Bitcoin Forum

[ANN] BITKAN translate it from the original article in Chinese, for more details, please enter in English http://bitkan.com/news/topic/25778. Chinese http://bitkan.com/news/topic/25747
In the article Why support SegWit, COO of BTCC give his answers, Samson Mow focused on SegWit without mentioning the real problem: the post-segwit roadmap from Core. I just have to clarify something Mr.Mow is unwilling to touch.

I.The True Focus: Core’s Roadmap

Mr.Mow brags about the benefits of segwit in his article, and accuses scaling side on anti-core being political. Truth is, however, scaling side is pro segwit and LN as well. Scaling side is anti core’s roadmap, which is, from soft-forked segwit implementation to permanent limit of block size on 1 MB. This will turn the main chain into a SWIFT-like settlement network. High tx fee on the main chain will chase all the daily tx away to the LN.

Why Core’s roadmap is wrong? Simple logic: more is better than less, more options are always better than fewer ones.

 “I’m right so I will take your rights away”---this is a dangerous mindset. Just look at the history of Communism and the possible millions of deaths associated with it. A vicious fruit of a vicious mentality. Why in China’s Big Leap in the 60s we saw millions of deaths of peasants? Because they were restricted to their own land by the low level party bodies and the household registration system, preventing them from fleeing their land. There’s no option but to starve to death.

How can someone be so sure that he’s right? What if he’s wrong? How can he shoulder the responsibility of millions of lives? Can core do that? Who gave the right to Core from prevent us from using the main chain? Is core capable of shouldering the responsibility of the doom of Bitcoin?

II.Fragile LN

Secondary networks like LN can only be a supplement to the main chain, not a replacement to it. LN’s big nodes have clearly capital, efficiency and operation advantages. Looking upon them to maintain many small nodes is so childish. There will be Matthew Effect. There will be big fish devouring small fish. LN, in the end, will be dominated by big players like what we see with Alipay/Wechat Pay today. Decentralization will be a banned word.

Rumors recently mentioned “Chinese monetary authorities are looking to limit the transfer of Bitcoin from domestic exchanges to their foreign counterparts. Crypto community lived on such a joke. But can you laugh when tx are all running on giants-dominated LN?

LN operators cannot confiscate your Bitcoin, but they can, with the excuses of regulation compliance, ask you to conduct compliance checks. You want to quit then? To where? Main chain? Core had it in mind already: 1MB block size is only for big-amount LN tx settlement, the tx fee will be as high as with the SWIFT. How about 100 dollars per tx? Quit?

III.Dangerous Soft-Fork SegWit

Core is implementing segwit through softfork, that is by lying to old nodes to realize compatibility. This brings significant technical risks and hefty tech debts.
With bottom layer data structure altered, Core wants to lie to old nodes so as to fool them into believing “nothing-has-changed”. This is just as difficult as the twisted hand in the pic above. The risks and debts behind it are so self-explanatory. We can already expect tremendous difficulty in the future development that will be based on this twisted hand.

Why Core says “SegWit almost changed every line of Bitcoin’s codes?” (They wanted to brag about the workload).

Based on the HK consensus, the segwit should have been out in Apr. and online since Jul.,why is it so late in Nov. even under the pressure from consensus and miners? Because core wanted to build a twisted hand.

Systemic complexity rising echoes with a falling stability. We all have seen the price of ETH’s Turing-Completeness: four or five HFs and lots of nodes being attacked into destruction. Bitcoin, as a formally 10B level financial system: Can it pay such a high price? Can Core take that responsibility?


IV.Enough Block Size

If our network cannot take 1MB+ block size, Core’s limit can be justified. But the reality is that even the GFC-limited Chinese pools can accept an 8MB size, see the pic below (in June last year):
https://o8t0bd96n.qnssl.com/public/resources/pic/upload/2016/11/23/A4Hpp1XWtp_wJBmY00VTd_%E3%80%8A%E7%9F%BF%E6%B1%A0%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E7%A0%94%E8%AE%A8%E4%BC%9A%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E5%8C%BA%E5%9D%97%E6%89%A9%E5%AE%B9%E8%8D%89%E6%A1%88%E3%80%8B.jpg

Compared with “who’s-your-daddy” Core, BU is not so condescending to the very least:

1)block size? Pool decides. No 50%+ pools will choose too high of a size that the network cannot take. (or they suffer from high orphanage rate).

2)tx fee? Market decides. Should the network unable to take a big block size, the limited block supply from pools will raise the tx fee to an equilibrium point on the market.

3)LN or not? Tx fee decides. If the network cannot take big size blocks, while LN is cheap and fast, why not use it under high tx fee scenarios?

I think 2) is not going to happen. I used a 56k modem back in junior high, and I use a 200M optical fiber connection today at 17 dollars per month. That’s a 4,000 times scaling. But I’m not against 3). Core, however, considers 2) as fate, so “I’m your daddy let me decide for you.” So they castrate the main chain tx and decide for you that future tx should go through the LN.

Why such a rush? Who’s the “GOD”, Core or the market? Or the reason being that Core’s daddy BS is the standard maker of LN?

V.Who is qualified to take responsibilities when it comes to Bitcoin security?

What is the consequence of Core breaking Bitcoin the big toy? Leave. That’s it. So many Internet companies are out there and a glorified ex-Bitcoin developer will surely find a new job.

Only miners, who invested millions-worth of personal wealth, the sunk cost, cannot leave like a bitcoiner, thus can be qualified as the Bitcoin’s safe guards. Mt.Gox was bearing the Bitcoin price in hope to cover up for their loss. Only miners want the Bitcoin to thrive with more users and a bullish market.

I can conclude with great confidence: SegWit will never ever be activated. It’s not about the 95% threshold. Even in 75% or 51% scenarios it will not be alive.

Why? I am a miner, a member of the mining pools. I invested millions of real wealth into the mining business.

Got an issue? Show me your money.
 

Before the non-stopping wheels of history, some people are destined to be nailed up on the pillar of humiliation.

I have translated and attached some Chinese comment on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1692577.new#new
For more News, please enter in http://bitkan.com/app and download App.
BITKAN, Bitcoin all in one.

Who wrote this? You? The best that I can say about this is that it is sad. The post is full of misinformation and/or *half-truths*. FYI: Post-segwit roadmap is irrelevant to Segwit.

---

FYI using the word "market" in your claims is wrong. The market is currently presented with 4 options:
1) Core.
2) XT (dead)
3) Classic (dead)
4) BU
Please remind me again how many nodes and how much hashrate is in support of BU. Also, you can see a big list of Segwit supporters (different entities, not Core developers) on the Bitcoin Core website.

I just leave it to this one. Complete nonsense that has nothing to do with logic. Core's roadmap is perfectly fine, it's about scaling Bitcoin without sacrificing network decentralization and increasing its security. Without network decentralization, Bitcoin has no value. The painfully dumb scheme proposed by Andresen/Hearn/Ver poses an existential threat to network decentralization. Despite cloning the Bitcoin Core repository and changing a few lines to enable unlimited blocksizes, UnlimitedCoin has no roadmap. There's zero development going on, because there are no real developers.

Ver's paid shills are posting the same disinformation over and over again. It's tiresome. There is no community support for UnlimitedCoin. The "dissent" within the community boils down to an army of trolls, who never sleep to advertise for the racketeer Roger Ver. Support for UnlimitedCoin is a hoax, spread by propaganda sites like Bitcoin.com. SegWit will activate sooner than anybody anticipates.

ya.ya.yo!

will they ::) accept the outcome of the cryptographic elections?

From my technical layperson's opinion, what is lacking from the OP is:

SegWit is an attempt at fixes and optimizations.
SegWit allows for expansions and a more secured future for Bitcoin.
If it causes issues/problems we can work with that and reverse course.
The genie is still contained and we can let him out later.

A Hardforked Blocksize Increase (HBI) is not a fix or an optimization.
A HBI is a simple answer to a complex problem that has future consequences.  
If it causes issues/problems we are stuck with them and can't reverse course.
The genie is out of the bottle and won't go back in.


This miner doesn't understand that his investments are almost always at a loss since
he is converting energy into work and creating security. And what is most important is
that if the security is compromised by premature centralization, then there is no true
value in the system. Bitcoin's value is only it's decentralized censorship resistant ability.

Bitcoin is a balancing act. We need to balance over time, not just tip one way or the other.

Great to see progress among the miners. Which pool are you currently mining on?

If you want to meet some of the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited in China during the next days/weeks, go to the forum at www.bitco.in and get in touch.

Thank you for stating your rationale.

One question: what is a '10B level financial system'? I am unfamiliar with this term.

It's funny how all those losers appeal to "market should decide" when the market is already freely giving Core most of the support because the alternatives are amateur coders that would fuck something up real quick and ruin what has taken countless hours to built. It's all about being conservative and guaranteeing bitcoin will be alive in 50+ years and all those reddit shitposters are no good if that's the goal.

by the way, if you done some research XT was just a bait and switch for the same guys behind blockstream. R3 and blockstream have been working together for months. go checkout the names of those involved in hyperledger.

oh and before crying FUD about everything that goes against blockstream. research first.
as for segwit. you claim there is large support by mining pools..
um...
https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit    7.1%
7.1% at time of posting.

BU. also in the 7% range.
so using your "competitor" mindset.. they are neck and neck

as for you saying there are only 4 options and 2 are dead meaning you are suggesting there are only two options.
im kind of glad you didnt mention knots and bitcoinj. im hoping its because you already know they are already under the umbrella of core.

but there are other implementations too.

but anyway you are acting like its a competition to be reigned in as king. rather than thinking of the bitcoin network remaining diverse. and not having a king

BU has not been making claims that core should fork off to an altcoin. yet core have been making claims that BU should fork off to an altcoin. funny that!.
please take off your core fanboy hat and put on a unbiased bitcoin network hat and try to research what you preach

for months now the solution has been clear.
dynamic base blocksize along with dynamic weight to allow the features some love with the capacity growth we ALL want.
which would require both a node consensus followd by a pool consensus. and dont worry. nothing happens unless consensus is reached.
and if not reached nothing happens.
again if reached there is no intentional split/altcoin rhetoric. there is just a period of orphaning by the minority that have not updated where they cannot sync. again not chain splitting. just a loss of sync-ability by a low minority. and they upgrade if they want to remain full nodes.

after that drama has surpassed.
where the default at a high consensus starts at 2mb base 4mb weight, and can grow naturally without as much orphan risk and without the sync ability drama, by using the consensus of independent nodes settling their differences to an acceptable rate, . rather than dev teams setting the rules(no longer need developers to release versions just for limit changes, meaning no upgrading of nodes just for limit changes).

EG
imagine a future where
50% of nodes have 3mb base 6mb weight
30% of nodes have 2.7mb base 5.4mb weight
10% of nodes have 2.5mb base 5mb weight
6% of nodes have 2.2mb base 4.4mb weight
4% of nodes have 2mb base 4mb weight

pools can see that 100% agree to 2mb base 4mb weight. and see 96% agree with 2.2mb base 4.4mb weight.
yes those numbers are correct. because a 3mb base agreement means anything below 3mb is acceptable. its not the opposite.
so a 0.99mb block IS.. emphasis IS happily accepted by nodes with higher setting. just like (random number 0.2mb) is acceptable to 1mb limit nodes for the last 7 years

meaning pools can while making blocks anywhere between 250bytes to 2mb(when consensus shows 100% agreement to upto 2mb),.. pools can go through their own mining flagging consensus to see if 2.2mb base should go forward which will prompt the 4% laggers to dynamically change if pools reach an agreement.

all done dynamically without developer spoonfeeding.
obviously it stays at 2mb unless pools consensus reaches agreement

basically everyone gets their cake and gets to eat it.

OP claims to control significant hashpower - millions of dollars worth. I don't know the veracity of this claim, but I have no reason to doubt it. I'd hardly characterize someone who has millions of dollars tied up in capital equipment as a 'loser'. You must really have a yuuuge schlong.


Well, no. The market has overwhelmingly not yet weighed in on the matter. It remains to be seen whether or not the market will adopt seg wit. If core sticks to their stated principles -- 95% declaration of adoption before activation (I note GMax is already backpedaling, laying the groundwork for simple majority) -- ViaBTC alone has enough clout to bar activation even if literally everyone else in the Bitcoin sphere adopts.


Have you seen the following?

https://medium.com/@g.andrew.stone/a-short-tour-of-bitcoin-core-4558744bf18b#.9vldpx7lq

Core has been practicing a scorched earth policy of casting aspersions at all non-core efforts for some time now. Largely to an audience that swallows anything they have to say. The reality is somewhat more ... nuanced than presented <g>.


If it was all about being conservative, then all the independent features bundled into The SegWit Omnibus Changeset would not be be rolled out all at once. Conservatism would roll out _actual_ segregated witness by itself, unburdened by all that other cruft along for the ride. Conservatism would not incur the largest change to the protocol since inception. But by all means, cling to your obvious misundsertanding.

We need a bitcoin electoral college! Problem solved :)

we have that, it called minning pools.
they are expected to behave how they're contributing hashing power wants them to.

The Electoral College in the US Voting system, is designed with the intent to allow even
the littlest, worthless US State, an equal vote as other more "important" States. This is
used for US Presidential Elections.

There is also the Popular Vote in the US Voting system, that is strictly based on which
candidate received the most individual votes. This is not used for Presidential Elections,
but maintained for data purposes.

Bitcoin Mining and their Pools are more like the Popular Vote, since its strictly based on
hash amount and disregards the wishes of any other minority group outside of the mining
community.

A Bitcoin Electoral College would consists of a subgroup voted representative from each
of the following subgroups:
(1) Users,
(2) Bitcoin Devs,
(3) Miners,
(4) Exchanges,
(5) Wallet & Other Devs,
(6) Others I may have forgotten.

This is what a Bitcoin Electoral College would probably look like.
I don't know if it would be a good way to go or not, just saying.

No. It seems a deliberate destructive movement by Hearn, the same guy that seems to have broken R3 into *groups*.


https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools?resolution=24h ~19% according to here.

What other implementations are there besides Core and BU that have implemented rules that have not been activated yet (Segwit for Core vs. voting up to 16 MB maximum for BU IIRC)?

False. BU proponents, primarily Roger Ver and ViaBTC have been fighting for blocking scaling via Segwit and pro a fork.

I'm most certainly not a 'core fanboy' and what I preach is correct.

That requires more research.

While I'm pro a larger block size limit after the sighash problem is solved (making it linear), I am not in favor of node voting on the block size limit. This creates added complexity and confusion. Also, you can easily spin up a few hundred/thousand nodes in an attempt to manipulate this.

---

Update: Minor fix.

Not at all.

1) BU proponents believe that scaling is best served at this juncture by putting control of maxblocksize in everyone's hand, making maxblocksize an emergent property of the network.

2) BU proponents are advocating that BU be activated and dominant on the network. Unfortunately, as core will not adopt an adaptive maxblocksize, they cannot get the improvement in which they believe by running Bitcoin Core. You might see it as blocking, but there is no alternative open to us.

3) BU proponents point out that BU is fully compliant with current consensus rules. As such, running BU does not create a fork. Indeed, the BU advocates I am familiar with deeply desire not to fork. We would be most pleased should the entire network join us in this new improved bitcoin with an adaptive maxblocksize.


<<See how that works? I advocated a BU position without making false claims about the desires of those who have a different vision (i.e., core proponents). I wonder why Lauda cannot make an argument without resorting to rhetorical fabrications>>

I have not fabricated anything. I might have improperly worded it as it should be 'block scaling via Segwit' and not 'block scaling and Segwit'. Have you been reading r/btc or following Ver's comments lately? They have been literally talking about blocking Segwit for the sake of..fighting Core, Blockstream or whatever? I do not even understand their reasoning anymore.

Certainly appears as if you have. Where's your rationale for stating that "BU proponents, ... have been fighting for ... a fork"?


Well, no. I've not been following Ver's comments lately. Should I? Has he somehow come to speak for BU proponents? I don't recall a referendum on that position. AFAIK, BU has no official spokesperson. We have a secretary, but they are not chartered with any advocacy such as that of which you speak.

How about you provide a link to a quote so I can know what you're talking about?

Further, I tend to stay away from the cesspool that is Reddit, unless I find a link to it from some other venue that piques my interest.

And again, we're not for "blocking scaling and SegWit"*. We BU-ers are for implementing scaling through the emergent consensus of the entire network having control over maxblocksize. Unfortunately, at this juncture, supporting this approach to scaling precludes supporting segregated witness (let alone The SegWit Omnibus Changeset).

*Prove me wrong with a quote demonstrating this attitude even exists, let alone is predominant.


Well, blocking SegWit in the sense that at this juncture, any node running The SegWit Omnibus Changeset (i.e., at this point core 0.13.1) is a node that cannot be running BU, and vice versa. So yes - it seems clear you do not understand our reasoning. Though it should be obvious if you think about it.

But not in a sense of a Snidely Whiplash / Boris Badenov / Dr Evil sort of obstructionism. At least the BU folk with whom I am in regular contact. Which by all accounts is the mainstream. We're just fighting for what we believe is the most beneficial approach and best path forward to a more capable Bitcoin, maximizing value to the largest possible set of users.

No. Did I claim *all* were doing this? I have not.

He's one of the the main BU proponents (+ ViaBTC). The majority are unknown randoms with very little capital (or at least *shown* via nodes and hashrate).

It was initially in a video, but it seems to be gone now. Here's a [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5bha5d/roger_ver_finds_it_difficult_to_support_segwit/]link (https://twitter.com/BrainDamageLDN/status/795278080222720000).

Just implement Segwit and continue promoting/preaching what you are already doing. It causes no harm but helps move forward (at least a bit).

Mainstream people should not be trying to decide technical limits though. Are there any other BU developers besides the main 3?

i dont want to "block scaling via segwit"
i just dont want core to block scaling via block size

I believe the miners can be trusted with blocksize limit, partly because of their incentive to keep blocks small enough to propagate fast, and also their  (  very real ) incentive to make sure users are happy with them.
a vote for segwit, feels like a vote for locking ourselves in a 1MB block size FOREVER, because once we have LN, core devs will say things like " the settlement layer must remain DECENTRALIZED, if you have a problem with the 10$ fees go learn how to use LN, you dumb users that can hardly turn on a computer!" and then the users will just go join a altcoin without this self imposed requirements.
core devs believe the LN is the will be the be all end all scaling solution, i dont, and i dont want to give them the chance to continue to block the long overdue block size incress

I am not "pro fork"
i'm just not going to pretend that a hard forks are evil

sometime cores act like users are going to lose funds because the user didnt upgrade in time.
what is more dangerous?
user wakes up, none of his TX are getting threw, he goes online and finds out there was a HF and he must upgrade
OR
user wakes up, everything APPEARS to work fine, and unknown to him a softfork has been activated.

You're completely dodging the argument which is fallacy.

False assumption.

Appeal to extremes.

I've yet to see this somewhere.

Yet everything continues to work just fine even after a soft fork. This is a moot point.

Leaving aside the fact that cherry-picking some random rich dude and attributing an entire movement to that person is ludicrous...

You seem to be stating that you view Ver's verbal statement of "difficult to support segwit" as synonymous with "[primarily Roger Ver and ViaBTC have been] fighting for blocking scaling and Segwit and pro a fork." This says more about you than it does of Ver.


No. You (core, et al) just implement emergent maxblocksize and continue promoting/preaching what you are already doing. It causes no harm but helps move forward (at least a bit).


Now see, that is what is known as an opinion. Dogma really. Spare me the 'holier than thou' shit. I do not agree. There was a time when the prevailing attitude within Bitcoin was that our money was to be free of arbitrary limitations imposed by others. Further, it is not a technical limit. There is some limit that technology imposes, but it sure-the-hell-ain't 1MB (good thing, as The SegWit Omnibus Changeset implements a sliding scale for maxblocksize that can be as large as 4MB). No. What we have here is a centrally-imposed limit within the code. Indeed, this limit was not put in place to begin with to deal with a technological problem, and its realtion to any underlying technological limit is tenuous at best.

can you repeat the question?

ya right.

is it really all that extreme?

..
(Fee: $ 0.97 - Size: 192 bytes) 2016-11-24 00:26:22
(Fee: $ 5.77 - Size: 1554 bytes) 2016-11-23 23:42:28
(Fee: $ 3.00 - Size: 223 bytes) 2016-11-23 23:42:06
...


no shit they wouldn't flat out say that, they want you to FEEL like hard forks are very dangerous.

right, core devs are infallible programming gods, so i guess there's no real danger.

grrrrrr

this never ending argument is truly never ending.

Random rich dude? Looks like someone has been living inside a cave during the last two quarters.

False. Do your research regarding this problem, i.e. stop requiring spoon-feeding. I've already said the statement is wrong and it should be "blocking scaling via Segwit".

Nobody in their right mind is going to implement something that effectively has no benefits in contrast to the solution on hand.

Nope. Facts. Random people that know nothing about what a system can or can not handle should not be messing around with it.

Surely it's an economical limit that my node can only run X amount of validation in Y amount of time. ::)

Read the thread.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or just stupid. In what rational mind is mentioning some random TXs and their fees as evidence to support the claim that "Core devs will be okay with 10$ fees". I could literally put in $1M of fees in the smallest possible TX. Is this proof that Core developers want $1m fees? ::)

They are dangerous, anyone stating otherwise is misinformed or delusional.

They just may be in comparison to the people that have worked on the last 2 (almost 3) failed clients. Then again, that may be an appeal to authority.

Not at all. Last two quarters? I was around when Ver's early advocacy made a huge impact on Bitcoin adoption. BTAIM, my point is that singling out a single individual out of a large group that agree on one point, and ascribing one statement that that individual made to the group as a whole, is ludicrous.


You are the one with the outlandish claim. Proving it is on you. So let us substitute the text you assert you meant then:

You seem to be stating that you view Ver's verbal statement of "difficult to support segwit" as synonymous with "[primarily Roger Ver and ViaBTC have been] fighting for blocking scaling via Segwit and pro a fork."

Nope - I'm not seeing how that is any closer to being synonymous. It still says more about you than it does of Ver.


Exactly. Now do you see how ludicrous your suggestion seems to someone who supports scaling via emergent consensus of maxblocksize?


No. "Mainstream people should not be trying to decide technical limits though" is not a statement of fact. It is dogma.


Except we are not speaking of random people. We are speaking of emergent consensus of the very people who have something at stake. The exact set of interests who have invested in the the Bitcoin network and technology. As opposed to a handful of devs who may or may not have anything at stake.


1MB maxblocksize is an economical limit only because it is being imposed upon the system.

seriously?? your going to:
ignore actual blockcounts
ignore how the activation is measured.

and show a stupid average over a stupid 24 hours.
wow. the other day it hit 24%, then down to 14%, then upto 25% then down to 16% then upto 19%........ LOL

how about use actual count of 2016 blocks and get a number that actually applies to the rule.
hell lets even use segwit creators own stats page
note the red line as thats the only metric the CODE cares about.
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-10k.png
again note the red line.

as for anything else lauda has said about segwit. im pretty sure lauda has yet to learn C++ to actually know code to actually independently review and understand it. and run it through some scenarios
i did give lauda a few hints months ago to learn it. lets hope lauda took up that chance.

now lets summarise.
malleability does nothing for LN.
say we call a malicious person X and a honest person Y

to open a channel funds need to be confirmed and locked. LN would only recognise a locked and confirmed tx. thus malleability is useless. because LN wont do anything to unconfirmed transactions and would only accept whatever is seen locked into the blockchain.

when using LN a transaction needs to be signed by BOTH X and Y to spend (broadcast back onchain)
if X then wants to malleate a tx to then void the first one hoping he can then sign a second tx to trick funds back to himself he cannot. because Y wont sign the malleated tx. and the second tx without both signatures will never get accepted into a block.
dual signing alone makes malleability useless tool to double spend

secondly. legacy(old) nodes wont benefit from it. also old nodes will have more issues to contend with. such as seeing 'funky' transactions. aswell as still not being able to trust unconfirmed transactions due to RBF and CPFP.

thirdly new nodes wont benefit from malleability. because malleabilities main headache was double spending.. and guess what.. RBF CPFP still make double spends a risk.
yes all them promises of fixing malleability to let people have a bit more trust in unconfirmed transactions falls flat because they basically took away malleability but then implemented RBF CPFP..

fourthly as for the linear/quadratics.. be serious for one moment. think of a rational reason why one person would need to do say 200-10,000 signature operations in one transaction.
just checking the blockchain history. how often has a legitimate transaction actually required lots of signatures to the extent of causing issues.
the funny thing is limiting transactions sigops actually ensures that we never get a situation where one person can fill a block alone..
but instead, not limiting transaction sigops and just making it fast to process. along with offering a discount on signatures, actually makes it easier, cheaper and more rewarding for someone to spam the block with a single transaction. yea it wont cause network delay. but still causes the community to get peed off that someone is filling the block with one transaction.
limiting sigops was/is the obvious route that should have been taken.

fifthly, the 4mb weight. is only going to be filled with 1.8mb tx +witness data. leaving 2.2mb unused. but guess what. people will use it by filling it with arbitrary data. such as writing messages, adverts, even writing a book into the blockchain. what should have been done was allow 2mb base thus needing ~3.6mb weight.. and also adding a rule that 'messages' could not be added. thus keeping the blockchain lean and utilised just for transactions and not novels/adverts/messages. afterall if a communication tool like twitter or SMS can limit how much someone writes.. then so should bitcoin.
we will definetly see people purposefully bloating up the blockchain with passages of mobydick or over nonsense. and core have done nothing to stop it but done everything to allow it.

sixthly, as i slightly hinted before. by not limiting sigops, not preventing arbitrary data being added core have incentivised bloating by discounting it. but have then added the fee's to reduce bitcoins utility of an actual transaction ledger..
this has to be emphasized over and over.. adding bloat is discounted(free) but sending a real transaction is costly

seventhly, now lets get to the feewar. by removing the instant reaction of allowing fee's to drop when there is low demand. to instead use an "average" metric, actually ends up keeping prices high even when empty blocks are showing. this also has a ripple effect on the relay network where nodes wont even relay certain transactions that dont meet a threshold. which during times of empty blocks/low mempools. the mining pools wont even get all transactions to manually add into blocks if they circumvent the "average" setting.. because other nodes have refused to relay them.

this overall ends up with an ever increasing fee, while having blocks either spam filled with messages of a novel bloating a block. or empty blocks while still demanding a high fee because the average doesnt decline instantly, but over many blocks. meaning instead of

block 500,000: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00010000fee
block 500,001: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00011000fee
block 500,002: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00012000fee
block 500,003: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00013000fee
block 500,004: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00014000fee
block 500,005: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00015000fee

you will see
block 500,000: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00010000fee
block 500,001: 1tx 4mb avgfee=0.00250000fee - "Call me Ishmael." "Some years ago-" "never mind how long precisely-" "having little or no money"
block 500,002: 0tx 0mb avgfee=0.00019600fee
block 500,003: 0tx 0mb avgfee=0.00019984fee
block 500,004: 0tx 0mb avgfee=0.00020383fee
block 500,005: 0tx 0mb avgfee=0.00020799fee
go on.. i dare you.

using an "average" screws up any chance of having cheap transactions and enforces a fee war, even when there are no full blocks the price does not instantly go down due to there being no demand.

Hi,BITKAN translate this article. This one is very popular in China these days.

20% of hashing power currently supports segwit.
i would imagine that potential support for segwit (like this week) tops out at 30-50%
but who is this 20% hashing power supporting segwit

Here it is in plain text.
"sincePeriodStart"

http://api.qbit.ninja/versionstats (http://api.qbit.ninja/versionstats)


Or if you like colors.....
of course this counts 1000 blocks of which signaling only started 822 blocks ago.

http://xtnodes.com/graphs.php (http://xtnodes.com/graphs.php)




I think it means "10 billion dollar" level fin sys.

Roger Ver is not some random rich guy, he is the self proclaimed Bitcoin Jesus and lately the Bitcoin Judas. He has dumped loads of money into a alternative forum, that are being used to spread propaganda for whatever flavor of Bitcoin or Alt coin he wants to hype. < Usually something that are not supported by the Blockstream guys >

He has found a niche market for the people with a revolutionary mindset. < The ones who wants to piss in the wind >

It started with < fabricated censorship > and now it is all about money. < Gambling etc.. >

Oh, it will have an end all right. If Lauda gets his way it will be an end of Bitcoin as currency and hello bitcoin as SWIFT MKII.

That is a fallacy. As expected by the BU folk.

That is inherently dangerous; why someone wants to believe otherwise is beyond reason.

Fact.

Random or not random it is likely that those people have no idea about the system capabilities and that turned out to be true.

Are you not aware that it has not even been 2016 blocks since Segwit signalling started? Weird.

False.

Stop creating unnecessarily large posts that have nothing to do with what is being discused. I do not think that any sane person bothers with reading them anymore.

Standard fallacy by misguided and/or delusional people.

---

The problem is far more complex that what you tend to show. There are currently two (primary) implemented proposals for on chain scaling:
1) Segwit via soft fork (Core).
2) Block size increase via hard fork (maximum 16 MB) (BU).

Okay, so the BU crowd wants to scale via a hard fork. But why this specific proposal? There are other, much more reasonable ones (e.g. the one with 17% yearly growth) that could work. I am in support of a hard fork post-Segwit, but I'm surely not going to support random node operators voting on these limits up to an absurdly large limit (16x higher than what is currently available).

This one made me really laugh. It's quiet funny that chinese people have reasons to ridicule the authoritarism of western crypto-anarchists.

ill just leave this here.

and let you figure out what its all about

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

Only problem is that big blockers realizes that even 20MB blocks cannot accommodate the transaction volume they speak of, nor does it solve 10min confirmation time. So other layers must be implemented which cannot (efficiently) be done without segwit. So they're just trying to hold segwit hostage.

holding it hostage??
um... like core not coding something so holding the other bip hostage by not even having a release available. which is far more hostile then having code released but people choose not to use it.

also are you presume bitcoin is going to jump in utility by a factor of 20, in days, weeks, months, years..?
seems your opinion is that its going to jump in days-months and so your upset that bitcoin cant cope.. yet RATIONALLY bitcoin utility will grow over YEARS and in those YEARS larger blocks would be happily relayable.

the main community is not saying jump to 20mb in weeks-months. its instead asking for a rational growth over rational time without having to beg devs "can i have some more" every couple years. by allowing the growth to be dynamic and not controlled by a team of people paid by banks.

its also worth looking at the bait and switch proposals and who actually proposed them, to then realise that it was done to scare people into loving core

Indeed, although to be fair, it seems likely that 20MB was deliberately chosen because Hearn and Andresen knew it would be rejected. This set them up to appear like they were interested in compromise, whereas the reality is that this whole blocksize debate was began so that they could get their hands on the keys to Bitcoin's source code.



Yep. Although I wouldn't rule out other ways of solving signature malleability, or other ways of implementing 2ndary protocol layers.

I have attcahed some comments from Chinese people here.https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1692577.new#new

I have attcahed some comments from Chinese people here.https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1692577.new#new
 :)

If a space on a distributed blockchain costs only $0.01 i might use it as a notepad to store my reminders. e.g. if it's free (or almost free) to spam i can't imagine mempool being empty again, regardless of the size of a block.

Yes sure why don't we introduce this HUGE attack vector into BTC? Sounds like a good plan. No one in their right mind would allow this. How big should a block be to handle Visa volumes?

I like your assumptions of the desires of "main community". I can do that too, main community wants segwit! There is a group that proposed Classic/XT/BU which was/is rejected by the main community. Now there is a proposal for segwit, yet there is a group that is blocking it. So what are the options? Main community must agree with BU minority or otherwise no one gets segwit?

It was decided in your absence solely because you left the conversation. You self-selected not to participate. Suck it up, buttercup.

That's not only condescending, but just plain stupid. In the history of Bitcoin, there have been exactly two people who have given up the keys to the castle. One was Satoshi. What was the other one's name...?

who are you referring to?

the poeple from the censored forms?
node count?
hashing power?

how can you claim to know what the majority want?

even people that love core want dynamic blocksize. the only argument they can come up with though is that they would only TRUST gmaxwell to write the code for it. they are even screaming to tell the community that core never said no to a increase of the base blocksize, they just waiting for gmaxwell who proposed a dynamic blocksize LAST YEAR!

afterall the altcoin dooms day myth has been busted. all that will happen is an elevation of possible orphan rate due to how small or large the minority is (hense 95%+ acceptability to implement). making under 5% (under 250 of 5000 nodes) not sync and need to upgrade.

afterall the bloat doomsday myth has been busted. 4mb bloat is acceptable

so the solution/compromise is obvious. core tweak their segwit code to 2mb base 4mb weight.. call it 0.13.1b release it alongside 0.13.1 and let the community choose to download either 0.13.1 or 0.13.1b

atleast if everyone happily downloads 0.13.1b segwit also gets activated by default too.
if there is no desire of a jump in base block.. then no one will download 0.13.1b and it wont activate. meaning no harm either fanboys just download 0.13.1 instead

but simply preventing even letting the community have the release to even have a choice under their 'trusted' brand they wont run away from. is no longer the right course of action

then. when activated and we have more REAL capacity because the buffer has increased. that gives alot more time to code new features instead of these stupid delays

Are you asking me or franky1? Let me highlight the important parts that you cut out from my quote to make it seem out of context

Personally I'd like to see some research on what effect 4mb weight blocks would have on further centralization, but that's what i foresee most likely to happen. If 0.13.1 won't get enabled, bump up blocks to 2MB+segwit and let people vote on that.

I don't think it is possible to do actual research on it, it is always a guess (as to node loss).
So besides research on node utilization costs/attacks and block propagation costs/attacks,
the major problem is: no one really can do research on what a post-hardforked blocksize
node count will be. It could be 4500 or it could be 5. There is no way to study it legitimately,
so its outright just a blind risk. I don't like the idea of jumping off a cliff blind and not knowing
if the cliff is deadly or just a simple street curb.

I was thinking today, if the BU and other developers figured out a mechanism to "incentivize nodes"
in the same manner that Miners are incentivized to verify Bitcoin txs/blocks, then not only would they
provide one of the greatest services to the Bitcoin community, but also allow a more secured future for
forked upgrades, since the node system can grow and not diminish.

If I had the know how, that some of the members of this forum have, that is what I would be working on.
Miners don't work for nothing, but node maintainers do. If this puzzle could be legitimately resolved, it would
be a great success for Bitcoin, even more so than a 2 to 8mb blocksize increase.

incentivising them is not easy or even advantageous..

all that will happen is 1-2 corporations running 20,000 nodes all running on AWS each, to grab the incentive.. then the 5000 oldtimers who are left with nothing, will feel that they are not being paid and (unknowingly) think the network is secure with 20,000 nodes.. so they would switch off.

leaving the network in the hands of 1-2 entities and the copies of the blockchain in a centralized single location (amazon service).

the problem with incentives is. rich guys pool their resources to get a leader advantage and claim a majority of incentives.
just take a look at the future industries that 'invested' in trump and now going to become the leaders of their industry with nice large government grants heading their way.

incentives do not mean better security.

No, what I meant is figuring out how to create an "incentive node" network that can't be gamed.
This is very hard to do and thus why I said it was a puzzle. But if solved, would be a monumental feat.
If the 5000 oldtimers don't want to join, they don't have to, they can continue as is because they love it.
My reasoning is getting new people into the game because they would be paid to do so.

Bitcoin's blockchain only works because Satoshi knew it needed an incentive to mine.
Mining, as you know, is both verification of transactions and PoW and a systematic dispersal system for the token.
The whole system only works because the miners are "forced" to verify/do work to get the "award/fee".

The proposed incentive for this node network would be very small and not compensate the full cost of a node,
but would allow average people to get bitcoins the same way members of this forum get some bitcoin from
signature campaigns. It may even be possible that the incentive could cover the costs, I haven't done the math.
As the number of "incentive nodes" increase in this proposed network, the incentive shared decreases.
The point is not profit, but to "incentive" people to want to run a node.

When you see how many people sig spam on this forum for their 0.0010 btc or whatever per week or two
(I seriously have no idea how often they are paid and what the average amount is), imagine if all those
people were running this incentive node platform that can't be gamed. It would usher in a new era for Bitcoin.
An era where the Users can be more than just Users, they participate in a way Satoshi originally intended.
Though he understood that over time it would become centralized, I believe he meant around 2050 to 2080
when the system would be institutionalized and not within the first decade of its whitepaper release.

This proposed incentive network would obviously be designed to prevent the exploitation that Franky has
stated as well as others that could occur. Its possible we could make centralized server companies such as
amazon or other cloud storage restricted within this proposed "incentive node" network.
If an attacker wanted to spin up many nodes in a single location, they would need pay the costs of
personally housing those devices and etc, and when the incentive is not substantial, would be a major
financial loss to do. The point is we can design this system if we really wanted to.

Solve the puzzle. Your prize is ensuring a strong future for Bitcoin.

I'm not too sure that much research is necessary.



All "4MB weight" means is that in addition to the standard 1 MB blocks we have now, an extra 3 MB can be used but for signatures only. Today's transactions dedicate slightly less than half of their size in bytes to the signature, on average.

And that's why the increase gets quoted as only being between 1.75 MB and 2MB, because it's not possible to fill up all 3 MB of extra block space using transactions that are 1:1 data:signature. The reason there's 3x times more space than we can use is that Lightning transactions will change that average ratio closer to the 1:3 data:signature due to it's use of multi-sig (multi-sig transactions must have larger signatures, as more than one signature is required to sign them correctly).

All this would have to change if the signature technology got changed, which is a likely future upgrade. Bitcoin uses ECDSA signatures right now, but more space-efficient signature schemes exist that could replace it, that would mean the 1:3 data:signature ratio would need changing to reflect that.


So, I hope you can see from this that neither node or mining centralisation is affected by the weighting, it's just a ratio used to target efficient use of block space.

the 4mb bloat has been evaluated.
the main cries over the last few years why anything above 1mb was bad was things like
"not everyone has fast internet"
"chinese firewall"
etc

yet all that has been debunked and tests were done that 8mb is acceptable.. but 4mb was deemed the very safe amount to handle for now as acceptable bloat.
"chinese firewall"
yes thats right. while the west was crying that it cant go above 1mb due to chinese firewall.. the east (inside the firewall) all laughed and said what a stupid doomsday. nothing about the chinese firewall has issues with it and data can be so much more than 4mb


"not everyone has fast internet"
tell that to the millions of people in africa doing skype videocalls. then millions of people uploading to youtube. millions doing livestreaming, whilst online gaming...

so devs now backtracked doomsday and happily said upto 4mb bloat was acceptable.

---

yet still keeping tx baseblock data at 1mb..

i cant wait until they backtrack the 1mb baseblock dooms day when they finally see its just a orphan risk scenario.. hense the need for super high majority consensus to mitigate orphan risk.

the 'it causes altcoin' doomsday is FUD. because oppositions need EXTRA added code to intentionally IP/USERAGENT BAN connecting to certain nodes.. just like ethereum intentionally split '--oppose-dao-fork'
without adding an intentional ban list of IP/useragents. the connected nodes just have an orphan battle on a single chain, they dont keep 2 chains alive for eternity they orphan the minority
high majority consensus means low risk of orphans. and leaves the minority never syncing.. thus again no second chain. just minority left unsynced

---

as for the "linear/quadratic" doomsday.
easy.

if sigops is causing issues... limit sigops.
there is no rational reason for one person to need to do 500-20000 sigops. so limit the number of sigops a tx can have.
aswell as ensuring validation times are not used as a DDoS, the extra benefit is we will not see a block with just 1tx sized at 1mb with hefty amount of sigops to churn through..