Bitcoin Forum

Good job Roger Ver, it looks like SegWit has absolutely no chance at all of getting anywhere near 95%.  I doubt they will ever get over 50%.

SegWit is not Bitcoin.  SegWit is an altcoin.  

I feel it is my duty as a concerned citizen and valuable contributor of the Bitcoin community to declare SegWit dead on arrival. 

Yeah, a 95% support rate is way too good to be true, and it is going to fail, almost guaranteed. You have to be considering something more like 75% at best, considering how divided the community is on this already. There is no way you'd get to 95% without some considerably aggressive advertising or arguing with many high-profile people at big events stating their support of it.

Segwit will not succeed according to their goals.

no point giving roger Ver the blame or fame. Ver only had ~10% so dont let blockstream make you believe Ver alone..

it's the other 65% that were not in agreement with blockstream aswell...
but we all know blockstream are gonna ply lots of investors with alcohol and free drinks in miami this month. so we will soon see if those investors linked to mining farms suddenly change their minds after a bit of blockstream ass kissing

There's only so much schmoozing you can do. I highly doubt at this rate we'll see segwit take off. It's too bad but ugh, the 95% that was decided on was a stretch from the get go.

Not because of community divided. There were no human beign that 95% people like. There are always groups that like someone/something and dislike it.
From my experience if 75% of userbase want something, they are right and it should be introduced for the sake of all users even if they disagree.
I trully belive that and thats from my experience personally.
So 95% is a joke really... no way almost everyone will agree on something, some people just disagree to cause chaos or for fun or from boredom etc.

gmaxwell has a trick up his sleeve..
he can cause a hardfork to get a softfork activated. by deliberately orphaning blocks that oppose segwit. not because the block data is bad.. but purely because its not voting in favour of segwit.


so funny that blockstream/core said that all the segwit data was good and backward compatible. but now suggesting everyone should upgrade to be full nodes and that they can even orphan off blocks to get their way(hard fork)..

if the data was truely backward compatible there should be no reason to orphan.. thats the point of why a softfork was promoted and how it was promised to the community. to not cause disruption by/of orphans.

SegWit isn't altcoin too,It seems LTC isn't seriously needing SegWit. LTC is the matter of hype for pushing the coin.   ::)

Hmmm... I think segwit still has chance for becoming solution about block size of bitcoins
but we must wait until there are results from litecoin that had activated segwit or
wait until the developers of bitcoins gives results proggess updating the segwit
i think it is too fast making opinion the segwit is dead.

I totally agree with you 95% is a big ask, some people are just there to disrupt things and hinder progress, for me what is happening in case of SegWit is a power tussle between developers and investors who want to have a cut of the pie.

check out my post above.. where gmaxwell calls anything not segwit an altcoin. yet its segwit that is currently not activated on the mainnet.. yet other implementations he wants to fight against. including old bitcoin nodes are altcoins in his mind.

screw it here you go, saves you scrolling

yes he wants to call bitcoin0.8-bitcoin0.12 nodes an altcoin if a pools wanted to stick to those old nodes and refuse to upgrade to bitcoin0.13 just to flag desire for. and refuse to wait for the actual segwit node 0.14 that will only be released after activation.

funny part is an altcoin is something thats not actively running on the network..
in short.. how can something not on the network affect the network its not on.

EG how can ltc block an important bitcoin improvement on the bitcoin network.. it cant.

only an active bitcoin node on the network can be able to block something different from getting onto the network. meaning the blocker is bitcoin and the blockee is the alt

I pray to God you are correct Mr. Raw Dogs!  :P 8) :o :-*

https://puu.sh/tlMtz/8b34a22c00.jpg (https://twitter.com/SegWit/status/806148831092084736)

~~

FYI: Someone in C-CEX chat said I had a small pickle. I can assure the reader there is no problem in that department! 8)

Nope, the tussle is between developers and developers. It has been like this with Core vs Classic and Core vs XT and Core against Alt coins.

Everyone wants the power and the brag rights, to be in charge of the development of the most powerful Crypto currency in the world. Just

imagine your CV if you can pull that off.  ;) It is ALL about the money and the power now.  >:(

and this CV who will it be handed to when these devs want a job and move away from working on bitcoin?
and ALL the money(fiat) where is it coming from.

yep
core devs are getting paid by bankers and want jobs working with bankers.. look at blockstream getting into bed with hyperledger.
look at all the unpaid blockstream fanboys working as interns showing off their loyalty to blockstream hoping for a job with blockstream and the banks.

So what actually happens now? Will the miners go for Bitcoin Classic or Unlimited, or does the bickering continue without being resolved for another year?

pools wont vote for either side unless they know nodes can handle it.. pools are smart enough to know about the risks of having nodes that cant validate data.

thats what the 65% undecided are waiting for..

it should have been a node consensus first, pool consensus second strategy.
not a pool first, node second.

Well don't forget how close NitWit came to being consenusized in 2012, it was at 30% most of the year and then momentum picked up in month 11, then just missed out at 87%. You just can't ever tell what the herd will do...

We should be able to vote on Augur to get a better picture.

Bitcoin will either make it through this impasse or it wont, its pretty simple.  its the beauty of an open source project.  i wouldn't want it any other way :).  Either bitcoin will fade in to history and we all are stuck with the current financial system, or some genius will come up with a solution that suits everyone, simple  ;D 

Roger Ver is one of the biggest idiots on the community, he has never made a good job on anything other than being wrong, in this case, by not supporting segwit, just like the rest of experts, including andreas antonopoulos etc. Everyone with a functional brain wants segwit.

Roger Ver is a smartass, he is on record claiming its ok turning bitcoin into paypal 2.0 if that is the result of getting a blocksize thats big enough to guarantee fast cheap onchain transactions.

Roger Ver is a mess.

So how many nodes support Classic or Unlimited? Wasn't there a thing about a year back when Classic nodes were getting DDOSed by the Core people? Has that stopped?

Core/Blockstream plays dirty.  Very dirty.  They will tilt the table every time.  Bitcoin is the great censorship resistant system - and it is run by GMaxwell/Theymos the greatest censors of all time (not counting fucking China of course).  

Core/Blockstream and their people don't pay attention to such details.  They just like to blindly follow their leaders into the fire and relentlessly defend them to the end.  Understanding any of this is not part of their role.

The whole story about large block causing centralization and the need for some very crazy changes to the entire network (that's an alt) like Lightning is only going to be bought by very blind sheep.

have you even read segwit code
have you even run scenarios
have you understood the reality.

...
or have you just looked at someone else who said it was great and trusted them because you think they know whats best, so you simply took it on faith

when sheep follow sheep all they see is the woolly ass infront of them

i dont mean to attack you personally but hopefully it will prompt you to research and see beyond whats been placed infront of you

Although this thread proves that there is no censorship on the forum.........  ;)  well unless theymos has taken the night off ? lol

he is probably drinking it up with the other centralists in miami

I don't like how much we all have to wait around, and campaign, and beg these miners to signal SegWit. In the end, if they delay or reject changes that most of the users and the technical community support, then we need to consider changing the POW and removing them from the network.

If we don't at least seriously consider this option, we might start to see miners more aggressively reject other new features in the future. It makes no sense to give veto power on soft forks to a handful of guys living in some totalitarian hellhole (who knows what their motivations are or will be in future).

LOL
seriously??
i have emboldened the part where it reveals that you are not actually a dev or have technical knowledge or even basic understanding of bitcoin
you sound like just some webmaster that gets other people to code a website. and have nothing to do with bitcoin code

you seriously want to consider doing an intentional controversial split. and not only that. destroy the security of bitcoin .. purely to force a softfork in.

do you even understand what you have proposed. seriously!!

its obvious you are part of theymos's crew of blockstream loving centralists. where you, just like gmaxwell are getting desperate.
im guessing blockstreams next tranche of financing is dependant on getting segwit green lit to start the commercialisation and make returns to the investors.

how about the blockstream centralists stop thinking about your fiat riches and instead think about bitcoin. get the devs to loosen their control of bitcoin and just let consensus decide.

yes i know you are going to rebuttle that if segwit fails then consensus has failed. when in actual fact it has worked by not allowing something that is not needed.
i know blockstream centralists will double down and proclaim that bitcoin needs a human government of force heading up things because they believe consensus cant look after itself. but yet again the opposite is true

here is a mindblowing thought for the centralists

btcc already prioritises its own exchange customers transactions to get into a BTCC block first.
how about blockstream make sure segwit transactions relay to btcc and btcc just add segwit tx's to their block.

after all,
once its in a block, its all *cough* supposedly *cough* backward compatible, right*.. and not going to cause an issue for the network.
so other pools wont reject it and other nodes wont reject it.. right?

wasn't that the promise, segwit blocks being just like legacy blocks. segwit confirmed transactions being passed as ok

so make your damned segwit transactions and get them sent to btcc(and slush) and let btcc(and slush) add them to a block and see what happens.
in blockstreams promise theory. nothing bad, but with the only downside being that segwit transactions have to wait until BTCC(and slush) solves a block. which is roughly once an hour.

atleast then we can see if blocks get orphaned or are accepted as promised. which then shows how soft segwit really is.
that would give confidence to pools more so then proposing an intentional split.

think rationally

*im about a year ahead of most peoples possible scenarios including the anyonecanspend scenario which while they wont admit it, caused core to hold off on releasing a working 'segwit wallet' aspect of a full node until after activation. due to anyonecanspend being an issue

I haven't seen any real evidence that Bitcoin users actively want SegWit. I have only seen many businesses getting ready for SegWit, as is the prudent thing to do as if SegWit is activated, businesses need to be ready to know how to handle SegWit transactions. 

I especially do not see why someone in the "technical community" should have any more weight then someone else for the sole reason that they are in the "technical community". Someone can give their opinion, and if they are respected then other users will agree with this person if they give a strong enough argument, backed up with strong enough evidence.

agreed.
and the only way merchants(businesses) can prepare properly is if they had a proper working segwit codebase. and not just this half-ish release thats just a 'flagger' version0.13.2 (no segwit wallet feature). yep even core are refusing to release the full segwitwallet version. only spoonfeeding a flagger version until they get what they want.

ever wonder why core are going for a pool first user second approach.. especially if everything is suppose to be soft, not dangerous and backward compatible?

I was thinking about starting such a topic. We cannot hide from reality. SegWit started with a bang, but percentage of blocks supporting it isn't growing any more. It may pick up again, but it seems impossible we'll ever reach the 95% needed. So, what is plan B?

I know many people were thinking was a bad solution, but it was a solution. Blocks are full, and this problem won't go away. Something needs to be done, before we'll experience again delays to confirm transactions.

Theymos never checks the forum anymore, I have 16 unanswered PM's sent to him as evidence.  :P :-* :P

It is more than having a good CV. It is also politics. Also imagine if the Bitcoin Unlimited people can pull off a hard fork. That would mean that they have hard forked Bitcoin away from the core developers and are now in control of development to an extent. They gain the moral victory. Roger Ver will finally be the CEO of Bitcoin.

There's like 4000 nodes running core, and 3000 of them are signaling segwit.   There are about 400 nodes signaling "other things" ... (XT, Classic, BU, etc.).   It's as clear as day on the node side.   Only miners hoping they can delay the fee drop and capacity increase a little longer.

What does that even mean?   That's the crazy thing people keep saying.   Ant pool still mines empty blocks every day.   How are they "full"?   Some time in January 2015, zero and 1 satoshi fee transactions started backing up the mem pool.   


If you want to get to $0.01 fees and $5000 coins, you'd need fast and efficient 100MB blocks that can be easily and quickly transmitted to all nodes in the network.   100MB is crazy and can never work.   Networks just don't scale that way.   So let's please stop fooling ourselves and pretend off-chain scaling *isn't* the end game here.

I ran a survey over at reddit.   What percent of Bitcoin transactions are "off chain".   Predictably, big blockers say ZERO.  Because everything else is credit.   Which is true... but that doesn't mean that poor people need cheap ways of moving gold internationally for pennies.

Node count is a very poor indicator of user support for a number of reasons:

*Not all nodes accept incoming connections, so you will not be able to poll all active nodes what version they are running

*It is trivial to run multiple "fake" nodes (fake by one definition or another) signaling support for one version or another

*A business may be against SegWit, but will still be prudent and run a SegWit compatible node for both testing and preparation purposes in case SegWit activates against their wishes, it is also possible that a business might be against SegWit and be running multiple full nodes for testing/preparation purposes. The same is true for other Bitcoin implementations as a business might be against Unlimited or Classic but still be running an Unlimited node for similar reasons -- although I believe it to be less likely they would be running multiple Unlimited nodes.

*A business may be neutral about SegWit but would still prudently run a SegWit node for reasons discussed above.

*In case you haven't noticed, there is a message at the top of the page displayed to everyone who visits the forum to "upgrade" to 13.2, which IIUC signals support for SegWit, while someone who does not support SegWit, or who supports another implementation would need to actively find another version to run.

Sure they do. There is no reason to expect technology to stop evolving from where it is today. It was not all that long ago that my family was upgrading to a 56.6kbs modem (<2 decades), and today for about the same price that my family paid for a 56.6kbs internet connect (extra phone line + internet service), I could get 1,000 mbps with google fiber. 

The reason why specific blocks are not full is often because said block was found quickly after the preceding block, and/or the pool operator is having problems with their node software. I think it is fairly reasonable to say that blocks are currently full, based on the growing tx fees attached to found blocks. Look at the attached tx fees to blocks found a few years ago, and look at them now.

Adoption (rates) of new tech is going exponential.

This might happen to BU as well.

Do we see this starting?

sorry but there is only
/Satoshi:0.13.2/   895 (16.22%)
/Satoshi:0.13.1/   1631 (29.58%)
truly signalling for segwit
the 0.13.0 doesnt include the flag..

so its 46%(2526).. which others have said maybe running it just to be "prudent" (eg those just running 0.13.1) just to have minimum requirement to retain being full validation of segwit. but not wanting to get to involved in by continually upgrading beyond that.

some dont even understand what they are downloading. they just want to stay uptodate with whatever is pushed out. so they are not actually fully informed and explicitly voting for it. they are just running a node.

so the communities node uptake of say 30% explicit, 46% implicitly voting and pools explicit voting 18% explicitly, 32% implicitly.. both show that there are over 50% explicitly undecided.

Well with my limited knowledge, I think SegWit is a good thing, I've upgraded my node to 0.13.2, and I block classic and unlimited nodes. Do I need to do anything else?

I'm holding back on my use of Bitcoin at the moment, but I want to use it for domain name sales payments in the future, and I want to use the multi-sig option to perform Escrow functions. This has become more urgent now that Escrow.com has started to support PayPal.

So when is it going to be safe to start using SegWit transactions?

your actively blocking classic and unlimited nodes?

so you dont want diverse decentralisation. you want controlled system that avoids consensus.
i now wonder who told you to block anything thats not core..

you do realise in a true decentralised network having say XX different implementations from different teams is a security advantage.

EG if you only read news from one news source. they dictate what you think and know. reading news from different sources atleast lets you be more informed and double check whats been handed to you

the only reason you should block a node is if its DDoSing you. not because of the brand.

I guess segwit has a low chance of survival but it will die before it will launch. Possibly its survival rate is 5% and that is big enough. But who knows if there are big investors behind segwit then possibly they can pull the rope to uplift it. In crypctocurrency business those who have a huge capital can make miracles to their coin just like Ethereum. Segwit being an altcoin can still made it to the top if the investors have huge capital to promote and invest in their coin.

So if SegWit doesn't get adopted, what are the chances of someone starting another coin that does include all the advantages of SegWit?

Already done: http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php

It will probably be activated in Litecoin, but we need to wait and see.

This is a move to advance not only Litecoin but also Bitcoin.

Do you really think that nodes won't follow the miners majority if Bitoin Unlimited get the majority?

Off courser, miners who are voting BU want to delay the fee drop...
What a joke :D


100mbytes per blocks... 160kbytes/s (or 1.285mbits/sec)... It's not what we could call a high speed rate!

Lulz, tell that when big block Roger coin will have all nodes in Jihan's data centers or with only 100 nodes around the world controlled by big business actively complying and KYC/AMLing your ass with govs because it will push out the average joe of having a node in the "Bitcoin" network.

Your big block Vision will be an epic centralized fail !

LN is decentralized and censorship resistant, the barrier to entry is so low that any idiot with low resource could run a node...

Try that with a 1 GB or worse an unlimited block buddy.

Sure you will be all on-chain, with something worse than PayPal ! Enjoy !

Changing Pow will hurt short term but it will be good on long term, removing those clown from BTC and allowing progress is indeed good, currently BU is at 17 % I think a divorce is unavoidable we should go both our way let's them have central coin in China !

Now, you need to go jump off a bridge.  Your knowledge is very limited indeed.  But like most people with limited knowledge, you've come to love SegWit.  

There are no advantages of SegWit.  It primary purpose is to enable Lightning so Blockstream can charge fees to onramp that bullshit unneeded system.

In other words we're at a complete impasse. Segwit can't get to 95%, but the miners won't try classic or unlimited unless the nodes back it and they won't.

So I guess we're in for another wasted year, and meanwhile an alt somewhere will take bitcoin's crown, it only takes one good alt to do it.

It's that sort of comment that makes me feel I should sell my Bitcoin domain names, and look for an alternative. I've dragged my feet over Bitcoin for the last year because of all the infighting. Maybe it's time to get out.

Well worth watching how LTC works with it once it gets through, it has more of a chance with 75% it could sway the undecided. 

Either way for litecoin it could be a bit of a price wave, although It will probably end up putting LTC into an early grave but who knows stranger things have happened.

Actually this would not be that bad. Let Litecoin be a first test subject of SegWit and then community will see and decide whether it was good choice.
Maybe then hardcore bitcoiners will understand that there is a price for progress.

Dynamic block size ends up with the same problem: Attackers could exploit it by making the block size too big for normal people to host nodes. You can add dynamic fe but at that point the fee would bee too high and we are back to the same problem.

If it was as easy as that then the dynamic blocksize solution would have been already implemented but pro-dynamic blocksize people never explain the negatives.

Very strange that you say that, as I remember that not so long ago most of the people were hailing the great victory of SegWit, that it will be activated very soon. I don't think this is a bad thing, why are you saying so, that it is an altcoin ? For me it justs reorganisate the blocks, so I could not call that an altcoin.

This does not suprise me that much, because who the hell would put a 95% threshold ? Our rulers put us a 50% cap but there is not a civil war, so putting 50%, 60% if you want, would have been enough !

The 95% activation was to avoid chain split and reorg... At 95% you have virtually no contention, if you want to chain split, put activation at 50 %, hell even 75% can lead to a permanent chain split !

You don't change PoW for PoS or anything else, you change the PoW algorithm ie: Keccak (SHA3) instead of the current SHA 256 having the side effect of turning ASIC in Chinese data centers into nothing more than space heaters...

I don't think you can jump to conclusion and say that SegWit is now dead, negotiation and realignment of group is going on, we all know this is more of politics than the tech, wait till march and see if the percentage of miners that have activated it has increased or not.

It is dead.  People don't want it.  You can pour sugar on it all day long - it aint gonna get better.  It was made to enable that piece of shit LN which is nothing more than an alt coin scam by Blockstream.  

ok lets play your scenario out shall we..

you do this massive change.. thus needing to also knock down the difficulty back down to low numbers that a gpu can hand again..(security risk again)
but guess what ASIC manufacturers would have already of made a SHA3 ASIC... and the ASICs continue winning.

meaning.. it has not changed a thing. apart from a month of drama until things are back in the same place as before

seems all the people that are desperate to get segwit implemented have not thought about it very hard.
seems all the people that are desperate to get segwit implemented have not actually understood the problem
seems all the people that are desperate to get segwit implemented have not actually run any scenarios
seems all the people that are desperate to get segwit implemented only care about giving control over to blockstream but dont realise what would actually happen or the downsides of changing things just for the sake of appeasing blockstream commercial services

It would take time to create a new SHA3 chip, we could have also a different set of miners than roger Ver and Jihan's Cartels, notice that SW can be implemented in script algo too... Litecoin is doing it...

Seems big blockist spread FUD and misinformation...
Seems they don't understand how BTC work...
Seems they will get huge losses...
Seems they are being played by Chinese Gov and Jihan in a war of attrition by China so she can control BTC entirely after eliminating Core and having centralized everything on Chinese soil :)

it takes just months to manufacture a chip.

it takes years months to announce, implement code and then more months to then get activation (consent) for the change.
do you think manufacturers would wait till the last minute of activation day before making an asic.. or would they begin work months earlier when a change is announced.

think rationally.

seems you have eaten the scripted racist rhetoric. and not actually done individual research into the truth.
maybe best you spend more time doing independant research and come to your own opinion then just joining the r/bitcoin script following regime of just repeating what others have said.

come on think rationally. seems you think location has meaning. when infact its who sets the rules that counts.
the real centralisation is where 12 banker paid devs and their 90 spellchecking interns thing they should be kings and central to bitcoin.. rather than having diversity

while those at blockstream are telling you to look at china. they want you to just look away from what they are actually doing and blindly(beause your not checking) "trust" them

to mitigate spam attack is easy. it does not require large fee's and the hope a spammer will stop. while that same crap fee rules hinder honest and ethical people.

after all if they think raising the fee will make spammers wait an hour+ instead of just sending in the very next block, they are fooling themselves. its simple. just have a tx maturity. so funds cant be respent straight away. that way only coins with some amount of confirms get in and everyone gets a fair go.

after all theres not many reasons for normal people to move funds every ~10 minutes, repeating for hours non stop. so why let the fees jump up while still spamming the network by letting it happen rather than let the transactions cool down a bit, to give other transactors a chance to get theirs confirmed honestly

EG change the 'priority' calculation to really emphasise the age more.
EG add a 1-6 block maturity period (like the block reward)
EG let the fee increase more if people repeatedly send coins less than a couple confirms old.

meaning someone spending only once a day gets treated better than someone trying to spam every block

its easy to think of many many ways to mitigate spam, without needing to use/abuse fee's to achieve it and where fee's have the actual intent for their current purpose. of hurting spammers

The codes can be ninja developed, i know Core devs have that option on the table... (and may have already some code ready in case things goes south) Actually it could be fast, faster than doing the ASIC manufacturing back...

Also if we can have a different set of miners than your Roger ver and Jihan friends its all good even if they are Chinese, i dont care !

I don't buy your racist SJW argument, my own GF is Chinese but that doesn't impeach me to be critical of china their culture and their gov, i can think rationally and openly thanks for your concern.

The location centralization matters especially when 70 % of hash-power is inside some country with a traditionally more heavy handed government...
You will say "But no they are individual miners" no they are mainly farms controlled by a few guys...

Please stop your conspiracy theory on Blockstream/Core its not like that you gonna convince me (quite the contrary). :)

when you throw out statements that are repeats of other people. i can tell your not checking what your saying.
70% chinese LOL. did you even check. by this i mean properly.
or just copying someone you "trust" because they said it on /r/bitcoin.

put it this way.
antpool sits at 18%.. but less than 10% is actually in china
also. slush pool is managed by a guy from thailand. where the hashrate is a mix of different people
BTCC has stratums in many countries
f2pool says 12.6 but is actually under 12% in china.
BW is not solely in china either.

and now the big thing.
even if they are in a country. there are 1.3billion people in that country. all separated by thousands of miles of land mass, separated by different companies and all the pools are competing against each other.
if they wanted to collude they would be in one pool.

all pools do is collate the data. it is the nodes that validate it meets the rules.
if pools attempted something the nodes disagreed with. then the pools attempt would get orphaned. boom gone, bye bye. pool wasted time for nothing trying something that doesnt fit the rules of consensus

so dont even try to use the fake "hey everyone look at the pools they are the government". especially if you have not looked passed the repeated empty speaches of the Fudsters that actually want to centralise bitcoin into LN commercial hubs, by distracting people with empty drama

The question of what is safe is a person's opinion.

the minority (blockstream paid) set the rules, they after all are the administrators of the mailing list, IRC, github and tech category of this forum. its the majority (unpaid interns) that follow the blockstream devs desires out of loyalty, trust and self desire that if they show their helpfulness to the blockstream crew, then hopefully blockstream will employ them

i understand your opinion of how things 'should be' but reality is much different

we are no longer in the independent codebase area of 2009-2013. things have changed since big fiat pockets have started throwing money and employment terms in dev's directions

2013-2014 is transparently clear as the time when it all flipped around. and it has not been the same since

Some people are just too stupid to understand these things - or use Google. Or are you one of his paid "messengers"?

It just doesn't matter all those infrastructure are controlled by a few chinese who live in china, tomorrow if PRC decide to censor them they will just obey period !

The PRC is fully sovereign on those 1.3 billion people so you argument about being apart from thousand kilometer doesn't make sense, they even have soldier in the middle of nowhere in Xinjian !

The PRC is sovereign no matter that you are in Beijing, Shanghai or Chengdu last time i crossed customs in airports i saw the same PRC soldier and police no matter where i was :)

> all pools do is collate the data. it is the nodes that validate it meets the rules.
if pools attempted something the nodes disagreed with. then the pools attempt would get orphaned. boom gone, bye bye. pool wasted time for nothing trying something that doesn't fit the rules of consensus.

We fully agree here, that's why BU have no future, more than 50 % of nodes are SW and still up !

> so dont even try to use the fake "hey everyone look at the pools they are the government". especially if you have not looked passed the repeated empty speaches of the Fudsters that actually want to centralise bitcoin into LN commercial hubs, by distracting people with empty drama

First like i said Gov is fully sovereign on Chinese individuals second those pools are controlled by a few guy in china even if they have some server oversea they still control it.

LN are decentralized with low barrier to entry and can be run on Tor, try to censor that ! :)

Well i stop there it seems to be a waste of time and getting trolled is not my cup of tea.

nah its less than 46% are explicitly voting for.. and as you should know the 46% are only implicitly voting without knowing why. so logically less are actually explicitly voting for it.

also some of those 46% are also people hoping gmaxwell, luke jr stick to their word of eventually doing a dynamic block code released like they promised in 2015-2016.


you are just reading the glossy leaflet. try understanding LN properly and the things LN code has in it to tweak it towards hubs.
its more centralised than you think,

even if you have a private channel with another person(non LN hub connected.. essentially just a plain multisig) you are automatically no longer using the permissionless ethos of bitcoin. you are required to get authorisation by the other party (dual signing).
but if you are in an LN hub and hop network, then your even more stuck into the terms of the hub and requirements of permissions of others just to move your value.
its worth you running some scenarios with an objective logical hat on and not a fanboy hat

should you do some research you will learn that these authorised payments come with terms and conditions. (CLTV=similar to banks 3-5day funds available / block reward maturity) .. (CSV revokes = similar to bankers chargebacks)

its time you stop repeating the sales pitch you have read else where (everything you have said is not original) and try researching beyond the words you have been taught to repeat.

but please enjoy your cup of tea and use the time to not think up some silly insult or fud doomsday you remember reading elsewhere. and instead take a step back and do some independent research.

Roger Ver and Gavin Andressen seek to harm Bitcoin, so of course everyone, who want the prosperity of decentralisation and Bitcoin, should oppose these despicable rats by blocking classic unlimited and other hardforks

You seek to harm Bitcoin.  Why would you say such a dumb thing without any evidence?  Because you are a moron.  typical of Core lovers.

Besides, SegWit and LN are altcoins - not bitcoin.  Please stop being so confused.  Core is working on altcoins.  8MB blocks is Bitcoin.  

Roger Ver and Gavin Andressen seek to harm stupid altcoins SegWit and LN, -  that is a true fact.  

Why are you so jumpy? You can simply google it if you want. But of course you will not because you already know it. Just say how many ver and andressen pay you for your lie

Unlimited and Classic are HARDFORKs. The moment they've been implemented they become altcoins and go to shit like other altcoins and Bitcoin will flourish like always  :D

I did Google it.  Google said you are a fucking worthless liar.  There are no places where it says Ver is trying to harm Bitcoin.  He is however tying to save Bitcoin from asshole proprietary altcoin dicks at Blockstream.  How much are you paid? 

Why am I so jumpy?, dumbshits like you keep following those idiots.  Too many people trying to turn the Bitcoin protocol into their private altcoin. 

Why are you so incompetent? you should read more. SegWit is softfork NOT HARDFORK like Classic and Unlimited. And Lightning is upgrade for Bitcoin from best possible developers in cryptoworld.
So if Ver and Andressen seek to harm Lightning they seek to harm bitcoin. Also wide known fact that Andressen work for banksters who are afraid of Bitcoin and decentralisation.

I need a far more intelligent person to argue with than you.  You are too boring.  It gives me a headache.  Please set your keyboard on fire and stop typing.  You clearly are a fanboy who wants to suck Blockstream's dick and have no understanding of cryptocurrency.

Google better you can't even google and trying to argue about Bitcoin and decentralisation. Just like two chicks Ver and Andressen trying to compete with professionals like core around.

See you have nothing else to say. And start to curse. And everyone else also see it

They are hardforks, I agree with you on that point, but SegWit is none of them, so I do notunderstand why you are talking about them. SegWit is not an altcoin, this justs changes how blocks' space is used.

ehm segwit is not even a final solution, it's not like you solved the scaling issue when you activate it if ever

you need at some point to increase the block limit regardless of segwit, so why we don't go to that route anyway?

segwit was a temporary solution proposed only to have more time to find another better one in the future

but as the things look it seems that no other solutions will ever be found...

Right. SegWit is neither alt nor Hardfork. Why this asshole Rawdog keep saying this is alt? he is scheeming something

will SegWit drive the BTC price high  ???

Of coarse it's a great improvement. I think the price will tripple in 2017

ironside.

be patient, and dont take this as an attack. take this as an experiment of having an open mind.
so, take off your blockstream defensive hat for 2 minutes. dont worry i know its uncomfortable. but for just 2 minutes wear a logical and rational hat for 2 minutes.

ok here goes
many implementations. such as bitcoinJ, BU, etc etc are actually fully operational on bitcoins mainnet right now. people have their blocksize buffer limits set at whatever they choose right now and their is nothing bad happening.
mindblowing right! fully active all rules working implementations running on bitcoins mainnet..

EG having a 2mb or a 4mb setting means that these implementations all accept blocks UNDER those limits. meaning they accept 1mb blocks too.
thus not causing harm. mindblowing thought right!

however segwit, even 0.13.2 is not a full operation release, it does have code to check new transaction types that are not part of the bitcoin 2009-2016 rule..but yep here is the but..
segwit is not actually running new transaction types or segwit features right now.


when it does activate(changes the rules) the other bitcoin nodes of 2009-2016 will not relay these new transactions 'as is' when unconfirmed.. but wont reject them once they are confirmed, not due to segwit being within old rules, but because segwit has found a blindspot where the old rules walk passed them like a ninja(unchecked).

hense why they say the new rules are 'compatible'. because of the stealthy (soft) trick.

lets word it another way bitcoin could in the future include litecoin features... but until its actually part of bitcoin by having an activation. litecoin is an altcoin. only after activation can you actually say that litecoin is part of bitcoin.

now if there is new alternate transaction types, alternative rules and not actually actively operating on bitcoin right now. its not part of bitcoin. thus is an altcoin.
bitcoin core 0.13.1 and 0.13.2 are a hybrid containing old rules and new rules. but as for 0.14 it will be totally different features, transaction types and node connection preferences.

right up until its activated it is an altcoin because until activation.. its not compatible.
eg if you tried to get an unconfirmed segwit transaction relayed by bitcoins 2009-2016 nodes they can mess with it more then you can know.

even blockstream know this because they have not added the use of segwit new keypairs feature to any of the releases. that will be a release after activation.

after activation segwit transactions that are confirmed into blocks are treated not as fully validated by 2009-2016 nodes. but sit in a state that is blindly looked passed.

current releases are just flagging releases just to show desire for. but without containing full use of these alternate features.

what you also need to know is that after activation segwit wont relay unconfirmed transactions through the old2009-2016 nodes due to the unconfirmed tx problem. so segwit nodes will biasedly only connect to other segwit nodes for unconfirmed tx relay. but once confirmed. the pools can then relay the blocks out to any node.

thus the network (imagination needed) instead of being like a bush shape (out in many directions everyone connected to everyone) becomes more like a tree (up in one direction from a segwit node towards a pool and then the pools sprout out like a bush)

viscount

you are listening to the blockstream defense leagues version of intentional splits to give full control to blockstream.. yep gmaxwell wants an intentional split but other implentations want consensus of one network and laughed at gmaxwells centralist rant

 please put a rational hat on and learn consensus.

yes learn consensus

right now non blockstream indoctrinated releases are fully running on bitcoins mainnet and nothing has happened.
if consensus to increase the blocksize is reached. then it does not create an altcoin. it continues on one chain with a larger buffer space by default.
those few minority holding back.. simply cannot sync. they are not the mainnet they are not creating new blocks. they are simply stuck.
again no altcoin for the minority.

if no majority is reached, nothing changes. thus no change.

the only way the minority can create new blocks is to biasedly ban connecting to the mainnet and to avoid consensus of the mainnet to avoid orphans. to then be on their own small network.
this is what ethereum done. biasedly banned the opposition to intentionally create an altcoin
research: --oppose-dao-fork

the minority who ban the majority.. become the altcoin.. not the other way round

i wish all of these blockstream defenders who want blockstream to be central. actually understood what they are actually saying.
by removing diversity of several different implementations and only having one implementation. they are literally calling out for centralisation.

its like they are on autopilot just copy any pasting someone elses blockstream desires. without even thinking about it

franky1

     Don't try and con me with your hypocrite lie. All you do is just mixing terrible lie with a tad of truth to make it seem sensible. I must give credit where the credit is due, you seem smarter than Raw Dog with his stupid posts. Anyway you and Rawdog and Roger Ver are just pretending to be Bitcoin's lovers but all you do is trying to impede it.
     What can you suggest except your FUD? Show me your code if you can do something? No you have nothing.
I've read some of RawDog's previous posts where he writes that bitcoin has no future wheater there'll be Unlimited or Segwit.
   Here's some of his posts:
"No scaling solution.  BU and SegWit both failed.  The system is not scalable.  It is falling apart now."
"Bitcoin doesn't scale.  It is broken with many thousands of transactions in the queue.  Price is just a Ponzi effect. Crash coming soon.  Big crash."
"I fucking love the stupidity of bitcoiners.  It is shocking!  So many very dumb people. The system is fucked." 
     And after that this moron trying to make us to believe that he mean no harm for bitcoin.
Similar posts from Ver or Andressen or Hearn one can simply google.

Bitcoin is not afraid of alts. There've been a lot of them. If Unlimited or Classic become another two it won't matter anyway they will cost nothing. Averyone knows what developers like Core team contribute and what did sneaky rats like Roger Ver or Andressen or Hearn

you have no clue.

just because you have read a story from X blockstreamers does not make the story true. nor does it mean everyone.

you have cabin fever. thinking the cabin is decentralised because you see more then one person in it. the issue is that your not allowing yourself to get out of the cabin to see things from the whole world. you want to stay within the cabin because you are confortable.

bitcoin is the outside world not the cabin you have locked yourself into.

please look outside of the box and not subject yourself to only conversations with those locked inside the box.

its gmaxwell that wants to intentionally split to alts.. everyone else wants to stay on the mainnet.

i bet you think ver wants paypal2.0 because you read a TITLE of a post on r/bitcoin. but didnt read the CONTEXT.

its LN that is being described as paypal2.0 and ver simply said he would be happy to let blockstream have their LN if blockstream allow mainnet to dynamically and naturally grow.

in no way did it mean ver was making LN.. as we all know thats what blockstream are doing.
CONTEXT COUNTS

wake up and look passed the propaganda of misinterpreting TITLES of posts and start reading the CONTEXT and then researching from an unbiased and diverse set of sources. otherwise your just circle jerking the same stories in the same small cabin of a few biased people. thinking your all correct because your all hear only one story.

here i will spell it out for you.
here is blockstream gmaxwell trying to get anyone not blockstream to fork away..  and they replied they wont be that dumb to intentionally split the network... and before you reply BullSh*t.. its from the horses mouth himself.


gmaxwell is desparate to get blockstream devs to dominate bitcoin by making other teams fork off.. but none of the other teams are listening to him. they are laughing at him.

if there is anything that i could suggest you learn. without bias..
learn consensus (built into bitcoin)
learn the difference between concensus and an intentional split (gmaxwell calls bilateral fork)

oh and yes hardforks are not all bilateral
there are consensus hardforks too(one chain, minority simply cannot sync)

gmaxwell is trying to brush consensus under the carpet and then shine a glowing light on bilateral. simply because he wants the split

please take some time to research outside of the box you have put yourself into

franky 1
There's no reason for your FUD by now. If the community feel that someone take over bitcoin and it become centralised everyone can simply vote by his money and move to any of your "decentralised" alts, right? By then stop your useless FUD you can't convince anyone

ok now your trolling.
go do some research and learn something.. as all your doing is wasting your own time otherwise

have a nice day

Segwit currently at 54%..

http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/services.html

So who is the 'minority' banning the 'majority' ?

It's a total 'no-brainer'. For lots of reasons.. Just tooo tired/bored to go through the whole bloody lot of them - again.. (And before you jump in Franky, I have looked at the code and run a node..)

How do you get 5% to deny segwit? I like this, it is soft fork, I don't wanna see hard fork on bitcoin, it is harmful and may damage bitcoin's price

Fees are already dynamic in Bitcoin Core as it is now in the protocol. If you want to continually keep the network bloated you will need to pay a ton of money to keep it sustained. The network doesn't become more centralized because the blocksize stays the same.

With dynamic fee, you can stretch the blocksize and make it bigger. An attacker with enough money could make the blocksize huge and destroy all node operators.

Thats about as much as % user votes on slushpool.

https://slushpool.com/stats/

25 % Don't care
31 % Bitcoin core

Both will be mined as segwit afaik

Wouldn't be surprised if the ratio of ppl running Bitcoin Core nodes which don't care would be even higer.

12,234 archive nodes (99.83%)
thats new.. wait.. its wrote by blockstream. grain of salt needed

i wonder out of the segwitnodes if Luke also (stupidly) included 0.13.0. rather than just counting the segwit flaggers (0.13.1 & 0.13.2)
im guessing he also included 0.13.0. and if so.. facepalm required

Something is clear: nobody cares about Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, and now Bitcoin Unlimited. We all know that Core is the way to go if you still want to have your BTC 10 years from now. The conservative approach is the only way to guarantee the system works in the long term. The rest can keep dreaming about their amateur software that has been proven wrong a million times already.
Sorry, but conservative blocksize + LN is objectively the best we got. Keep trying if you want something better, for now its what we have.

That asshat GMaxwell should just go fork his altcoin if he wants silly new protocols like SegWit and LN.  Why does he have to destroy the bitcoin blockchain in pushing his Blockstream owned and controlled LN?  

SegWit = big protocol changes = altcoin
LN = big protocol changes = altcoin

BU - just put the blocksize back to where it was in the beginning.  Same protocol!!!! = Bitcoin!!

The simpler the more genius.
But the world can only be controlled if some clever group package simple things into complex presents. The masses will follow those cause it looks more.

If bitcoin forks over block size it will be very bad for the entire community because it will scare merchants away. They will always wonder what will happen next but that looks like that is where we are headed sooner or later.

There are essentially no merchants to scare away.  The grand total commerce done at the merchant level today is so close to zero you wouldn't believe it.  If anything scares merchants is Bitcoin's .40c 'swipe fees'.  Transaction fees are now way beyond levels tolerable for retail use.  But G. Maxwell wants to eliminate retail/merchant uses and just make it a settlement network. 

Fork - to start SegWit and fork to start LN.  Those a really cool systems - go do your fucking fork.  But leave Bitcoin alone.  Bitcoin anticipated big blocks from the beginning.  Put the blocksize limit at 8MB.  Then, anyone like GMaxwell who gets a bright idea about starting a really cool cryptocurrency with a bunch of added features can just introduce that on a fork.  Merchants won't care one bit.  They might even love it and get on that fork.  

G Maxwell uniquely believes he is entitled to start his altcoin on the bitcoin blockchain and all others should go do their forks somewhere else.  G Maxwell thinks because he controls commit access, that he gets to decide what is right for bitcoin.  SegWit and LN are altcoins.  They don't belong on the main chain.  8MB is fully accounted for in the original version of Bitcoin.  

Can't follow you.
I'm glad XT did not succeed.
I still think we need more scaling than segwit and schnorr would provide on layer 1, but XT was too extreme.
But: Classic is not dead, Bitcoin Unlimited support is steadily growing (hashrate, nodes) see https://coin.dance/blocks/ or https://slushpool.com/stats/

LN is awesome, but I would not want to have a huge amount of BTC in open channels due to security considerations.
What if your device gets hacked?
AFAIK you cannot have your channel redeem address set to an offline address, because then you could not sign the punishment transaction, which is needed for working 2-way channels.
Also you have to be online to receive LN transactions.
And then, sadly, LN is not yet functional.
We need working and user friendly software, and then the network has to develop (user and merchant adoption).
How long will it take to be usable for everyday transactions? 1-3 years?

There may be other solutions.
Trustless sidechains would be nice, but there is currently not enough progress.
Therefore i think, we will still need a lot of layer 1 transactions, especially if LN will open channels on top of layer 1 blocks and not on sidechains.
Did not hear much about extension blocks lately. What happened there?

Your right RawDog but don't worry, Satoshi designed bitcoin to withstand such attacks as segwit, Gmax and core.
(and classic or unlimited if they also think that they own Bitcoin if when we fork to bigger blocks)
That is why Bitcoin has value.

How is LN a protocol change?

We will get LN one way or the other, because it only needs a a malleability fix (segwit, flex-trans, BIP 140, whatever) to work , whether if we segwit-sf or unlimted-style-hardfork and then fix malleability.
I'm happy as long as I'm not forced (and that strictly includes fees > 1 USD for a median-sized transaction) to only use LN.

BU withouth malleability fix would have no significance (adoption, price, fees, decentralization) compared to its competitor in the long run (5 years+), as would Core without more than schnorr and segwit IMHO, in case the network splits.

I cannot see other decentralized off-chain/microtransaction solutions succeed.
Then we already have Coinbase off-chain transactions.
And i don't think enough users and merchants are comfortable with Teechan.
Pretty much nobody (compared to LN) wants to use 1way sidechains. They are already available from 21co.

Not true.  There is absolutely no need for LN if we have 8MB blocks.  That is why Blockstream tries to convince everyone that centralization will come if we go to larger blocks.  They desperately need some reasoning to force the congestion so there will be demand for their stupid solution which is totally unneeded in a world where blocks are 8MB. 

I don't think that 8 MB is even enough for the mid-term (3-5 years).  :D
Thats only 25 T/s and not even close to what we would need with mass adoption as a p2p electronic cash system.
Or don't you want bitcoin as a p2p electronic cash system?
IMHO we'll probably need blocks with more than 8 MB block capacity even if we would use LN to keep fees and decentralization at the current level.


Edit:
Which client do you want to use?
BU will support Ligthning https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-unlimited-developer-andrew-stone/
Classic will support Lightning (flextrans)
Core will support Lightning

You seem pretty alone with your opinion, as far as i can tell from reading the bitcoin forums and reddits (/r/btc /r/bitcoin)
If blocks are big enough you don't have to use Lightning, but why not?

But without LN i guess we'd need at least need 1GB Blocks

oh shut up with your 1gb blocks.
seems you are spending too much time in blockstreams cabin fever box, listening to all their advertisements and doomsdays. agreeing with them because your locked in a box where its only them talking.

lets set your record straight because it sounds like its bent out of shape and just repeating the same tune of other people in a loop

1. bitcoin will not be the one world currency of 7billion..
2. it will be a free open decentralised network (onchain) but not all 7billion will use it and not all at the same time. it will/should remain a free open choice. not something people are forced to use with no other assets to hold their eggs in different baskets

ok now take todays rational 2million regular users. 0.026% population

and think of a rational number of users it will achieve in 50 years.
hint it wont be anywhere near 100%

lets say it was 5% of world finance. (making it the top 5 reserve 'nation' of the world)

thats over 50 years.. not by midnight tonight by the way.

so in 50 years is only 100mb block.. again not 100mb tonight.. but in 50 years

meaning 2mb growth a year or doubling every 7 years

both of which are achievable and manageable.

after all looking at the technology growth over the last 2 decades. i think people will laugh in 50 years that we are worried about 100mb blocks
just like we laugh at people just 20 years ago getting excited about having 32mb ram and 4gb hard drives, back then thinking that was huge. where they back then would worry about 128gb storage. and we are laughing by holding something the size of a fingernail

again dont think "world domination by midnight" think rationally realistically naturally and sensibly.

lol - if they did that, they wouldn't be core supporters and there would be nothing to argue about here.

Yeah 1 GB was a pretty high number.

So then lets guess what we'd actually need in the foreseeable future.
In the last 2 years transactions per day have more than tripled, and IMHO would have quadrupled, if we had increased the block size.
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?daysAverageString=7&timespan=all

Thats about x2 per year. So 8 MB would give us 3 years, if we'd continue on this path.
Even if adoption would slow down, so we'd double every 2 years, thats only 6 years.

But i think the adoption rate would even increase if we'd have bigger blocks, so this may give us only 1.5 years.

8 MB would be about 250,000 * 8 = 2 million transactions per day, or 60 million transactions per month
Today i rarely use on-chain transactions, because I think they are already to expensive.

If I use EUR, I can send any amount for free (SEPA, CASH) or even get money as a consumer.
I'd change my behaviour, if bitcoin transactions would be cheaper and also if there be more counterparties, which would accept bitcoin.

If cheaper, I'd do somewhere between 10 and 30 transactions per month.
Lets say everyone do just 5 transactions per month, then the network would cap at 60 million / 5 = 12 million users on 8 MB.

With schnorr and other engineering that even may double to 24 million.
So with 32 MB we could support about 100 million users.

8 MB is only 400 GB / year, which i think is acceptable with current technology, therefore I run Bitcoin Unlimited with EB 8 / AD 6, which does not make me totally happy, but would be the best compromise for me personally.
Because we'd have a bigger user base if those blocks were fully utilized, some new nodes would appear, some old would disappear, because they deem it to expensive to run, but overall decentralization could stay roughly the same with 8 MB.

8 MB would give us enough time to deploy the LN without forcing people off the network, where as I'm not convinced segwit and schnorr would be enough.

I'm personally even okay with 32 MB, if I could use bitcoin for virtually anything. I'd probably run a pruned node then. If we'd adopt a well used layer two solution, than it would take some time to fill up more than 8 MB blockspace and even running an unpruned node may be cheap in 10-20 years with 32 MB blocksize / blockweight to stay decentralized.

I don't even think 32 MB will be a high a risk for miners, regarding orphanage, because there is still a lot of progress in onchain scaling (Xthin, weak blocks, pre-verified transactions). When time comes I'm optimistic that today's problems would be solved.

But to use it in your everyday live, you'd probably need at least 1 tx per day.
With 100 million users (which is what I think is reasonable number for mass adoption) that would give us 3 billion transactions per month, or 400 MB standard blocks (7.5 milion transactions per month on 1 MB), not far off from 1 GB, which I don't think would be unrealistic in 30+ years.

And If you don't want to convert bitcoin into a banking like centralized, trust based system, we will still need a decentralized layer on top of the blocks. LN is currently the most promising IMHO.
E. g. XAPO charges about 2.5 to 3.5% (via low sell price) on its EUR debit card, and I don't know any cheaper solutions for everyday shopping.

That said:
Segwit is currently dead
We need more blockspace anyway
And we need a malleability fix to enable bidirectional payment channels to use bitcoin in everyday transactions

What I learned today, after reading this 115-post long thread:

1) Wallets implementing The SegWit Omnibus Changeset (i.e., Core 0.13.1 and 0.13.2) do not create SegWit transactions (reeeeallly? WTF!? that itself seems a red flag)
2) There is no 2.

That said, I'll leave all y'all with one parting thought: 1MB 4EVA (even extended by the accounting legerdemain that is the SegWit accounting magik) is not enough upon which any sizable LN network needs to open and close channels.

you get 95% to allow it any other % is denying it, hardfork are inevitable, even miners are pro 2MB but not 4mb or 8mb, well soem of them are pro one of those

they are just buying time for a better solution, but we can not wait forever that is guaranteed

No problem, it would be possible to create a Lightning channel with a 3-3 multisignature funding transaction. You own one address on your device and your other address works as two-factor-authorization.

To all you fucktards criticising SegWit and LN so why don't you come up and propose alternative solutions to Bitcoins problems? Because it has serious problems on the horizon. Not least because of fucktards like yourselves sitting behind your keyboards moaning. Oh yeah I forgot, you're all thick as mince.

But how can you then sign the punishment transaction, when you received and sent money through the same channel?
Do you have some link?

To revoke the previous state of the channel both participants have to sign the spending of the outputs of the previous state of the channel to prevent cheating don't you? (or give your private key to the other party)

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
Page 24

What i called punishment transaction is called Breach Remedy in the paper?

Edit: Do we even need segwit / malleability fix for LN, if you could instead just hand over your private key for the Breach Remedy? It does not matter that much if the commitment transaction gets malleated, does it?

Instead of using P2PKH addresses for Alice and Bob (addresses starting with 1), as stated in the Lightning Network paper, imagine that Alice and/or Bob use 2-2 multisignature P2SH addresses (addresses starting with 3). That's is how you can perform 2-factor-authorization for Alice and/or Bob.

Wow.. I never thought I 'd say this (don't usually see you in this part of the world-as-we-know-it)... but I agree with MineCache.. {weird feeling}

( Although I choose not to use profanity.. you silly-billys.. )

Thank you for your reply.
I still think LN is the best solution out there, but I'm not able to completely follow your train of thought.
For which transaction multisig?

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
Page 26 and 27

A hacker of Alice could change PAliceD to PHackerD.
Of course he would have access to KHackerD
So having a multisig address (PAliceD + PAliceDOffline) instead of simple PAliceD would not suffice.
Would you have to trust the other party, that they would not accept a change of the delivery address?

Meaning a hacker of Alice would have access to KAliceF, the private key of the funding transaction and KAliceRSMCn.

How would that work with 2 factor?
Do you have to 2 factor sign every msathoshi sent and received?

I see a possible solution by having 2 LN channels:
- channel for micropayments with online singlesig which is as hackable as a normal hot wallet
- channel with 2 factor for higher amounts, where it would be acceptable to manually do the 2 factor signing? What do we gain by multisig ? Wouldn't it suffice to just keep your funding private key offline / on another device? (I still have to think about the RSMC keys, but even  if you want to keep the RSMC keys offline too, that would be also feasible), which would be as (un-) hackable as a traditional cold wallet


Edit: Having access to the RSMC keys in a timely fashion (e.g. 1000 Blocks, or whatever is agreed upon in the channel) is critical if someone would cheat.

Pasting the previous sentence to the one you posted:

For simplicity, these output addresses will remain the same throughout the channel, since its funds are fully controlled by its designated recipient after the Commitment Transaction enters the blockchain. If desired, but not necessary, both parties may update and change P AliceD and P BobD for future Commitment Transactions.

For example, from the point of view of Alice, the destination of the commitment transaction can be whichever she wants, but for that transaction to be valid, it must be properly signed by the two private keys under her control. So, the hacker would still need her two private keys (two-factor authorization) to redirect to a new different Bitcoin address.

The easiest answer is yes. But it could also be possible to be configurable, so that the second factor is only needed for big amounts or for specific periods of time.

It is one possibility. Channel for micropayments with online singlesig for small amounts and channel with 2 factor for higher amounts.

As you say, another possibility is an offline address with a single private key, for example, in an air-gapped hardware wallet.
Multisignature is practical for two connected devices: for example, a mobile phone and a PC, or having a private key hosted in an exchange.

Solution to Bitcoin's problems: https://www.bitcoin.com/choose-your-wallet/unlimited

Solution unlimited -> putting everything in the hands of centralized miners ! What could be go wrong ?  ::) :D

I can tell you were drinking Core's Kool-Aid.

This block size thing most people dont understand and they dont care. Either bitcoin works or it doesnt. Mots people are not technical enough to get it so it seems kind of petty. Its like kids waiting for there parent s to decide what movie they are going to. Just make a decision already.

No I am not, I am intelligent enough to not guard my sheeps by the wolf :)

The real solution is very simple.  Use 8MB blocks for now while they continue for 3 years to get LN working right.  If 8MB actually tends to centralization, go back down to 2MB or 1MB.  If not, keep 8MB and turn LN on when it is bulletproof and free. 

But this totally fucks up Blockstream's plan to profitize the off chain activity.  So, you will hear every imaginable argument about how dangerous 8MB is.  There is nothing corrupt about going from 8MB back down to 1MB.  It's been done before.  Let's go to 8MB and see if things really move to centralization as Blockstream alleges.  We are allowed to put it back to 1MB. 

But you will never see this strategy actually unfold.  That is because Maxwell is trying to create demand for an off chain system that can be privatized.  He knows if we go to 8MB today, nothing bad will happen and there will be far less need for off chain systems for many years. 


It is a fucking scam people.  A fucking scam propagated by just a few people.  8MB will not harm the network, will allow it to grow nicely, will allow time to get a beautiful LN working.  But it will also put Blockstream investors at the back of the queue. 

Not going to 8MB is just for one reason - to protect the Blockstream investors.  They are very good at convincing China miner to go along.  Which is funny because LN is a system specifically designed to shift fees away from miners and into proprietary systems.

Stop sucking the Blockstream dick and get some balls and run BU.

good to see people reading and researching LN

now to put it into realistic scenario

when settling. and confirmed(after service). the funds are not spendable onchain straight away by the intended recipient. they are locked in for a week(papers scenario 1000 blocks)..
this is the same as banks/paypals. 3-5business days 'funds unavailable'. you can see it's confirmed but not matured to be spent.

however while the intended recipient is waiting a week. the other party can revoke those funds.
this is the same as banks/paypals chargeback feature.

so guys. while having a service that while inside the service you can swap IOU's instantly (like paying someone inside paypal) when it comes to channel closing and settling(withdrawing out and settling the account) you are on hold for a week and have risk of chargeback.

atleast understand the "after service experience" and understand its the same as you get with banks/paypal.

accept LN is not permissionless and your reliant on another party (dual signing) again like banks/paypal

anyone out there got a uptodate analysis of the "days destroyed" stat blockchain.info used to keep
to show these blockstream sheep that not many people tx's are spent multiple times a week to actually benefit from LN.

the only people using LN are a small niche amount. (daytraders, gamblers and faucet raiders)
oh need i remind blockstream sheep that intentional spammer wont use LN because their intention is not to spend but to spam.
so they will continue spamming. LN does not solve intentional spam

need i remind blockstream sheep that LN is the paypal2.0. which if they think Ver wants centralisation due to his comment about paypal2.0, this was contextually him saying he will accept that blockstream want LN(paypal2.0) if blockstream allow dynamic blocks

Thank you.  Yeah, I like to have a very detailed understanding of things before giving an opinion.  I hate it when dumbasses talk all day long without knowing what they are saying.  Fucking pisses me off.  Right off.

This is very true.  Our team is working on an application where the value transferred is about $2.  Think coffee.  .35 is WAY too high of fee, but neither side wants to 'open a payment' channel.  The payment is one time - and there is no further relationship between these parties.  This is a VERY big area.  Settlement and Micropayments is not the entire story.  These mid-size payments between about $.50 and $20 are being totally abandon by the LN strategy which works great when two parties want to 'deal' all week with multiple transactions like a bar tab.  But transactions which are one time payments are fucked even if LN works perfectly.  

Run with 8MB blocks and see if the network starts to show signs of suffering.  It can be put back to 1MB if we observe adverse effects.  If not, we are in very good shape to move ahead.  The only people who are screwed are the LN profiteers (otherwise known as Blockstream investors).  LN scientists can keep working away without interruption.  8MB doesn't slow them down one bit.  Only the LN investors need to force demand at an early date.  Let Joe Poontang go work till his fingers fall off.  I hope he builds a great system.  LN scientists will be totally fine.  Only LN investors are fucked if we go to 8MB today.  

LN investors do not have the same objectives in mind as LN creators.  Please keep this in mind at all times.

LN creators want to solve a scaling problem.  LN investor want to make money today. 
LN creators are not hindered one bit by large blocks.  LN investors need to force demand for the system at an early date to realize return on their investment. 

this i have to disagree with
blockstream NEED their LN.. not for utility. but for them becoming the hub. they already have the code to have it set up where they become the hub(removing buzzwords, they hold the DNS (peer location) seed)
they want to be the hub to charge penalty fee's and 'manage' the maturity to activate revokes. they NEED LN to start making income to repay blockstream investors.

they are in debt to a tune of well over $90m that needs repaying.
they are desperate to get LN working by a deadline or they wont get another tranche of funding. and if not hitting the deadline they need to start repaying the debt.

this is why rusty russel, sipa and maxwell are desperate to scare people into thinking LN is the only solution.
this is why rusty russel, sipa and maxwell are desperate to halt onchain dynamic scaling to make people think LN is the only solution.
this is why rusty russel, sipa and maxwell are desperate to  scare people by saying false stories of "non blockstreamers want 1gb by midnight"
this is why rusty russel, sipa and maxwell are desperate to  scare people by saying false stories of "non blockstreamers are bad"

not due to it being part of bitcoins open ethos, or the benefit of the community. but due to blockstream contracts to make returns to investors

do the sheep honestly think blockstream was given $90m investment with no ROI contract, .. where by the sheep think it was a free gift

wow you backed that up with facts. data, statistics..

.. oh wait you didnt

bitpop is stupid as a lunk of clay.  Don't expect him to present anything other than garbage.

When the community lets a profit motivated group decide major issues - clearly we are not going to get a good result.  Blockstream/Maxwell/Core are corrupt and do not go forward with a view to making the best network.  They go forward with a view to recouping their investors money.  This is fucking up Bitcoin big time. 

We have to abandon the notion that 8MB will irreparably harm the network.  Staying at 1MB only has one purpose and that is to force and early LN whereby Blockstream investors start to generate their returns. 

Every member of the community should resist this effort.  We can still build a fantastic LN.  Take our time doing it.  Make it awesome.  But, we can't let an investor group cripple the network at 1MB just so they get an early adoption before LN is truly ready. 

Go to 8MB now.  Fees go back down to .0001  Keep building LN until it is fantastic.  revoke Maxwell's commit access as he has shown himself to be corrupt. 

This will not happen. LN is open source and is implemented by several different groups in different ways.

Maxwell does not have commit access anymore the last time I've checked.

Hi, good one ! I want to block classic and unlimited nodes on my node aswell, how do i do that ?

Segwit node apdotion ( Flag "NODE_WITNESS") just crossed 50%, the BU-fanboy-team is very delusional, claiming "people dont want it blablaba".

we dont need to be at 8mb now.
but we do need more than 1mb.

nodes and pools should have dynamic block settings that gradually increase. EG all agree on 2mb for now and they dip their toe in the water at 1.001mb just to see if any bugs or issues occur (like the DB bug sipa implanted in v0.8 in 2013 when blocks wanted to go over 0.5mb)

if no bugs or large orphan rate occurs, each block can dip a bit further into the water. incrementing the size thats actually produced.
just like the progress from 0.5-1mb in 2013-2015, but at a rate thats natural and helps while reducing risk..
this may be as short as 2 days or longer depending on needs of the community.

then nodes when blocks get to 2mb. they can flag a bigger buffer number the nodes can cope with. and it plays out again safe natural dipping toe in the water to mitigate any orphan drama. growing naturally over time based on what the community as a whole can cope with.

yes people can have 8mb settings personally purely so they dont need to play with settings often and let consensus work out the safer increments under that where the community as a whole can accept.

LOL funny
you want to create an altcoin by blocking anything not blockstream. thats real funny
blockstream fanboys wanting to centralise by not being diverse open network, and instead close themselves off into a small box and live in cabin fever of only being fed by one master at the door.

real funny

thats about as rational as letting your best friend shoot your foot because you best friend tells you someone else might shoot your foot. but its your friend that is the only one with a gun... so you let him.. infact you try to get them to teach you how to shoot yourself in your own foot

The people at Reddit/Bitcoin don't seem all that much excited about this issue:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5oqfzh/old_subject_i_know_but_it_seems_most_people_at/

Maxwell does not have commit access anymore the last time I've checked.[/quote]

Very clever you Blockstream guys are!  hahahahha.  You don't think that we all understand that his puppets do?  Do you really think we are fooled by such clever devices and tricks for fools?  

Sorry I dont talk to conspiracists, makes no sense.

I block everything that is developed by amateurs and can possibly harm the network. Right now the bitcoin core team is the only team with a serious option.

blockstream $90m is not a free gift, its an investment that needs returns
blockstream are part of the bankers making their closed fiat2.0 - https://www.hyperledger.org/about/members

cant make it up when its true.

also you mentioned nodewitness
1   /Satoshi:0.13.1/   1615 (28.87%)
2   /Satoshi:0.13.2/   997 (17.82%)
main imps total = 46.69%

satoshi:0.13.99 / 119 (2.12%)
BTCC:0.13.1/ 56 (1%)  - bob lee's managed sybil distribution
knots:0.13.2/ 19 (0.34%) - luke jr
knots:0.13.1/ 7 (0.12%) - luke jr

and out of that ~50% not all of them are explicitly voting for it. they are implicitly voting for it just by staying upto date.
some are running it to test/examine and bugfind too.

so in context there is no 'majority' or even a marginal majority explicitly in favour of it. hense why high majority is required.

You are free to belive whatever you want, that doesnt make it real.

Better take the tiny risk that your conspiracy is real, then hand over bitcoin to a bunch of incompetent noob devs.


EDIT: You forgot 13.99
https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=NODE_WITNESS (https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=NODE_WITNESS)
Ok sorry its actually 49,8% right now.

you are free to stick head in the sand and only catch a breath to see your friend with the gun warning you of gunfire while he takes aim.

how about do some research and read something. learn. have an open mind and see beyond the small box you want to put yourself in

I did. And I made my choice. THX

You know what, actually its funny, its always the same bullshit you conspiracists say when someone does not share your opinion. Something like "you've got to educate yourself, you are blind, you have a closed mind" Bullshit. What about your mind ? maybe you are in the small box ?

Yeah blablabla .... and the 7% of BU nodes are just some people who installed it by mistake, because they are new to bitcoin and think theres just one client.

“I create the world, how I want it to be”

The truth is in some hours there will be a simple majority of over 50% running a segwit node and adoption not stalling. In a month or two it will be 60 - 70%.

i got intrigued by your post history..
hmm monero fanboy. i now see why you are devoted to gmaxwell and not even trying to research beyond gmaxwells centralist mindset
you dont care about bitcoins growth, your hoping for some monero riches.

let me guess you then want to cash out with some fiat riches.

goodluck with that though.

Lol this is pathetic. Never sold a single sathoshi for fiat.

I hold some small amount of monero, but i dont consider myself a fanboy. It's just one of the best altcoins. Nothing wrong about some diversification.

here is where your letting your friend shoot you in the foot.

you have a 30MBit/s upload. (3.75mbyte/s = 2.25gbyte/10minutes)
even you know bitcoin can run on a raspberry pi

and even now there is a raspberry Pi3. and bitcoin has had some efficiency gains since you done your tests last year(5x due to libsecp256k1)

so running on a Raspberry Pi3 is about 20x faster today compared to the tests you done last year.

but instead of that rational thought. you let people tell you 2mb is bad and dynamic blocks are bad and baseblock needs to halt at 1mb.

knowing you can send 2.2gb of data every 10 minutes. you want to ignore that 2.2gbyte figure your able to cope with (37.5mb with 60 connections)
and proclaim 2mb with safe incremental growth based on community node agreement is bad.

simply because someone said so. but your own numbers say the opposite than your friends are telling you.
you then want to proclaim that closing off doors to diversity of 71different implementations should be an option and only connect to one 'brand'

do you even hear yourself advocating for centralization, for no reason.

here is a kicker.. core want 4mb weight. while keeping the 1mb base not for 'data restriction' but for transaction utility restriction
so if you ever argue that non core are 'bigblockers' look at cores 4mb weight. look at non cores 2mb request.

2 or 4 which is 'bigblocker'. simply maths, simple observation. 2 or 4 which is bigger.

---

oh and please dont throw out the standard script reply your friends shout. "1gb blocks by midnight doomsday"

we both know the rational consensus of 2016-2017 is 2mb and then natural node consensus accepting growth there after

Are you bored or something reading all my posts ?

Yeah, I have 30MB upload connection, but there are many people on that planet that dont.
And basicly I dont even care much about the capacity increase which Segwit brings to the table, more important are the protocol changes which allow things like:  Malleability Fix or Linear scaling of sighash ops.

Making blocks bigger is not scaling. We have to improve the protocol. Just making blocks bigger is like making the battery or fuel tank of a car bigger but refuse to improve the efficiency of the engine.
It makes no sense to waste resources, if there is a solution to fit more Transactions in one block, even if we have the resources left.


Bitcoin will not scale to a world finance system onchain, we have to implement 2nd layer solutions like lightning and improve the protocol.

malleability fix..
LN does not need it. its a dual signing process. if the TX is malleated. it doesnt get signed. if someone wants to malleate a second tx. they cant as they need the other persons signature for the second tx too, because the data has changed.

and double spending is still an issue because blockstream introduced RBF and CPFP to cause double spends.
also you cannot even confidently trust a confirm tx of funds belong to you if the tx has a CLTV+CSV in it. you have to wait for maturity before declaring 100% immutable

linear scaling..
easy fix dont let a tx have 20,000-80,000 sigops.
if you think linear helps LN work better. you are wrong. an LN is only a 2in 2out 2 signature tx.  thus its sigops is not going to cause seconds/minutes of processing. it remains milliseconds.

again solution to linear is reduce the tx sigops limit.. which also reduces the spam of people trying to make 1mb tx's
funnily blockstream want to allow large transactions. although there is no reason for it

as for
it can actually. please wash away the "1gb blocks by tonight" nonsense you have read somewhere
the mindset of 'Bitcoin will not scale to a world finance system onchain' rhetoric is not original, nor factual..

and go with your other mindset about 10-20year's natural growth you mentioned last year.
bitcoin wont be and rationally shouldnt be the 'one world currency' or the worlds only financial system.. as that would get corrupted.. especially if blockstream becomes the IMF. removing diversity and open choice

instead take a rational 5% populous.. meaning bitcoin ranked in the top 5 'nations' of the world.
then you will see over a couple decades it is easy and manageable.

as for why i checked your post history. its more about understanding am i talking to an empty troll thats just spamming devotion of blockstream in hopes of some recognition and commission from them.. or someone that actually knows a thing or two

Hehe, so the code will stay on 1MB for ever, or who dares....?

Huh, did he get now commit keys for BU in exchange to fix the limit there as well?

 ;D

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master?author=gmaxwell
https://i.imgur.com/hOwA0Gy.png

So it was restored sometime since it was revoked? Okay my bad. I haven't noticed it considering the amount being merged by Laan, Sipa and Marco.

---

Update: This is just a commit written by him.

in the last year the only month he did not 'commit' was march.. he must of taken a vacation that month

Actually, no. He does not have commit access. These are just commits that were written by him. You should click on it and then the number found here:

https://i.imgur.com/C7TroUb.png

Merged by sipa (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9484).

commits and merges are 2 different things. but Rawdog said revoke maxwells commit access.. not merge access.. commit.
you replied that he already lost his commit access.. again not merge.. commit.

i replied to show he does still have commit access.. not merge.. commit.

so dont twist it like it was always about merge... when it clearly said commit by rawdog, YOU, twice.. and me.

yea he doesnt have merge status. thats something else.. dont divert the point.
but now you know he has commit access and always had it.. rawdogs point about taking maxwells commit access still has relevance again.

I was thinking about something else entirely by the word 'commit', not just creating a pull proposal [1]. Anyone can write changes and submit a pull, like he did. Revoking someone's 'commit access', as it preventing him from creating a pull request is an absurd request. AFAIK there is no such thing as 'commit access' in this sense, i.e. no functionality to 'withdraw' the 'access'.

---

[1] - He does not have 'push access' is what I was aiming at.

but those 'pushing' are in the same camp, they are his colleagues. infact he is Sipa's boss.. which was the other point rawdog was highlighting afterwards that gmaxwell can still control things.
afterall adam back is also pulling the strings even while pretending he does not pull or push..

All Bitcoin Judas accomplished was FUDing a perfectly reasonably and innovative soft fork, which is foundational to future scaling, into a controversial object of drama.

Let's all congratulate him on getting kicked off Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5ormfl/roger_ver_has_been_suspended_from_reddit/) for brigading, doxing, and monetizing his subreddit.

SegWit is a controversial contentious fork which half of the community don't want to subscribe to. Blaming and crucifying Ver for SegWit not happening is finding a scapegoat.

franky1 - I see that you are fighting the good fight here, but this is one point I don't think you've thought through. No new magic constants are required. We do not need to artificially limit sigops size. the problem solves itself.

Consider:

When a miner is working on a block, it is trying to earn the block subsidy + transaction fees for its proposed block. It will abandon its attempt to find the hash for its proposed block if and only if it is provided with proof that another block spending some of the same transactions has been found. So when a potentially solved block is presented, it needs to validate that block. In the case of a block with excessive sig in a single transaction, this validation process will take an excessive amount of time (indeed, this is the supposed 'nightmare scenario' that makes quadratic hashing such a scary issue). So what is a miner to do? Stop everything, and devote all processing to validating the incoming potentially-solved block? Hell no. A rational miner will spawn off a single thread to validate the potentially-solved block, and devote the rest of its resources to trying to find the solution hash to its proposed block. Anything else would be self-defeating.

As all rational miners would engage in this process, it is likely that some miner will find an alternate block solution while is is still trying to validate the incoming possibly-good but large-sig-containing block solved by the first solving miner. It is free to propagate its solved block to the network at large.

Upon receiving such a block, rational miners will devote (e.g.) one thread to validating the new block - even as they are still trying to validate the first possibly-good but large-sig-containing block. Whichever is the first to be validated is the block which they will propagate and the block that they will build atop. This would be the second-arriving block that does not engender the quadratic hashing issue.  The first solution block - containing the large sig transaction - gets orphaned. Problem goes away.

What, me worry?

You only have to worry if Core gets their way and tricks morons into accepting SegWit

https://puu.sh/tsom0/d5b4fc07ea.jpg

The Blockstream Kool-Aid is a potent punch.  8) :-* :-* 8)

True fact.

the reality ...  http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img921/1817/YaqtIc.jpg

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img922/4007/nxc4Zx.png

Nice try. 51% of non-mining nodes don't accomplish jack shit.

Too bad, so sad.

i get what your thinking. and this has already been solved.. its the empty block concept, people still dont get.

firstly. pool A solves a block hands it out.. lets say pool B receives it.
immediately.
pool B tells the asics. to start working on an empty block. (no tx apart from blockreward claim(coinbase tx))
because poolB does not know what tx's to add into blockB because its yet to validate blockA

what happens is a pool can take upto 2 minutes to validate a block. (as long as its not got a super bloater 1mb tx)

and so before validating a blockA to know what unconfirmed tx's remain in mempool to start adding to pool B's empty block, if blockB 'luckily' gets a solution then Block B looks 'empty'.

obviously if BlockB is not solved after 2 minutes and if all is good with BlockA... poolB starts adding tx's from unconfirmed mempool to blockB and resending a hash to the ASICS to hash away at.

this is why most 'empty' blocks are found within a couple minutes of the previous timestamp. because they are only mpty because they were luckily solved so quick

..

now thats dealt with.
instead of letting 1tx have 20,000sigops, letting it have say 500sigops max. means that we will never ever ever have a risk of it taking 10minutes to solve a block by someone having a 1mb tx.

secondly pools can right now. in their own settings. without needing to get a consensus or an vote or permission. set their pool node to only allow tx's with < xxx sigops. and then those trying to send such clunky tx's will soon realise their tx's are not getting accepted. and will react accordingly (being more leaner with their tx's)

thirdly making leaner tx's also helps more peoples tx get accepted.
EG 2500tx's of 400bytes. instead of 1tx of 1mb

leaving the sigops soo high, even when (lets say segwit activated)  quadratics is not an issue. may save processing time.. but still allows a bloater to send a tx of 1mb. so reducing the sigop count of tx's should still be done anyway.

so knowing it should be done anyway. we might aswell just do it. and solve the problem sooner. rather than waiting for segwit to not do a full job

You really cannot blame some of the people in the community in trying to crucify Roger Ver. I know he is a really nice guy in real life and everything I say about him becoming a CEO of Bitcoin is all in jest. But he put himself in that position where he can be an easy target. So there he is, an easy target.

how?

was it him saying he is happy to let blockstream do their LN(paypal2.0) if they let bitcoins mainnet dynamically grow.
which then got lost in translating and fed to the wolves to vomit out as the opposite?

Looks like again Core are victorious! Bitcoin will survive. :)
Surrender peacefully franky1 and you will not be harmed...

I'm not convinced you are understanding what I am saying. Your description above may be the way things work today (is it?), but it is a stupid design.

The problem is that Pool B is trusting that Pool A's block is valid. The empty blocks are not mined because Pool B is yet to validate Pool A's block, it is due to Pool B not yet knowing which transactions to exclude from the candidate block it (Pool B) is building on top Pool A's (possibly solved but possibly invalid) block. In this I agree, but is irrelevant to the quadratic hash time issue - that is a different concern.

The issue I describe is that, until validated, Pool B has no idea whether or not Pool A's block is or is not valid (duh - tautology). Pool A may be an attacker merely claiming to have solved a block. If this block also contains an expensive to validate transaction (e.g., one in which the quadratic hash issue demands excessive time to validate), then much time will elapse before Pool B knows whether or not it can build a valid candidate block atop the Pool A block.

In this instance, suppose Pool C solves another block which has the same parent as Pool A's block. Let us further suppose that this block is cheap to validate (does not take inordinate time). Rational miners will build atop this Pool C block, rather than Pool A's block. This is because validation can be completed more quickly. These miners are incentivized to stop the expensive validation of Pool A's block, once they validate Pool C's block.

The net result is that Pool A's problem block gets orphaned. The system already has the incentives for rational miners to solve the quadratic hash time issue without recourse to any new fixes such as artificially limiting transaction size.

Again, I don't know current mining implementations. They may be ignorant of this fact. But any miner implementing this idea would then have a natural competitive advantage in any case where problem blocks (containing expensive-to-validate transactions) exist.

Net-net: The problem solves itself.

I repeat: a majority of non-mining nodes does not activate The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

You're a special kind of special, aren't you?

i understand fully what your saying.. pools and others ..including myself are many steps ahead of your scenario.
pools have mitigated the risk and found the best efficient ways to handle the problem your describing.

i may have skipped ahead a few details which would have made what im saying more understandable.

but in short.

by pool B telling asics (separate location) to start a new 'empty block'. gains a pool a ~20% advantage rather than waiting the full couple minutes to download the full block A, validate block A's solution and then start a block B with transactions.

there was a bit of drama about this in 2014-2015 scenarios thrown around. benefits/risks talked about at length, blah blah blah

ultimately, where the orphan risk was only ~1-2%, so that 20% advantage is worth doing.
now they found other ways to mitigate it too and the orphan rate is even lower than 1% these days. while still gaining the 20% advantage by starting a new block while simultaneously validating a previous block.

remember a pool validates and relays blocks.. but asics (separate location and processors) do the hashing.

hashing blocks is not what the pool does..
validating competing blocks is not what asics do..
just like cooking a steak(asic hashing) is not a restaurant manager(pool) does
just like driving a taxi(asic hashing) is not a taxi company call centre(pool) does

so its not like hashing a new block and validating old block is overpowering a pools CPU.. they are done by separate processors

Now I'm pretty convinced you have no idea what I am trying to convey. I am not speaking to why it is that empty blocks get mined. I am speaking to the point that no changes to the protocol are necessary to solve the 'quadratic hash time issue', as incentives already solve it.

ok i was replying mainly to the point you made here

empty blocks contain no transactions.. so no risk of orphan due to "blocks spending some of the same transactions"

this has mitigated the quadratic risk of requiring to wait till full validation. because block B contains no transactions that could cause confusion. to cause block B to get orphaned due to building ontop of A straight away. because it contains non of A's tx's..
thus waiting just to validating before even starting a new block becomes less important.


however the bottom part of your scenario post yesterday. and retold now. about pool C making a block to compete against A which gets propagated before A is validated. thus causing B to orphan because A no longer is acceptable... is under 1% risk of occurring.

so B wont waste a 20% efficiency gain due to a 1% chance of C pushing A aside.

all these scenarios have been played out a couple years ago.

The issue is not that B's block has a chance of being orphaned due to A's not being valid. Whether or not A's is valid is irrelevant, because C's block is proven valid before A's. Accordingly, it is irrational for B to mine atop A's block. B should mine atop C's block, as C's block will propagate and validate across the entire network before A's block does. And if C's block causes A's block to be orphaned, any block built atop A will also be orphaned.


So then why do you advocate for an artificial limit upon the size of a single transaction?

He did the moment he started promoting Bitcoin Unlimited. I personally do not see anything wrong with it. It is politics and man by nature is political. We lie, coerce and do whatever it takes behind the scenes to reach a goal that we think is worth fighting for. That is ok. What I do not like about the whole thing is the tasteless name calling from both sides of which I am guilty of sometimes. Chalk that up to human nature again I guess.

Yeah. Maybe as we get older we learn how to better deal with this damn human-ess!  :D :-* :-* :D


... now that I'm turning into dust, I seem to be softening up a bit.

the most simplest answer
because 1tx of 1mb.. holds up ~2499tx on average for getting into a block

And what about that is problematic?

I agree.  and I'm glad.  The blockstream/core stonewalling of a blocksize increase
has been ridiculous.  Wondering how long the great scaling debate can go on
before something gives.

It already 'gave'.  VCs have pick up their interest and left.  Entrepreneur CEOs of many companies have shut the door and quit.  It is impossible to pursue so many of the interesting commercial uses of bitcoin so long as Blockstream/Core continues their stranglehold on the protocol to artificially create demand for side chains. 

So many people are long gone.  Yet the morons keep looking at the price to determine bitcoin is healthy.  The price is set by a bunch of silly speculators in China and a strong motivation for capital flight from an oppressive government - it has nothing at all to do with the health of the network.

seriously!?

so you think one person that makes a megatx deserves special allowable treatment.. more so than 2499 people who are smart and ethical to do lean tx's

im guessing if you go to an airport and see a guy buy up all the planes seats so he can have the plane to himself. you will applaud him and then laugh at the hundreds of passengers being turned away and told to wait another 3-24 hours for the next plane and hope there are spare seats to get a few people in..

im betting you would while applauding the guy shout out to the other passengers "you should have paid more for your seats so you only have yorselves to blame for letting him buy up al the space on the plane"

oh wait. your probably gonna applaud the guy buying up all the seats. and then offer your LN bus hub network charging people to use your bus to get people to where they want. telling them a new bus arrives every 5 minutes so no need to wait 3-24 hours for a "hope" of getting on another plane.

i really hope you were being sarcastic by saying "And what about that is problematic?"

That and as we get older we also learn not to do it and criticize another person more constructively thru experience. I tend to be generous with people who sometimes become rash but know they are not retards and give them some space to express their thoughts in their own way. I am confident that sooner or later they will become more wise with the words they use.

Not at all. Nothing in your tirade answered the question of what you think is problematic about such a thing.

it wont activate unless there is consensus.. it wont create an altcoin. please research more and stop reading scripted scare stories by those in the blockstream camp that want intentional splits.

put it this way right now nodes can have any blocksize setting they please. 2mb 4mb 8mb 3.5mb randomnumber, etc etc. and everything carries on
yep all the nodes with upto 8mb in their setting can still happily accept 1mb blocks because the rule is anything below 8mb is acceptable. again for emphasis, they can happily accept 1mb and no rule is broken.

but until the majority of nodes accept X... pools wont even risk agreeing to X.. so there is no contention..
worse case is orphan risk.. but ultimately one chain(after orphan drama subsides) if pools pushed at a low consensus..

again for emphasis
pools wont make changes, unless there is majority consensus that their attempt will be accepted and not rejected by the nodes..

this is why 75% of pools are undecided about softforks. because they can see nodes are not ready.
even though in a softfork, user nodes are not given a vote. the pools(their smart independent brains and eyes) still need to see that nodes wont have a problem, to ensure pools get paid rather than work hard for nothing.

Undecided is what is killing us.  We get no changes if 'undecideds' are allowed to count.  We should only count those who vote.  If a node expresses 'undecided' he is rejected.  Winner take all. 

Wasn't 75% everything needed for LTC adopting Segwit? Maybe Bitcoins small Brother can open a path by example. Bitcoin following once it has become obvious where the future could lead us.

seriously.. wanting to ignore a majority to push through a softfork. .. thats a bilateral split (gmaxwells buzzword) where they move off to their minority 25% chain.

foolish notion to intentionally split the network to force a softfork..
a softfork was only proposed to avoid controversy and avoid intentional splits. real funny anyone is proposing to do an intentional split to get a softfork.

if anyone is serious about intentionally splitting.. how about try using real consensus first. and give the community what they want, which will speed up activations of two community desires at same time without controversy or splits.

.. but going from soft straight to intentional split.. shows double irrational thoughts and illogical process

---

i even said how segwit fans can actually get some real data to show undecided groups to vote for or against..
get a segwit node to be an upstream module(gmaxwells buzzwording) meaning direct connection to a segwit enabled pool. and send a segwit p2wpkh tx to, for instance btcc.. let btcc add it to a block and see how the network reacts.

worse case btcc block gets rejected. in which case blockstream ($90m company) can easily pay btcc $15k for the wasted time for the test... atleast then the network can see how "backward compatible" it really is and see how it actually runs on the network and/or changes the network and/or causes issues to the network.

but nah.. blockstream know the risks of it and know its not as "backward compatible" as they presume.

if you disagree with my assumption that its not backward compatible then go show how harmless it is and get some proof to give to the undecideds.

instead of screaming to the community that anything non-core should fork off.. prove its backward compatible to not need to fork off..
but nah.. blockstream wont do it.
they know they over promised and under delivered

yes ... but in the past, the mining part of the Bitcoin network is not the point of flip-flop.
it's the pressure of nodes OVER mining nodes.

see the BIP66 like an example.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5p671q/comparison_of_bip66_activation_to_segwit_so_far/

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img922/1104/Xo8PTo.png

'In the past' is entirely inapplicable to activation of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. Core decided to package it up as a soft fork. In a soft fork, non-mining nodes don't count for doodley-squat. Only miners can make the choice as to whether or not to include any SegWit transactions in a given block. It is the nature of the soft fork.

The Core-eans made their bed - all that is left is to sleep therein. Fitfully.

Little by little ... like predicted. http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img923/6109/WPPfqm.jpg

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img924/1426/lDtfK4.png

meuh:  1   /Satoshi:0.13.2/   1459 (31.4%) ????????
not sure where your measuring the under 1500 as being over 30%..

your numbers are so fake that if you do the maths:
divide 1459 by 31.4 then multiply by 100.. 4646
divide 1410 by 30.3 then multiply by 100.. 4653

it wont get the same total infact theres a 100% differential of 6 nodes lost just on bad percentages

oh wait you have cut away some none core nodes from the total count to give FAKE % and still couldn't calculate right so had to tweak the % a bit more aswell.. so much fail

now thats funny

 its better to show the more fairer network of 5884 nodes right now..
not your dwarfed quasi 4650 average nodes which you think there are.

here:
1   /Satoshi:0.13.2/   1485 (25.24%) 5884
2   /Satoshi:0.13.1/   1428 (24.27%) 5884

wait.. if i cut out core devs i could play around and show any percentage i like..
but instead ill just leave the number as is, copied and pasted directly from bitnodes.io at the time of writing this.. without edits

hint: atleast be honest if your going to show stats

After 2 month we can summarize some intermediary result.
SegWit gathering 28% and it's not bad I suppose, if every 2 month give us 30% then we get Segwit activated in four month from now on...
https://i.imgur.com/caKhy3p.jpg

If your aunt had a dick, she'd be your uncle.  But, that isn't going to happen either. 

Not if she still identified as a woman ;).

It's not going to happen at this point though. I'd be surprised if we ever see 65% let alone 95%.

Fucking Americans.  lol.  If you 'identify' as a tree, are you a tree?  No.  You are merely a fucking idiot that thinks you are a tree. 

No

From our five four we three are the two only one!

 ;D

And it's coming ... http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img922/6929/GBk2nU.jpg

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img924/919/te9syW.png

I'm a little bit confused about this topic, In my own understanding Segwit is not good to all Bitcoin enthusiast in this industry. Because the number one will  get affect on this matter was the bitcoin community right? or the people who did mine bitcoin using mining rigs is that right? just correct me if I'm wrong,. :)

real numbers to counter meurs fake numbers

/Satoshi:0.13.2/               1664 (26.11%) where 100% = 6372
/Satoshi:0.13.1/               1323 (20.76%) where 100% = 6372
/Satoshi:0.12.1/               743 (11.66%)    where 100% = 6372
/Satoshi:0.13.0/               382 (5.99%)      where 100% = 6372
/Satoshi:0.14.0/               381 (5.98%)     where 100% = 6372
/BitcoinUnlimited:1.0.0.1/   357 (5.60%)

why is meurs numbers fake you may ask
for instance his numbers
/Satoshi:0.13.2/               1839   37.5% where 100% = 4904
/Satoshi:0.13.1/               1409   28.8% where 100% = 4892.361111
/Satoshi:0.12.1/               740   15.1% where 100% = 4900.662252
/Satoshi:0.13.0/               387   7.9%   where 100% = 4898.734177
/Satoshi:0.14.0/               351   7.2%   where 100% = 4875
/BitcoinUnlimited:1.0.0.1/   173   3.5%   where 100% = 4942.857143

nice fudging of the %%%
major discrepancy in meuhs numbers, because the 100%'s should all equal the same

---

secondly..
even funnier..

the 'vote' is about BLOCKS not NODES so i see no reason why meur is even trying to fluff the node numbers as they are meaningless

here is what matters (P.S graph is from Sipa himself so dont cry propaganda de to numbers being from segwits own inventor)
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png

the 'vote' bypassed node USER consent... which is something blockstream DEVS decided on.
also its not about what individual miners choose. but what the POOL managers choose.
yes a couple pools(for individual miners) have 2 stratums to allow individual miners to hop to the stratum for or against segwit. but the real % is based on the managers of the big mining farms.

which is something blockstream DEVS decided on.

dont blame the pools, blame the devs for deciding on who should vote.

---

as for the end features (if segwit were functional).
segwit features do not fix the issues at activation. it requires users(at a later date) to VOLUNTARILY move funds to segwit keys and only then spend funds to other users of segwit keys, to then DIS-ARM those volunteers from being able to quadratic spam / malleate.

it does not fix the issues for the entire network. nor does it disarm or prevent people sticking with using native keys. thus blocks can still contain quadratic spam and malleated tx's, simply by malicious people not volunteering to move funds to segwit keys

in essense, even after activation.. its a voluntary opt-in gun amnesty. hoping and falsely promising to stop gun crime, but in reality knowing the gangsta's will keep their guns

Right now segwit is slowly losing importance and not completely dead. Bitcoin unlimited gaining strength, so anything could happen in the short. I expect the price concern is the big factor which now people hope is the etf

ETF is separate to bitcoin.
ETF investors are buying shares of a companies 'stock' (collateral holding/product), not actual bitcoins(investors cannot ask for a privkey or withdraw btc from ETF).

there are many companies offering ETF's (the winklvoss twins being one of them)

---

yea the companies share prices can sky rocket. whereby investors realise that the companies 'collateral holding' is less than the companies speculative sky rocket price.

and thus COULD cause investors to then go and buy real bitcoins elsewhere (thus then affecting the real bitcoin price when they by on real bitcoin exchanges)

but thats all speculation

Are you sure?

Gold ETFs allow physical delivery if you own enough. 

not part of standard ETF terms. but the specific companies terms/side services

usually what happens is that you buy out a whole "basket" to remove the collateral of the trust to then get delivered.
or the ETF shares are sold, and then real BTC are bought (behind the scenes) via a side subsidiary service that delivers.

but thats just things the COMPANY may have policy/services behind the scenes

---

but in short.
lets say an ETF spikes to $2000
but real btc exchanges are still $1200

why would anyone buy say 20,000 shares (20 share=1btc equiv), costing $2mill(1000btc equiv).. to use the ETF subsiduary to withdraw that btc and reduce the ETF's collateral or be sold and converted behind the scenes to 'deliver' 1000btc.

where as the investor could sell the 20,000 and then take his $2m to a proper bitcoin exchange. and then buy 1666btc.. instead of 'get delivered' 1000btc

Indeed, if the vote were about nodes, then a sybil attack with 100 000 nodes on Amazon for a day would do.  If consensus is reached by the number of nodes, proof of work wouldn't be necessary.  Anybody can fire up an unlimited amount of nodes to get it his way.

Non-mining nodes do not mean anything.

His numbers aren't fake, your brain is just incompetent enough to figure out where those numbers are from. The numbers are from the 8th of March, from the charts found here: https://bitnodes.21.co/dashboard/

---

Alternatively, you can also get other numbers from luke-jr: http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html

I love how version 0.14 of Bitcoin is more popular with real Bitcoin users than BU in less than 1 day after release. Funny, 75% of people on Bitcointalk are BU diehards, but they're a tiny proportion of the userbase (~8%). It seems they're just a very noisy minority (and I wonder how many of those nodes all belong to Roger Vermin)


I'm just waiting for the trolls to start shouting "SHEEEEEEEEEEEP!!!!!1". Don't they realise these "sheep" are the people they're trying to convince? It always works on me when someone insults me to get me to change my mind :)

Indeed.

In reality, their numbers are even lower. See for example this (less than 2%): http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html


A huge majority of those nodes were cloud based. However, recently they've been replacing those with nodes spread among various networks. Quite an obvious tactic.

Yes,95% is not possible now.Only 25% seems to be possible and its of no use.The issue would continue on and on unsolved.Sad to see every one is taking benefit of bitcoin and not trying to solve the issues related to  bitcoin.

It's the consensus protocol, Jim.  But not as we know it...

Not surprising, software updaters won't replace core with BU.

Its not totally upto community divided .it is die to different opinion of other people .maxwell has a different trick to make it happen but it may be a hard fork , well it does not seem that it Will so much .

And we move to the 45% range.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img924/8465/hgbjUi.png