still not etched in stone. so its not really actually been fully tested since 2014.. its been worked on since 2014.. which is totally different. they are still tinkering with it even now

If I pay 50BTC as a fee intentionally or accidentally a miner will receive it as newly generated coins?
Then what happens to it's records deep in blockchain?

Because those 50 coins no longer exist as in the form they were before I spent them as miner fee and their data is just filling block size while it can be used for other or new data if we could somehow discard them to make room or do something like defragment and consolidate the blockchain.

Many believe if normal users run full nodes it helps the network but why would normal users want to do that?

Only big users, businesses and those paranoid should and are running full nodes aside from miners of course.

Even if normal users start running them they can't change or effect any thing because a miner can out number them if the miner wants his data to be validated it will only makes it harder for them as the numbers of full nodes by individuals increases even then not every normal user knows how to or wants to black list or ban a specific set of nodes/IPs if they start to misbehave.

What would be the result if a miner broadcasts a block of 2MB right now and all other miners accept it but only %50 of nodes accept it as well and just get rejected by other %50 of non-mining nodes?

What is plan B of Core devs?

Can all the Core miners start rejecting every block generated with BU clients?

How much does it cost to run a full node if we were to buy everything in bulk, lets say if you were to deploy 5000 full nodes.

its nt about getting all 5million+ users to be full nodes.. but certainly not about trying to pretend that nodes are meaningless to hope people turn off nodes to then give pools majority node count to make it easy for pools..

but yes merchants and those that do care about security and protection of the network should run a full node.
there is always has been and should always be a symbiotic relationship. to ensure no one has overall control.


there are MANY mechanisms in a node that protect the network.. bitcoin is nothing like the banking system.. nodes are not just duplicate copies of a database.
the consensus/orphan mechanism, to name just one feature... does not need users to do anything manually apart from run the node. the node knows the rules and will throw out any block that doesnt meet the rules. and then the whole network consensus syncing/relay mechanism sorts out the weak from the strong, leaving behind the weak..

well to take one example from history (BU's 1.000250 block mistake)
non mining nodes response
.. then if the 50% of pools accepted it when the pool makes a new block where by the previous hash was
^000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5

the non mining nodes would reject that next block too..
the non mining nodes would only accept a block where all the previous hashes of blocks followed the rules.

in short over 50% of pools end up making/wasting time making blocks ontop of a block that merchants and users wont see/accept. and those pools wont get to spend their rewards with those merchants/users in 16 hours time..

pools know this!! and for years have been following this knowledge..
which is why when they see its rejected they dont build ontop. instead they go back and find a blockheight that was accepted by the majority and only build ontop of that block. to ensure they are building on the most acceptable chain that will allow them to spend their rewards

this is why NODE+pool consensus events should happen.. and where core went wrong thinking only pools should have the vote
and where core fanboys went wrong thinking the non-core proposals would actually act just on mining flags. when the reality is that things will only happen if there was a combined node and pool consensus


cores plan B is if the community say no, dont back track and listen to the community and make something different.. but continue on and press even harder my making it mandatory, with another year delay
UASF quote: mandatory by late 2018

cost is about under $100 for a raspberry pi and a microsd..
what you are talking about is a sybil attack.. also traditionally called a invasion / corporate take over..

Well, if that is a critical issue i advice you to make contact with Core/LightCoin dev's about youre concern. They're testing it atm, this will be the moment for it to how to fix it. We'll be gratefull.

Why is  Jonald Fyookball's opinion suddenly so important? We all have opinions on the matter and to be honest some of these issues will never be

resolved between these sides. At this moment, any scaling will be better than no scaling at all.... we are kicking the can down the road, thinking

that network spamming will change people's mind. The only thing this has accomplished, is to push people away from Bitcoin. I do not make my

decision based on the developers, but rather the quality of the code being produced by those developers. { NOT the person, but the code }

i did..
EG last april i spotted the anyonecanspend issue..
their response.
ridicule me for months..
facepalm themselves after that when they realised.
then do a cheap cludgy work around create/plan the tier network to prevent native nodes from getting relayed unconfirmed segwit tx's after activation..

problem then, nothing stopped a malicious person MANUALLY copying a unconfirmed segwit TX from a segwit node mempool and then messing with it.. in a native node

to which the workaround was to not allow keypair utility until after activation and so that they can then drop accepting native blocks from being mined to prevent malicious uses of my previous sentence as part of the tier activation.

but there are still issues with that too.
it just keep going on and on and on.. core have opened up more attack vectors with their cludgy soft segwit, than there were this time in 2015 pre segwit announcement

the ultimate solution is a 1merkle peer network (not a 2merkblock block in a block on a tier network of stripped/unstripped blocks) which has a lot of other features the community want to.. and done in a manner of a full node and pool consensus upgrade event.
where by everyone gets what they want.. a real main blocksize increase and other features along with the opt in stuff like segwit/ln..

rather than the cludge that leads people into using LN by force due to soo many issues onchain

Why is Jonald Fyookball's opinion so important these days? Who is he or she? I cannot see why any of the sides will ever come together... no

matter what they say in open letters. The miners are driven by greed.... NO scaling benefit them now, because they can milk the users for higher

fees and nothing will change their minds. We {full node} users make decisions based on the quality of the code.... not who these people are.  ;)

Miners do have an incentive to scale - their incentive is to avoid screwing up the network and stopping people from sending transactions.

Each scaling solution has some level of support from miners because what they perceive to be their own interests often varies.  There's no accurate way to judge what's in the miners' best interests.

If they do nothing they screw themselves over.  Obviously they can milk a lack of scaling for a long time but not forever.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. After all you can type:

Why is so&so's opinion so important these days?

Leaving no one to have an opinion.

Do you live in North Korea by any chance?

The article was an interesting read. I probably wouldn't have found it unless it was posted here, however seems like posting something like this here will lead to a bit of unproductive discussion...


Miners do have an incentive to scale: collect more fees in each block. By the looks of things right now, people would quickly fill bigger blocks.

It comes down to what miners prefer, "half a dozen" of transactions with a hefty fee or many transactions with a small fee. I think the second one is the smart and long-term way to go and if I had a mining operation that's what I would choose for.

Don't forget that miners have more to lose than just transaction fees. If Bitcoin doesn't scale and goes nowhere, they're done, no more profit for them. Do you think they'd like this?

Dumbest shit article ever. A troll writing a medium.com article does not give it any more credibility. Idiots.

already translated into chinese

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzIxNTA0NDQzMA==&mid=2651798531&idx=1&sn=25746c81f25d9fe4dec676605a204e69&chksm=8c65c422bb124d34c2ae9bb7698ac5037b75cfca12882ad2a38213e9e4a389f2741a1a545837#rd

and being re-tweeted by major companies

https://twitter.com/spair/status/864523737055580160

Because I have little technical knowledge, reading the @OP article I only can speak as a user. Increasing the block size, imo, will not solve the spam attack problem and may be will be worse than it is now. I agree with the view I recently read in the forum here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1902619.msg18891251#msg18891251).

It is true that no amount of blockspace would stop spam transactions.

But the spam attack becomes much easier/cheaper when blocks are already full to almost full, because it barely costs anything to tip things from almost full to overflowing, even while paying minimal fees that are allowed into a mempool.  Conversely, with a large amount of space, spammers would have to constantly fill up that space block after block in order to have an impact, and pay a lot of fees for it.

so several days have passed, any result of your kneeling down before your chinese overlords?

Thanks for backing Segwit and UASF as the only way forward to actually give cheap tx again. Glad you have woken up from your delusions of being even a tiny bit correct about anything you've ever uttered.

guess you dont know what segwit is 25hashcoin..
imagine it like a plane where the olden days people needed to buy 2 seats. one for their ass and one for their hand luggage..

segwit tx's still need to sit in the base block(plane seats) tooo... just to be able to put their luggage up in the overhead baggage area(weight).. just let other tx's sit where their baggage used to be

just having segwit activated does not mean an entire segwit tx can just sit in the baggage area.. and get 75% discount.
they still have to play with the native/legacy tx's to fight for seats of the base block!!!
this is where the 2009 7tx's (4500seats) hope never occured because on average 2250 people bought 2 seats for themselves and their baggage..
(tx's hav nevr been lean to sit in just 1 sat to actively get 4500 tx's into a block(plane)

what you also dont realise is for segwit to even have the slightest chance of making a tx capacity improvement. the majority of people need to move funds to segwit keys(buy special single tickets that promise to not use up 2 seats), which means millions of outputs need to move (to new plane tickets).. which means more mempool filling up. which means fees go up with all the drama (of changing tickets)

so say fee's are now $2..
with all the drama of moving to segwit keys.. may bring the price up to $8 then with native keys still spamming(fillings seats), the base block(plane) wont be 100% full of segwit tx but lets say 10-20%. meaning only 5-10% transaction capacity increase
and those lucky few that do get a seat and volunteered not to use up another seat for baggage. still end up paying $2 because the drama has gone on so long the prices went up that their 'discount' is only rolling back the prices of 6 months prior

After doing some research by myself, i see Segwit running great on Lightcoin. I think the keypairs issue is just a storm in a glass of water.

Segwit is ready for Bitcoin, dont worry Frank.

then go ask gmaxwell to tell BTCC to make a segwit block with a segwit TX right now.
show how backward compatible it is to give confidence to pools to flag..
...
wait that wont happen
gmax wont just release the segwit keypair wallet version before activation
gmax wont let a pool just make a block while other pools are making native blocks
gmax wont let native nodes see unconfirmed segwit tx's

lol...

you should really read what Greg Maxwell says about trying to do a UASF for Segwit
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/014152.html

paraphrasing: it almost guarantees a certain level of disruption.

I even doubt they will go through with it, its too insane.

Right now it is showing 33.5% support for SegWit and 41.0% support for BU. None of the proposals are anywhere near the 95% support which is needed for their implementation. So what lies ahead?

Likely this:
https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/865076196845006848

Segwit will be locked in...

lol.  come on dude... These tweets are retarded.

It's like saying "40% of people say they like red cars, and 40% of people say they like blue cars... so therefore 80% of people support purple cars!"

http://www.uasf.co/

Evvvrybodi caalm dawwn.

SegWit is on its way, no need to worry. BU shills are panicking because they have little time left to fool around till Aug/01/2017. After that time point, they won't be able to fool anybody. And hopefully, we won't be seeing their faces around here ever again.

Physical gold is still the best and will be the best year after year month after month.....bitcoin is just like paper one day its there and one days its not.

{ clasps hands together and prays to Albert Einstein.. please.. god.. }

..

bit scared..

..

'I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home. They're not much bigger than two meters.' - Skywalker

all UASF promises is to keep pushing the cludgy 2 merkle code until late 2018

no plan B. just plan A or plan A+riding a nuke