Bitcoin Forum

Miners are scared of UASF actually being a success since it would set a precedent: If they don't follow economic majority, they will get weeded out.

This is why they are coming up with stuff like the closed door agreement with the software node by amateur developers.

The only way to get a reasonable hard fork, is if it's not rushed (4 months is rushed) and if it includes more technological innovations than a mere 2MB increase. There are lots of cool things we could add in a proper hard fork.

This is all about Jihad Wu's ego. He just wants to get something out of this.

I don't like the current situation, but we have to do something. Running software by some amateur devs that aren't Core is not on my plans so good luck with that.

100% correct. This bullshit compromise is a pathetic attempt to subvert UASF. Very sadly, Jihans pockets are deep enough to get many a CEO to become a sell out in the process. These people and companies will not be forgotten after successful UASF.

I don't know about that.  I'm sure that there are plenty of technological innovations to include, but some are already included in SegWit and four months is just an addition to the well over a year that the debate has already been happening for.

I agree that it shouldn't be completely new code in just four months (that is rushed), but that's basically a temporary proposal that will die down.
Now we're getting into tin foil hat territory.  The only thing that we can judge from an objective standpoint are his economic incentives, which are broadly to let Bitcoin scale as soon as he feels altcoins are becoming a threat.

Which is now. Everything is lining up to encourage compromise.

Huge spike up in price with the potential for more is the carrot.

Loss of BTC market cap dominance coupled with the insult that currently Etherium miners are making more money then BTC miners is the stick. There will not be a better time to reach a compromise.

I have yet to see anyone argue that combining SegWit with a 2mb block size increase is technically unsound. Just a lot of whining about who gets to be "in charge" of bitcoin as if anyone is in charge.

Bitcoin is a decentralized consensus mechanism if an idea works improves upon the status quo and is able to achieve wide consensus then it is a no brainer. People need to set aside entrenched emotions and look at the issue objectively.

I think SegWit + 2Mb is a good idea. Its not perfect but its good enough for now and has the potential to drag the vast majority of the bitcoin community into consensus (if reluctantly). The market seems to think so too looking at the price.

 

because i think they get more in fee now then when they activate segwit, miners now get many bitcoin with their huge fee, they like this and don't want to change, otherwise why do you think we are still stuck there undecided?  and UASF is done because of this reason, otherwise there will be never an greement on segwit

the price is the wrong metric to be looking at, look at the node count (i.e. the decentralisation metric)

and it's flat. deadlining, essentially. And that means that those getting into Bitcoin in the current buying spree don't get why it's valuable in the first place, and it's difficult to adequately explain why the 6500 Bitcoin nodes enforcing the consensus rules are so important.

But it's easy to demonstrate that you're clearly not interested in that, the price appears to be telling you all you need to know. You should be learning about why the Bitcoin Network is what makes it valuable, not making unbacked schoolyard-esque assertions with zero computer science to qualify them

its all drama

barry silbert is the same closed door organiser as the blockstream roadmap..
you think its something new.. its not

its still bait and switches to try and get cludgy 2merkle segwit in (block inside a block) with a half promise of bigger baseblock later

the DCG portfolio partners are still trying to push segwit as is, as much as possible. but pretending it will lead to a different thing than core have offered.

sweep away all the fake promises and you see its the same crap since 2015 that is an empty promise and temporary gesture that wont "fix" the issues it pretends to fix

until i see code which has a baseblock of 2mb... its all just fluff and clouds
until i see code which has a baseblock of 2mb... that has a good consensus uptake by users AND pools... its all just fluff and clouds

Ok so you disagree with what I wrote above because why exactly? I am willing to listen if you have an actual argument to make. Nodes are flat because there is no economic incentive to run one other then altruism or a large position in BTC. Obviously nodes are important and more nodes = better.

Are you trying to say that SegWit + 2Mb increase will lead to a significant decline in nodes. If so I am interested your argument as to why.

Price increase is a metric of general investor enthusiasm that a compromise is possible that will maintain decentralization and allow for some incremental increase in bitcoin scaling.

I have yet to see anyone present a technical reason why SegWit + 2Mb will not accomplish that. However, I am not a bitcoin expert. If you are and can present such an argument the floor is yours.

yes


more data needed for full node = less people running full nodes

anyon crying less full nodes due to bigger blocks are just deluded.

1. no one is saying gigabytes by midnight.
2mb is not actually much of a change.. we are no longer in the days of 2010 when the min spec was: raspberry Pi1 and 512kbit adsl

things have moved on Raspberry Pi3 exists as the min spec, average computing/ram/hard drive sizes has moved on since 2010.
even bitcoin efficiencies has occurred. eg 4k txsigops.. libsecp256k1 being 5x more efficient.
the internet on average is no longer 3g / 512kbit adsl... but 4g 4mb adsl.. and in next few years gonna be 5g / fibre average.

2. what has more chance of killing the full node count is the cludgy going soft upgrades that create a tier network of nodes that cant fully validate, making it easier to change the rules without nodes vote/veto can kill the full node count faster.
other features like prunned/no witness(stripped/filtered/downstream) nodes can kill the full node count faster.

3. newbs thinking that nodes dont matter can kill the full node count faster.

what needs to be done is to not have the corporate cartel of VC's having closed door meetings about what should happen before even having code..
but instead have the code and let the community decide by doing a proper network consensus..  not corporate social consensus

so until i see some code with
2mb baseblock
REAL txsigops limit of 4k or preferably LESS which stays that low
and preferably it just being a single block of 1 merkle for both native and segwit to benefit from the same area without tier cludge
lastly a new fee priority formulae that actually works.

because all im seeing this week from the closed door drama is the same drama from late 2015 repeating itself that doesnt actually solve what it suppose to and wont reach the promises its expected to reach

You have a point, that's why the miners are always for the money; they need to break even or make ROI before they can start being flexible.

We can't and must not put all miners on the same group, im obviously talking the Bitmain camp and all of his subpools.

I have been researching the whole thing for hours and I have concluded that the recent Barry Shillbert agreement is an obvious attempt at trying to stop UASF from happening.

Notice how they want a HF no matter what. What Bitmain wants is obvious: they are going to keep ASICBOOST if they HF.

A SF would stop ASICBOOST. That's why they want to HF at all costs. If segwit gets implemented with a SF, ASICBOOST is over forever.

If they get segwit with a HF, they keep ASICBOOST.

Also RSK is on board, which has attempted to modify the protocol to benefit ASICBOOST.

The whole thing is a Bitmain bribing scam. I dont like UASF, but it's the best option we have as of today, so im supporting UASF and running at least uacomment for now. If I get feed up, I will fire up an actual node.

barry silbert is part of the blockstream/btcc/coinbase cartel
not the 'bigger block band waggon'

until there is actual code to review, its just meaningless..
all this flag with your user agent but no actual code available crap is just whistles in the wind.

if silbert wants to actually redress and go back and actually meet the initial 2015 agreement of a proper blocksize growth AND segwit keypairs (thus not needing the 2merkle cludge due to a whole network upgrade meaning it can all be done cleanly as 1 merkle). then get some damned code released

Ok I follow you so far but there seems to be countervailing forces as well.

Right now nodes are run via altruism. That means only larger BTC holders will run one because the only reason to do so is to protect your investment by helping support the network.

I for example have finally accumulated a modest but large enough position in BTC over the last year or so that it makes since for me to start a node and I am looking into how to do so. Had BTC remained at $250 that probably would not be the case.

Will SegWit + 2Mb make it technically unfeasible to run a node from my home? If not I don't see the problem. As BTC grows in value the number of people who's holdings cross the node setup threshold will increase leading to more nodes as long as the overall resources demanded remain within the ability of the hobbyist.

Integrative Negotiations - Everybody Wins Something (usually)
http://www.negotiations.com/articles/negotiation-types/

Them being invested also means that they have a very strong desire to maintain their bottom line and make money off of it, they don't necessarily care about the long-term goals if their plans don't have them in the game for that long.

If they plan on making their money and leaving then there really isn't anything that will make them try to maintain the community since it will just make them less money overall. It's all a game of power and money, like absolutely everything else.

Why the little one does not have support so they can grow and succeed
And why large miners invested heavily in bitcoins.
Why is it happening?

Oh, that is a easy one to answer. While Bitcoin is struggling with scaling issues, people have to pay higher fees to these Minerfkrs to get their transactions confirmed. They will stall this process into infinity, because they profit from it. We cannot rely on them to make decisions on this, because their decision is clouded by greed. ^grrrrrr^

Satoshi would have kicked their ass a long time ago, if he saw what they were doing now.

UASF have empowered the bitcoin holders so that the miners will have no choice but to comply with the request and wants of the holders and players of bitcoin. I also dont think that it will cause some major trouble to bitcoin since segwit activation is much better compared to no consensus at all. If there will be problems on the long run the developers will not just sit idly since they will lose big if the code fails.

Will Segwit + 2MB make it unfeasible to run a Bitcoin node in your grandmother's home? Or anyone else's grandmother's/nephew's/aunt's/stepfather's/goddaughter's home, not just in a "1st world" country cities with easy access to high quality broadbnad internet, but in Nigeria, or Venezuela, or Malaysia? I've experienced so-called "1st world" internet in the wilderness that cannot handle 1MB blocks, let alone 4MB Segwit blocks (i.e. 50 Mbit/s in a Western country, in 2016)

It's not just about your internet connection. Bitcoin is popular because of Metcalffe's law, the "network effect". The value of the network is calculated by raising the number of participants to the power of 2. We want more people in the network, running Bitcoin nodes, if we want Bitcoin to be as powerful and as valuable as possible, it's no good if ony you and me can get the fibre-optic broadband needed for "2MB" (actually 8MB when you include the 6MB witness blocks) Segwit proposal

I do not think so. miners do not have any fault in this situation. ONly the pool developers, especially those Chinese. Everything they want is to refuse the segwit because they will lose the chance to control Bitcoin if SEGWIT activates

Miners are already smart enough

They want to preserve their profits, and right now it means stalling any further Bitcoin development. People will bite the bullet but keep on using bitcoins as long as Bitcoin continues to grow (which it does). Shitcoins are irrelevant as long as they can't show consistent profits like Bitcoin does. The bottom line is that miners are reluctant to change anything as of now, and this is perfectly understandable (from an economic viewpoint)

Yes miners have invested a huge amount of money but what matters is holding the technology together and building it for the future rather than looking for the incentives you get in the short term,you really need to understand the long term implications when you are doing any upgrades rather than the short term goals.

I don't think you even need to be a developer to change one line of code, LOL. They just need a team of people to help manage the fork process, helping people upgrade and warding off FUD/hack attempts.

How about the 3 years' time that sane people have already waited?

I notice now that miners are getting blamed for high fees - ironic, because they're the ones that have been screaming for a blocksize increase for years, which would reduce fees but increase transaction capacity.

No, yes, maybe....so many possibilities.

Actually 10mb download average every 10 minutes is nothing. I and millions others have DL 10mb in under 5 seconds.

You fail to catch the full irony of that

While they might in fact have been screaming for a blocksize increase during all these years (I don't really know), but their screams should have been very hypocritical, insincere and hollow since they are the ones who could have actually increased the blocksize if they ever chose so. As I said in my previous post, we should hear what is said between the words and read what is written between the lines

Ohhh, you again, with your theories that miners don't want to increase the blocksize?  When essentially every miner has been screaming through every possible channel to increase it for 3 years now? The same miners that signed the Hong Kong agreement to increase the blocksize, which never happened?  You just have to do some basic reading to understand that CORE is the only camp against increasing the blocksize. Every other sane individual that understands bitcoin has been waiting patiently (or impatiently) for this to happen. It's just a fact.

So please just try to read up a little on the subject you're posting about. Putting you on ignore. No offense.

Just for the fun of it, I really would like to see the dynamics of a UASF against the miners to force them.  So in a way, just for sake of experiment, I'd like to see that happening, because I think it would be a major fiasco, it simply doesn't make sense.

Of course, if the miners decide to HF before, you could always say that they did so because they were scared :) in the same way the Japanese could claim that the US was so terribly scared of their superior army that they threw them a few nukes on their head in 1945, proving the superiority of the Japanese army.  Yeah....

I'd like to see the experiment done with a UASF, honestly, to see how it turns out, so in a way, I hope the miners don't HF before, and spoil the experimental setup.

1. pools cannot just increase the block size with a click of their fingers... NODE consensus matters!!
as proven by
drama over in 3 seconds.

2. pools did not remove the fee priority formulae or the reactive fee when demand drops. pools didnt add the average fee to keep prices up when demand drops. all of this was CORE, mainly gmaxwell playing with the fee code.

3. segwit is not stopped due to pools. its stopped due to 67% of who CORE chose as the only voters saying nay/abstaining. and when you ask why.. those voters say cludgy code. pools didnt nominate themselves to be the only voters/deciders. again all of this was core, mainly gmaxwell and luke playing with soft exploits

4. as for my harping on about the cludge of the tier network. and also issues about activating segwit early here is gmaxwell talking about it
https://0bin.net/paste/catFu7J9BqL7zsFq#xByDHjK6HYhzmcXXMVgeBX8tYUB6+-9pb14RBxEJVF0

It does make sense, it work as a snowball effect, if it gets like 20% hashrate, some miners will start getting nervous, then once the snowball effect beggins its pretty much game over for everyone that isn't on board.

Having said that, I don't want to have to resort to UASF, if we can make the 2MB HF compromise, developed by Core so we don't have to ask the 95% of the network to stop trusting Core software which they will not. Also the segwit must be activated SF to stop the covert ASICBOOST scam. The HF, must be deployed 1 year from now at least and not the rushed time proposed by Barry Shillbert.

If we can reach that then it's going to be OK, all other paths lead to UASF.

But the fact the narrative has shifted from if we need to get segwit or not, to how do we get segwit, proves UASF is working. We, the people armed with full validating nodes, are creating pressure to get things moving in the right direction.
Notice how BU is dead at this point.

BlockstreamCore needs removed from bitcoin.

You arrogantly seem to be confusing me with someone else. I made it pretty clear that I don't know if the miners were actually "screaming through every possible channel to increase it". So leave your "theories that miners don't want to increase the blocksize" for someone else, for I never claimed anything to that tune in the first place. That said, I still repeat that if miners have all the hashing power (which is what miners are supposed to have by definition), they can effectively do anything with Bitcoin. Other than that, you are not ignoring me, you are ostensibly ignoring your own arrogance and vanity (no surprise that we are seeing all that confrontation heating up now), but more power to you then. It ain't my business anyway

I just hope that you will be consistent with your ignore list


And what will happen if all miners continue to force their new blocks down the line? Wouldn't that be called a hard fork?

As for me, I'm tired of the internal politics and fight for the control of Bitcoin, why can't the community unite to find an amicable solution rather than set ourselves at odds by presenting contrary views and methods.

Miners like Jihan are not interested in ANY scaling solution. They do not want Bitcoin to scale, because they are profiting from the high fees people

are paying. They will stall the process as long as possible, because they are making tons of money while users are forced to pay high miners fees.

UASF might not be the best solution, but it is better than what we have been doing up to now.  ::)