Bitcoin Forum

https://cointimes.tech/2017/03/statenationattack/

Good, great article actually, that shows how this is all an attack to control bitcoin. As if we didn't have enough problems with mining centralization, it's clear how this will only get worse after Jihan will control up to 80% of the network along with McAffee. The Ver-Jihan-McAffee-Coinbase connection, it's all there.

But we have the nuclear button that they didn't see coming, and this can be implemented without changing any fundamental protocol rules as opposed to the vapid idea of the "Emergent consensus". So Jihan, if you keep fucking around, all of your ASIC machines will be worth nothing soon. Your choice.

The best part is seeing George of BitFury aggressively threatening people to lawsuit them if the PoW algo is changed.
Who he pretends to lawsuit? the CEO of Bitcoin? lol, what a prick.
He could do that under BUcoin because they will have a president and secretary lol, but not with bitcoin.

You kids must be stoned out of your minds.

Core = Hillary Clinton

BU = rising populist leader

BU is coming whether you like it or not ;)

The most interesting part of this article is this statement:

"Seems like the bitcoin community is in civil war and you don't invest in a country’s currency that is about to go in civil war imo."

I wish we bitcoin community to unite and end this civil war already. How hard it is to come up with viable solution?!
Do miners really want to destroy bitcoin just because they can't accept any form acceptable compromise?

Core created this situation in the first place by refusing to remove a 5.5 year old outdated artificial 1mb limit and forcing a pre-mature "fee market" which wasn't needed and forcing the rise of altcoins.

Don't blame the miners, the miners are the only ones with the power to fix this situation. As Satoshi intended.

It's a bunch of screenshots of tweets... not what I would call a good article.
Makes no coherent point.

How is this a 'trojan horse' -- Bitcoin Unlimited is extremely clear on what it wants.
If an economic majority support it, it will get it...and it won't be an attack
even though those who disagree with the majority will label it as such.

If anything , segwit is the trojan horse, promising neat features
and scalability but really it will deliver code unmanagability, crippling,
and entrenchment.

What do you mean?  If you stop following chain with most proof of work as defined in first Satoshi client, you wont use Bitcoin anymore.

"Emergent Consensus" is obviously a drastic change in the way the protocol works. Looks like satoshi wouldn't have liked this hardfork scenario we are seeing.

Greg Maxwell would like you to believe its a drastic change, but it's not.

It's simple, logical, and in line with the white paper as far as nodes voting on new rules.  And apparently its even been done before when various nodes had limits of 500kb, 750kb, or 1mb.

No valid points in the article, just a collection of hyperbolic unsubstantiated claims about BU which are backed up by other people's opinions unless they make what they say correct.

Blatantly cherry-picked information in an attempt to get confirmation biased Core supporters to check out their blog.

No, BU is completly compatible with Satoshi client version 0.1. Both have 32 MB message size limits. Thats why I told you need to be compatible with first Satoshi client to be considered Bitcoin, and thank you for supporting my view to be in agreement with Satoshi.

As for the other quotes, even Satoshi understood more Bitcoin implemetations can emerge because Bitcoin is open source code afterall, and for Core client to be dominant in free market, it must deliver what Bitcoin users want beter than any other implementations. What we see now is free market at work, because Core dont deliver onchain scalling, users shifting from Core. And users are not just nodes, there are much more users using SVP wallets.

BTW there is estimated around 100.000 small home miners, and obviously they are pissed when some Core developers starting to talk about PoW change. Im small miner as well, thats why I dont trust Core anymore.

BitFury is currently the biggest SegWit signaller. I wonder if that will change?

I guess the lawsuit would be against the Blockstream gate keepers of the bitcoin improvement process. Don't fancy his chances on that one, so they will have to point their hashpower elsewhere.

A temporary restriction is becoming the most interesting dogma of the crypto world. Cryddit left the stage, Satoshi also, Hal is no longer with us.
Three of the most ingenious devs agreed on what should have been a temporary mean.
Where do we go from there?
I do not support neither Core nor BU nor anything else but it's time to find a solution to this.

At the same if it comes too it won't sustain long gaining a long lasting trust of the miners as well the user base. It's just as an copy made out of bitcoin. Bitcoin grew experimentally, BU tries to rectify based on bitcoin's experience and trying to get the trust which is something a foolish attitude.

Great thread, one of the smartest guys around (Death and Taxes) knew where this was all going 2 years ago.

Curious why you don't support BU.  What your main beef with it?

If you ask any BTU fanatic about this, they'd outright say that it's not even a distant possibility whilst stating that Blockstream is controlled by banks. Now, it is clear which *side* (or at least part of said side) listens to reason and which side represents Jehovah's witnesses. ::)

This is the prime example of what I was referring to by my statement. If you don't think that said theory has a *fair* chance of being true, then you are very much deluded in your own beliefs beyond repair.

'Emergent destruction' is everything but "simple", "logical" and in line with the white paper. ::)

Truth hurts doesn't it, Lauda?

But go on, keep telling me how hardforks are "contentious" and "dangerous" and how Roger Ver is the anti-christ.

blockstream CEO adam back

blockstream CTO gmaxwell.

im guessing with gmaxwell being the moderator of bitcoin discusssion and also part of the acceptance of features that get added to core. you cant really hide cores puppet string masters..

kind of funny
oh and if you want to pretend blockstream have nothing to do with it. then the "president of core" Wladimir J. van der Laan

I agree, where was the trojan horse in the article? I find Peter Todd's comment the most interesting and the response from Bitfury to be funny and very threatened at the same time.

Can Bitfury sue the Core developers if a POW upgrade occurs? Do they have a legal basis for it?

if core think the only thing should be core.. decentralisation and diversity is already lost.

oh. and core better stop making LN in Go.. as its just not Core.
hell. core should kill off KNots too.
while there at it they should also kill off Fibre aswell.. as they are not Core.
oh and kill off BTCC, as they are not using core.

they are variants with differing code/features.

see the hypocrisy?

seems the rule is if not BLOCKSTREAM approved its no good
the real trojan horse starts crawling out

You are either very ignorant/delusional or a paid shill. Pick the lesser evil of the two. You couldn't even conjure a single argument which shows how weak you are.

If you mean this section in particular, then your statement is wrong. AFAIK he spends little time moderating anyways.

Not really, no.

You need to get rid of that tinfoil hat and start listening to reason.

What's my main problem? I really do not want we will undergo a blockchain split like ETH did. I support Bitcoin as a project and as a single entity.
This is no longer a software/blocksize/scaling debate: this is war between conflicting interests.
We are becoming worse than the world we were suppose to change... if you know what I mean by that.

Well, I can appreciate that -- I don't know many people who really want a split.  I certainly don't, if it can be avoided.

However, I strongly feel core is trying to change Bitcoin into something I don't want it to be.  And I would rather challenge
that than allow it to continue.  It is more risky, more dangerous to allow their plan than to fight it.  Those are my sincere
beliefs.

Standing up against Core's hypocrisy / stupidity does not make me ignorant and it does not make me a shill.

If I wanted to get paid for posting, I'd use one of those stupid signature ad campaigns.

Core is turning BTC into something entirely different, we'll call it Cripplecoin. Well, Cripplecoin is on the way out.

And it's a great day to be alive.

you failed with your attempt to brush all the other area's gmaxwell and his employees are moderating under the carpet. (mailing list/bips/irc) to try hiding gmaxwells control reach of bitcoin proposals, to ensure blockstream set the agenda.

I love how Lauda calls us crazy, and yet we now have Core devs openly calling for a change to the POW algorithm because they don't like the way miners are deciding things on their own.

Hahahaha, it gets funnier with every passing day.

Unfortunately we live in times where fear has overcome reason. Either you are part of said groups, or you've lost all sense of any reason.

No. This is what Bitcoin is, with the design set in stone by satoshi.

Nobody attempted to "brush anything under a carpet". I thought you were referring to 'Bitcoin Discussion' as this section of the forum. Stop being a troll and learn to discuss in a civil matter.

The miners deciding things on their own == attack. Therefore, a PoW change would be an appropriate measure.

Core's hypocrisy and self contradiction is so obvious.  hard fork? noooo...must avoid at all cost, we wrote 5000+ lines of code segwit ... but now hard fork is a good idea right?
BU is 'radical' by removing blocksize restriction but lets change the POW, thats not radical at all. :D




The version 0.1 that Satoshi said was set in stone didn't include a blocksize limit.

CORE gave pools the only vote.. core have themselves to blame.
emphasis: (lauda repeat 3 times until it sinks in): CORE gave pools the only vote. CORE gave pools the only vote. CORE gave pools the only vote.

core should instead.

not blackmail pools with algo chaning threats.
but instead do a HARD (node and pool) CONSENSUS (actual full community vote/choice to adopt or not)


not blackmail nodes with UASF banscore threats or their TIER network by hard(node and pool) bilateral split
but instead do a HARD (node and pool) CONSENSUS

and if core still dont get their way, just accept that their way is not wanted. and do something the community do want, without bribes(fee discount) without blackmail, without threat

I understand your point, it makes sense.
My point is, though, that I am tired of fighting for what I've said before. I don't want to contribute to what I see is the worst representation of the world I wanted to fight in the first place.

We could both easily reason, but not everybody is like you and me.

it's too late for changing the pow algo, there are too many asic and money invested, chinese miners would be very mad about this, i don't think they would let this change happen, but maybe they can recycle their asic and change a parameters to make it mine the new one?

It's in the name: Application Specific Integrated Circuits. If you can't even repurpose one to hash passwords there's not much you can do with one other than use it as a power hungry space heater (stares at my 333mhz antminer). But that aside, I'd love to see the Chinese mining sector pissed and weakened (coming from a Chinese BTC user)

Why should anyone other than the miners themselves care what happens to them? It's up to them to stay agile when it comes to what Bitcoin gets up to. If a specific bunch is screwing with us then they should be fired and others will pick up the slack.

Obviously a PoW change is a severe move, but your average Bitcoin wallet does not have terms and conditions where you agree to preserve the wellbeing of a bunch of strangers in a far off land making money hand over fist.

I assume that possibility would only be rolled out if there was a move from a group of miners that explicitly harmed everyone else, in which case I'd welcome it.

I think it's obvious who the true paid shill here is, Lauda.

All you ever do is tout the Core propaganda without question.

The only reason some Core devs are even talking about changing POW is because they are panicking, they are realizing they might lose control of the Bitcoin protocol.

Of course, this wouldn't be happening if they were reasonable people capable of leadership & compromise. But they aren't. What is happening now is merely a natural reaction to their failed leadership.

But it's pretty clear what Blockstream Core's agenda is - total control over the Bitcoin protocol. I don't think they even care if they make a profit at this point. Hence the constant dirty tactics and mental gymnastics they engage in to justify their actions and their twisted logic.

While I agree that the core team has done jacksh*t in the past few days weeks month despite the community requests, it's still the lesser evil IMO. So it's good that they're panicking, maybe they'll come up with sensible solutions for once.

Nonsense. No hard fork discussed publicly as per Core contributors is relevant to Segwit. A PoW change my be a necessity in times of great danger.

Which was very faulty to begin with. Had we stuck with that, Bitcoin would have been either dead or set back by a long time.

Nope, that's not that I'm talking about.

The miners don't dictate the rules, otherwise the network wouldn't be based on consensus but would rather rely on the will of the miners.

Said the person deeply entrenched in 1 view, to the person that is open to several solutions. Don't you see the problem in this sentence? ::)

The Core developers do not control anything.

What community requests? You mean the minority <8% <3% supporting BTU altcoin?

Very faulty, or set in stone.  Well, pick one, because it can't be both.

You tried to appeal to authority, then back peddled when
it didn't work.   
 
 

 


 

Not only was there no appeal to authority, I was never referencing the version 0.1 anywhere in my post. I guess this is what happens when money dictates what you're supposed to think or write. ::)

Well if you weren't referring to Satoshi's quote, then I see no reason why you would say that anything is set in stone.   Bitcoin is defined by its users.

I think it's more of a conflict of visions. The CoI ("Trojan Horse" for malicious actors) thing is, in my opinion, not really founded on facts but mostly on emotions. Neither is Blockstream the Antichrist that's trying to capture Bitcoin to profit from it exclusively, neither the miners are the bad guys that want to control everything. There may be some interests that could be touched by one of the solutions (e.g. miners worrying about lesser transaction fees in the future) but these fears are mostly based on speculation.

Bitcoin's problem is that as blockchain space and bandwidth for block propagation are both scarce resources (if you have the ambition to become a global payment system) you must make tradeoffs in centralization if you want to scale. Perhaps AnonyMint is right that a degree of centralization is unavoidable with Bitcoin's design.

The Core proposal is: Let the "node network" be decentralized, but allow centralization at the "payment system" level.

The BU proposal is: Let the "payment system" be decentralized, but allow centralization at the "node network" level.

I think both visions are valid, but I consider the decentralization of the node network a bit more important, as it's a basic condition for bitcoin to work. That's why a blocksize increase, if necessary, should be conservative and not only decided by miners, like in the BU proposal, but based on actual network speed/computation requirement tests.

Good summary, and I wish more fanatics would realize the trade off here instead of freaking out "CENTRALIZATION" like a zombie.  I happen to think the payment system centralization is more sinister but we can certainly agree to have different opinions. 

But the issue remains that users only have a binary choice between those two proposals.  Those of us looking for a moderate compromise somewhere between the two need to get our act together and get something coded so there's an alternative.  SegWit plus small, cautious and preferably algorithmic blocksize adjustments (not just increases).

What happened to the BTU rhetoric that 51 hashrate = Bitcoin?

Do enlighten me how Core plans to centralize the 'payment system level' vs. how BU plans on decentralizing it. ::)

FTFY

CORE want core to own bitcoin and be the upper controlling tier of upstream filters and all code requiring core(blockstream) approval.. and have the better ln hubs, and controlling the base block to FORCE people to use LN

non-core want diverse nodes of many brands on one single PEER network. and LN being voluntary side services that anyone can make

Are you trolling , looking for an argument, or you really want a lesson in consensus?

Let me know.

Block size should be increased since last few years but this problem become not endless, too many speculation whether it maybe right or not. I don't know for sure which one of those options will be the best way for bitcoin in the future, I don't like if bitcoin should be divide into two chains, but if it may happen we will see how it works whether will be be great or bad.

BU China coin ^^ since most miners are from China and one manufacturer if BTC is from China and have 75% chips produced i don't really think that is good.
Bitcoin gave to much power to centralization of mining as same of developer side.
If we will have fork at least we will see growth one chain will be abandoned.
If mining would be truly decentralized but is not right now i would believe in miners decide what have to live which chain. Today we have HEAVILY centralized mining 2 companies making asics Bitfury even not sell them. So voting by mining is just to votes at end miners are connected to those companies.
And this is true shit because we don't have 100 000 who decide but up to 5 biggest.
With LTC up to 1 biggest - fuck such decentralization.

I don't think there are "plans". But the traditional blockchain transaction is the most decentralized and trustless way to pay within the BTC network. If we rely on second-layer solutions the most probable outcome is a higher degree of centralization. I doubt a LN-like off-chain solution will be possible without at least some centralized hubs. I have some hope on two-way-pegged sidechains though, but I know there are many challenges for them to work.

Where I think you're right is that the BU proposal, if it leads to a higher node-level centralization, would also put into question the "decentralized nature" of on-chain payments. But at least some idealists in the BU fraction seem to think there is a possibility BU won't centralize the node structure because of technological evolution (like the LN enthusiasts that believe in a decentralized LN). It's possible that both hopes are only wishful thinking, but we would need to test it to find it out.

@franky1: No. It's not that easy ;)


Exactly. That's the way I would prefer, too; although I consider the BU mechanism a no-go because it's probably too dangerous (I would really like to see a real altcoin testing it, though). AnonyMint (iamnotback) has analyzed BU here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1819153.msg18250390#msg18250390) and his analysis confirm my fears about a failure of the mechanism. I also support his proposal to the BU team to seek compromise with a more moderate version, if Core fails to do that.

I repeat, BIP-100-based solutions are for me the way to go, but including a security limit.

On the other hand, Ethereum may do us the favour and tests LN (Raiden) for us. Or even Groestlcoin ;)

Well then it would appear that Bitfury George was not only threatened but he is also trying to bluff his way to make Peter Todd stop playing with the idea of a POW upgrade. The developers should be thinking about it more and get the code ready just in case they need to do it as soon as possible. The greedy miners need to be leveraged so that they would be reasonable to deal with. The same to those who are conspiring with them.

Lauda, do you think the Core developers are seriously thinking about a POW upgrade? Is it on the table?

Argument. That was what was being preached by BTU folk, and you were most certainly not eager to correct them.

You have no real argument that proves your assertion that Core would centralized the second layer, and BU would not. In both case, if we were to follow your own statements, LN would be somewhat centralized regardless of Core or BU. The fix to your statement would be (only where the outcome of the second layer is the same for both implementations):
Core: decentralized 1st layer, centralized/decentralized second layer
BU: centralized 1st layer, centralized/decentralized second layer

Depends. People wrongly think that if luke-jr (for example) or Todd think about doing something == Core considering something == likely to be added into Bitcoin Core. This is wrong. They are Core contributors, yes, but what they independently think about or consider is far from having a chance of being added to the repository.

---

Speaking of 'trojan horses':
Another major BU bug, now with a special bonus: a closed source patch. ::)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60s6r5/peter_todd_unlimited_responds_to_the_latest_dos/
https://i.imgur.com/dZxWoor.png

In a PoW system, the hashpower majority controls the longest chain.  Supply and demand of the token determines its value.  (simple facts, right?)

Miners could theoretically create a contentious hard fork with 51% and then everyone would see what the demand is
for the new token, but it is probably wiser to wait for a larger consensus and that does appear to be what miners intend to do with BU.

 

nope

the hashpower majority just has more chance of having a block solution faster.. it doesnt mean that the block they produce seconds faster is any bettr or worse.

no one cares about hash power primarily. its about whats an acceptable block first. and then if there happen to be 2 acceptable blocks, the one which was produced using most chain work gets the edge, as a secondary thought.

EG
if you can make a cake because you have 4 arms and you forget to add the flour, thus making gooy soup.. and someone else makes a perfect cake but took longer. the perfect cake still wins. and the gooy 5 second soup gets orphaned even if it took 4 hands to make it instead of 2, even though it made it in 5 seconds.

bitcoin is not just 2 dimensional of needing pools to decide based purely on height, whereby the nodes are just database storage houses.

the nodes are part of the symbiotic relationship to keep pools inline.
bitcoin has atleast 10 different mechanisms.

for instance if nodes did not matter, core wouldnt have needed to go soft... obviously..
but nodes do matter, core just knew they may not get the community vote and so intentionally bypassed the node vote and intentionally handed the vote to pools.
now core is angry that the pools are not kissing core ass. so now core again want to avoid re evaluating and trying something more acceptable. and instead start blaming pools, start making out the pools bypassed node votes. and now threaten the community with UASF and also the pools with PoW algo changes. all to get CORES way, not the communities way

oh and if you think that nodes have no power at all (because you mis-understand core bypassing node power).. then how will core implement a PoW change if nodes have no power....

No. Even franky1 gets it and sheds some light on it:


It doesn't even matter if there is *some* demand (or a fair amount of demand for it), that is effectively an altcoin. Hashrate does not dictate rules in a consensus based system. Stop living in a dystopian fantasy where the miners are 'supreme emperors' of Bitcoin.

Huh?

You know a lot about bitcoin so i'm baffled why i have to explain what I mean here.

To quote the white paper
 

You can label things however you want and define consensus however you want.
Hashing Power and Economic Power are the prime movers here.

Yeah. If you go there, I suggest you read that thread to the end to absorb the manner in which iamnotback's thinking on the matter evolves.

Oh is that who that is... no wonder he sees every possibility for Bitcoin as doom.   I feel better now. lol.

No. That's why the BTU folk is doing.

Of which you could argue that the latter has more importance; mining worthless coins doesn't make much sense, does it? Hashrate aside, BTU has an absolute minority.

Agree. 

If only there is a way or a system harmonizing and integrating all codes into one so such conflicts and debate could be avoided. In my own opinion the miners themselves wanted the community to  be in conflict so they can make good profit from increasing the miner fees. I am thinking that the miners are just laughing while the groups are in conflict.