Bitcoin Forum

The only health reaction against Miners Mafia that threat not only the developer that maintain bitcoin for 8 years now but and the whole bitcoin community is UASF. Today after the expose of ASICBOOST and Jihan open threats for one more time against everyone, node that signal UASF had a huge spike

http://uasf.saltylemon.org/#oo

http://uasf.saltylemon.org/uasf_nodes_all.png

http://uasf.saltylemon.org/uasf_nodes_day.png

everyone must signal or comment to their nodes for UASF. To do this you need to simple add to bitcoin.conf this simple line and after restart the node

I support the reasoning behind UASF, but it could be a dangerous experiment if the community is still divided. An UASF proposal should seek at least the support of the undecided miners (e.g. F2Pool).

With the current power distribution - 30-40% of the miners absolutely against Segwit, 20-30% undecided and a pretty strong Segwit-opposing /r/BTC community- it could lead to a situation where the miners of the BU-Fraction simply would decide to hardfork and we have the BTC/BTU scenario we normally would like to avoid.

I don't think that the community is divided, all community is unanimous in supporting SegWit. I'd not call neither one corrupt chinese with his paid shills the part of the community, nor altcoiner Roger ver.
If we just disregard them, there's no consequence, even if they create their altcoin BTU, noone will support centralized rogercoin with president and secretary.

Sorry, I don't have this impression, and I'm not talking about the handful of members that post dozens of pro-BU posts/day  (these, probably are paid in some way for it). In the German and Spanish sub-forums some very high-profile members support BU, among them a former Bitcointalk moderator with an important Bitcoin blog. I think it's currently a 60/40 to 70/30 division with the majority being pro-Segwit. In my opinion, in the case of a hard fork, that's not enough to "kill a BTU chain instantly" what would be necessary to preserve Bitcoin's network effect.

blockstream script
1: "blockstream will avoid a hard fork because consensus need to be met by majority users, to avoid drama but a segwit solution thats empty of its promises wont get consensus"
2: "blockstream will avoid a hard fork because without consensus the only option is to split the network. without blockstream having majority, blockstream loses"
3: "splits are bad"
4: "anything not blockstream sanctions must split away so that blockstream rules supreme and wants a tier network"
5: "send out the deadlines, make manditory threats, make PoW crushing changes, do all you can to make blockstream kings


meanwhile other implementations just run for years letting the community decide or not decide in their own time, no threat no demands no destructive banning/splitting mechanisms. because non-blockstream implementations want a diverse decentralised open level playingfield PEER network

wake up to who the mafia is.. hint the ones with the demands and desires of a tier network

The reason those high profile members support BU is very simple - their money lay Not in bitcoins now, but in some altcoins like Eth, dash etc. Even Buterin (guy with some programming skills) mumbles something against Segwit and LN, he understands what it'd mean for his alt.
Consequently they don't want any good for Bitcoin, because if Bitcoin green all forks are red. It means they are not the part of Bitcoin community, even though they supported Bitcoin earlier like Ver. And they don't have bitcoins and they cant dump it, in case of Wu split scenario. (Ver bluffed something about dumping but jumped in the lake very fast, when was being suggested a deal with real bitcoiner)

if that's true, then miners are signaling segwit less than BU because __________ ?

The number of nodes is meaningless. It is trivial for someone to spin up 100's (or thousands, or more) nodes with little to no cost. This is especially true when discussing short term trends.

You're conflating 3 things

1. Miner support
2. Forum activity
3. Node support

When it comes to miners and forum activity, a division exists. Mining is hard to fake (although we now know that Bitmain's hashrate share is inflated by ASIC Boost). Forum activity is very easy to fake.


Node support is somewhere in between the 2, it can be faked (remember the NotXT nodes?). But still, it appears as if a growing majority of nodes support Segwit. I would argue this is the most important metric.

And further to that, miners signalling Segwit is beginning to grow again. A consistent >30% is now evident, and removing the ASIC Boost advantage will change that figure even more favourably. When we add to that the undecided miners, we could easily have close to or above 50% Segwit signalling. And that's all is needed, simply the fear of block orphaning by the majority faction has pushed previous soft fork activations over 95% very, very quickly after 50% is reached.

So there's no need to worry yourself so much.

the problem is that by creating an altcoin like you said, all the hash can go there while reducing the original fork nethash, which is dangerous, because then attack are possible

this si why miners have the upper hand in terms of decision, then you need to find a way to counter this, if you don't want bitcoin to be destroyed by the miners mafia

Well around 780 nodes are Bitcoin Unlimited and they produce over 1/3 of the blocks.  That is a far cry short of unanimous.   Saying they aren't part of the community is disingenuous.

See: https://coin.dance/nodes

That's just stacking together as many positive statistics as possible for BU, isn't it? And the way you present it makes no sense.


780 BU nodes are not producing 1/3 of the blocks. Of those 780, less than 20 are the BU nodes actually creating blocks, the rest are non-mining relay nodes.

And even if 780 nodes were BU (and that figure is disputed, there's good evidence that a significant proportion of the 780 number is run by far less than 780 individual people), that's still little more than 11-12% of the 7000 nodes in total.

Do you understand what the word "unanimous" means? If you do, then you'll know that Bitcoin nodes are much much closer to unanimity at ~ 85% of the network than BU nodes are at ~ 12%.

USAF + 51% mining power man ^^

I also like UASF, what can average bitcoiner do, to help it's progress?

You are really are being disingenuous.   How many of the 5700 nodes are producing blocks?   Not very many.   When one looks at which blocks are produced with which code sets SegWit was well behind BU. https://btc.com/stats/block-ver?bip_mode=SegWit.   SegWit accounts for less than 30% of the blocks produced out of the last 1000.

Most nodes are not involved in mining, but without mining there isn't any Bitcoin.   Well there are benefits of having more nodes, it is a much lower commitment to to set up node vs actually mining.    

It is disingenuous to discount the minority of nodes that is actually doing more beneficial work than the majority which is mostly just passive.   Clearly there isn't anything close to unanimous yet.   Maybe you should look up the definition of the word yourself.

I haven't made up my mind yet, although I find the lightening network concept rather vague and potentially dangerous.   It is too bad there there isn't more focus on the near term issues with SegWit.   Less long-term pie in the sky and more short term fixing the issues would have probably pushed SegWit to a quick success.  

Was it not you that implied 780 BU nodes produce blocks?


And what difference does it make, BU is floating face down

I think it is looking likely that USAF will be the way to go, if there is more revelations on the reasons why miners are opposing Segwit in coming days/weeks I think the community will support USAF and Miners will lose their total influence in the space. I know they are trying to protect their investment but it seems they have gone to far

The difference is in attitude.  Some people pushing SegWit basically present themselves very poorly.   They attack people that disagree with them.  Often throw out wild statements like "Bitcoin was never intended to pay for a cup of coffee" and make false claims to try to shore up their supposed support.   Where there is smoke there is is fire.   It is fine that a group wants to fundamentally change bitcoin, but they shouldn't villainize people that just disagree with them.

While you claim BU is dead, there are more BU blocks than SegWit blocks being produced.  That shows there is a clear problem and disagreement.

What I do like about SegWit is it lays a foundation for making progress.   What I don't like about it is that it is taking steps way beyond what is necessary and not really focused on the most immediate issue.   I think a prudent thing to do would be to hammer out a compromise.   However calling a group "Miners Mafia" is really absurd.    

Now the LTC is going with SegWit it would be wise to let that coin lead the way and prove the concepts are sound.   This is an opportunity for Bitcoin to take a smaller more prudent step and come up with something that both the miners and users can live with.  

Getting back on topic it seems like UASF is just a backdoor way to try and force SegWit.    Seriously if SegWit can't stand on its own then there is a problem.  

This is a good news since the bitcoin holders such as us have a control on the nodes. If this continues then we will no longer mind the conflict between the core and the bitmain. But hope that someday the UASF will not also be controlled by greed and will not become problematic on the long run. Bitcoins success for this point of time will rely on UASF.

I have to admit that this is the first time I'm seeing the 'uacomment' option. I was not aware of it's existence although I have long ago noticed the discrepancies in the client descriptions. That being said, I think that this is a very good idea to show support. I highly recommend spreading the exact command (as found in the main thread) along the main communication channels:

I shall restart all my clients with this flag soon.

There is already 1 coin which has already activated SegWit.

This statement is nonsense. UASF is a decent proposal; definitely not a backdoor. SW has near unanimous developer approval, supermajority of users and the economy approval; AntPool is holding the network hostage due to ASICBoost.

---

Comedy relief:
https://i.redditmedia.com/bSiI89IiafrSFE1SfGiisS-taY0bLDNRaEQ6heWUBJE.jpg?w=723&s=00e6fc5477dae88214d7fad8f7d49d5b

The usual question: are these nodes actually supporting UASF or are they... "fake" nodes again?


The community is divided. One just has to spend 5 minutes here to understand that. Many may not like or side with "corrupt chinese" and "altcoiner Roger ver", however they are part of the community and make it move one way or another (fortunately or unfortunately).


First time I'm seeing this option too, I'll be using it from now on...


Which coin? Not really paying attention to alts...

I'm glad to see that there's a new (or at least something I haven't heard about) alternative to the base Segwit and BU. This is actually looking like something that might prove itself to be useful, and I think that it is possible for the blocksize debate to be solved with a piece of software that is actually pretty good and can benefit everyone who's involved, from the community to the miners, instead of letting just the miners run away with a ton of power and fees for the next long time to come.

I want to look into this more, but it is seeming to be the alternative I expressed support for.

Not sure I understand your post. UASF just enforces SegWit, it's not a different proposal.

I added the UASF-SegWit-BIP148 user agent string to my node.

Of course, I don't support this ridiculous UASF proposal or Segwit, and neither does my node. It could never work!

This is why we unfortunately can't rely on such statistics like the ones in the first post.

I don't get it. Why are you doing it, then

Maybe he means extension blocks / bcoin

 ??? ??? Don't ask... don't ask...

Shows a lack of understanding about how Bitcoin Unlimited would work.   I don't understand these underhanded dirty attacks.

With Bitcoin Unlimited larger blocks could be produced but there is a tradeoff as too large of blocks probably would be orphaned.    The blocksize would settle around the sweat spot of the number of transactions and the transaction fees producing the maximum revenue.   Transactions not including transaction fees would probably not be any better off than they are today.   

It appears the SegWit changes would allow more transactions in the current 1MB block, but it isn't as clear to understand.   Later small transactions would be pushed to the yet to be built lightening network.   It is a fundamental change.   The developers also gain tools for making future changes.

Frankly I'm not very excited by either proposal.   It will be interesting to see how it works out with LTC.   

FTFY

Oh, that explains a lot ...

as for chek2fire's image of the trolley growing double the size in half an hour.

the realisty is much more like

nodes set consensus.h at 8mb (calculated as network safe for at the moment)
nodes set policy.h at thier own personal preference amounts BELOW consensus.h

nodes publish their preference in the user agent

...
pools see all the lower preference limits and determine a safe majority of preference.. EG lets say it was 75%-95% say 2mb is ok

pools then make a block that is 1.000250mb and dip thier toe in the water testing the orphan risks or other issues, much like detecting if there was a 2013 leveldb bug when surpassing 500k limit even with a 1mb hard limit
and then progressively grow in small increments which they deem safe, up to the majority PREFERENCE of ~2mb
where by the minority nodes that had 8mb consensus but under 2mb policy preference. would be alerted that their policy preference is going to get dynamically altered up to 2mb

all of which are still blocks well under the main consensus limit of 8mb.
meaning nodes can cope and the blocks dont just go "gigabytes by midnight"

AsicBoost is just an improved mining technique, it isn't about blocksize.   

The developer community is divided and no where near unanimous.  If what you claimed was true there wouldn't be so many competing Bitcoin forks.   Even the Bitcoin Core isn't unanimous if you listen to the devs that were kicked out.   

Again I stand by my claim, UASF seems only to function to try and force SegWit.    It is just more confusion being thrown out there.   

Antpool is holding out for a blocksize increase via a hard fork.   At least that is what they have stated.   

That is close to what I understood.

because of one moron? I don't trust anything that says btu shills, never saw 1 trustworthy post from them

That attitude shows my main objection to SegWit.   I see this a lot from SegWit supporters.   I don't get it.

SegWit and BU are just two possible solutions.   It shouldn't be the cult of SegWit.   

A very balanced view, full of knowledge and love. Genius!

Don't you want to relax a bit? It feels better. Have some beer, some sex.

Apart from that, every time when Bitcoin went down in price altcoins soon followed. So that's not an argument.

And: Let's have UASF. But let's try to bring more people on board. At least, F2Pool.

The founder of f2pool recently tweeted something that effectively said that he is not going to support SegWit. This was not long after Greg Maxwell made unfounded claims that Bitmain's miners were reverse engineered by himself, and that Bitmain was actively engaging in using ASICBOOST, and that this is why they are against SegWit.

Can you provide a link, very interesting...

https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/850053367988592642
https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/850060922349432833
https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/850061625059024896

The last one appears to effectively be a vote of no confidence for core

Setting up a node today is not a joke. Have you tried setting one up at litte to no cost as you said? I think you havent tried to. The yearly bandwidth costs alone could set you back a decent amount.

Someone that wanted to setup, say 100 nodes would only need to download the blockchain once. They could then rent cheap VPSs in various datacenters, and set their blocks to 'blocksonly' and enable pruning to some very low number. If you really know what you are doing, you would not even need to send each of your VPSs the blockchain, as you could simply program your node to accept 0000000000000000001523891872bed55d9cfdb60702a47722fc016e503b9602 as the hash of block 460909 (or whatever other actual hash of whatever other block number).

These nodes would really not be *actual* full nodes, however no one from the outside would be able to tell the difference.

You must live in the internet backwaters, maybe the USA?   While I'm not running a node now, I did from my home and it wasn't a problem.   However my daily uploads are limited to 2GB, although I've never been shutdown for going over it.   Downloads are unlimited.   My upload speed is a little slow, typically 50Mb/sec, download speed typically greater than 120Mb/sec.   However I pay though the teeth for it, the fiber optic service with IP phone run around $45 / month.   Kind of middle of the road for Japan.  

Seriously how much bandwidth is needed now?  

However to spin up 100's?   Just one was a real pain in the butt.   I think it took over two days to get the whole blockchain at when I did it.   Of coarse one could clone.   If you use something like AWS ... It is going to cost a bit to run 1000's of nodes.

1) Bullshit. AsicBoost is not an improved mining technique, it's abusing a weakness in the PoW function.
2) It is everything about Segwit. Segwit would prevent covert use of it, therefore Bitmain and mr. big child Jihan does everything to secure these profits.

What developers? Hearn, Garzik, Andersen (bank sell out, unknown, CIA sell out)? None of them have made any real contributions in the past few years.

There's nothing wrong with USAF. If the supermajority of the ecosystem want it, then it is happening with or without North Korea Jihan.

That is like saying multiplication is an abuse of addition.   Avoiding needless work is a basic optimization technique.   Also just exactly how can SegWit block AsciBoost?   Maybe you are just repeating random nonsense you'll heard from someone in the Bitcoin core that should know better.     Anyway Bitmain has stated they aren't using AsicBoost and are holding out for 2MB blocks with SegWit.   Which actually sounds like a reasonable compromise at this point.   https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/

As for the rest of you nonsense, it isn't even worth replying too.

The coinbase transaction in a SW block contains the hash of all the transactions in a block, forcing a miner employing ASICBOOST to spend more resources on calculations so that the advantage to employing ASICBOOST is removed.


But Greg said that he has proof that a miner has implemented ASICBOOST, and that this is why they are not signaling for SegWit.

Since Greg Maxwell is the posterchild for integrity, and has never tried to mislead anyone in his life, it is safe to take his word for it without any evidence. /s

The problem with increasing the max block size at all is that doing so will create a precedent that the max block size will be increased once it needs to be increased (aka when blocks become full). However in order for LN and other settlement layers to be economically viable, tx fees need to be very expensive (prohibitively so), and if one option is to increase the max block size, then tx fees will never be prohibitively expensive. 

False equivalency fallacy; as expected by the likes of you. An exploit is an exploit; that is an undeniable fact.

It does not block it entirely. It blocks the covert usage of it. Segwit changes the block header in a specific way, which prevents the covert usage of Asicboost. In fact, Asicboost as is implemented in current Bitmain devices is incompatible with a lot of potential upgrades (which change the block header).

He's certainly more trustworthy than the likes of Ver, Jihan, Peter R and the other charlatans.

Both Roger Ver and Jihan Wu stand to each lose tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars if Bitcoin is harmed over the long run.  Greg Maxwell on the other hand stands to profit handsomely if Bitcoin becomes a settlement layer, regardless of the damage done to Bitcoin as a result of this. The financial incentives of Ver and Wu are clearly aligned with that of Bitcoin while those of Maxwell are not.

Greg Maxwell also has a fairly long history of dishonesty, deception and the use of sockpuppets to further his agenda. He was even caught vandalizing wikipedia pages maliciously in 2006 by his peers, and once he was temporarily banned for this, he used sockpuppets to do the same.

50mbit/sec= 6.25mbyte/s = 375mbyte/min = 2gb/6min

6 minutes of uploading a video or any content of any kind(thats2gb+) and your blocked the rest of the day??
time for you to change your ISP

Prove it.

You are clearly very uninformed as to who is pulling the strings in this game. The incentives are everything but aligned with Bitcoin.

I guess if you've ever been something 'imperfect' in your life, you are too remain so. I feel sorry for all the evil CEOs who were mischievous children. ::)

to correct quickseller and to get around lauda's word twisting mantra:
Greg Maxwell on the other hand stands to clear the $70m+ VC DEBT easily if Bitcoin becomes a settlement layer, regardless of the damage done to Bitcoin as a result of this.

Blockstream, of which Maxwell is an officer of, stands to profit from Bitcoin becoming a settlement layer. Settlement layer solutions are literally Blockstream's only products.

Why don't you enlighten me?

However, the sums I quoted were each of their likely current Btcoin holdings, of which would be very difficult to liquidate, even at fire sale prices. In order for either of them to realize the value of their bitcoin holdings, Bitcon's adoption needs to increase substantially.
 
He acted this way a decade ago, he behaved this way in Bitcoin's early days, he behaved this way 4 years ago, and there is evidence to support that he is still engaging in these behaviors today.

Do you have any proof to back up that claim?

From what I understand, the only products blockstream currently has are blockchain tech for banks, such as "confidential assets" and the work they did on IBM and Intel's "hyperledger".

They did not develop any lightning implementation, nor did they state they planned to run a lightning hub, and it doesn't make much sense for them to run one as the best businesses to run LN hubs are companies like coinbase and bitpay who already have a large base of users and merchants and are already doing offchain payments.

That is no proof of any kind. You've just made a more definitive statement which comes to clarify the previous one.

Let's start with some basics. How exactly does communist China operate? Once you follow that trail, you will possibly reach a fine amount of evidence.

There is no proof that either one of them have major Bitcoin holdings.

Source for the latter 3?

??
rusty russell of blockstream employment
https://blockstream.com/team/rusty-russell/

is not making lightning network software??

https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/graphs/contributors

Ah. I didn't know that, I'd never heard of that implementation. Seems like eclipse is the go-to one right now.

if blockstream as a DNS seed maintainer set themselves up as just a 'spoke' 'routed hop' between hubs can make 1penny from 7million users a day each

they can repay their $70million VC DEBT in 3 years. especially seeing as how blockstream are VC partnered with coinbase and bitpay anyway
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
-bitpay
-blockstream
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c
-coinbase

so DCG get the blockstream debt paid and it also helps DCG get repaid by coinbase and bitpay. all due to the corporate partnership

Can they do that using the DNS seed?

In any case few people deny that LN is the answer to instant microtransactions. Even Roger Ver is happy to implement it in BU, as one thing he really hates is the inability to accept unconfirmed txes safely and has stated he will implement LN to address this kind of problem. We still need onchain capacity though of course, but not at the expense of decentralization. Listening node count is down from 60,000 at it's height to 6,000, I can only see that getting worse with a constantly increasing blocksizelimit.

Blockstream is officially testing (https://blockstream.com/2016/10/05/blockstream-lightning-first-strike.html) Lighting on the testnet. They also consider (https://blockstream.com/2016/10/18/outcomes-from-lightning-protocol-summit-milan.html) themselves to be a "implementers" of Lighting protocol system(s).

The first product of Blockstream is licquid (https://blockstream.com/2015/11/02/liquid-recap-and-faq.html), which acts as a 2nd layer above Bitcoin. They have developed (https://blockstream.com/2017/01/16/strong-federations-paper-released-liquid.html) Strong Federations, which supplement Liquid.

Blockstream's sidechains (https://blockstream.com/2015/06/08/714.html) also act as a 2nd layer.

I suspect that they will implement confidential assets (https://blockstream.com/2017/04/03/blockstream-releases-elements-confidential-assets.html) into either LN or another 2nd layer solution. This is likely where the big money is as Banks spend a lot of money on back office work in settling trades, and have tried unsuccessfully in trying to streamline these processes with blockchain technology.

Further, LN (along with SW) will have so much technical debt, that consultants will likely be needed in order to properly setup LN nodes, and create LN compatible wallets, and the supply of qualified people who can advise companies on how to implement LN will be in short supply, however many of them will work for Blockstream, allowing them to sell their services at high rates -- they will essentially make Bitcoin and LN so complicated so that few people understand how it works.

Conspiracy theory much?

I take it that you have never written or even worked on any miner either hardware or software.   Hashing all the transactions in a block is child's play and has nothing to do with finding the block.   

As for the president that is also nonsense.   2 years ago when I was very active the Bitcoin network you would have had a point.   We are about a year past that now.   SegWit would work just as well with a 2 MB max block size as with a 1 MB block size.   There is a lot more politics than common sense being used here.

The effects of a UASF without miner majority might not be the utopia some people think it might be.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/63pzmx/any_uasf_without_miner_majority_is_a_contentious/

UASF allows any resulting hard fork bilateral split to be blamed on the users for activating it without miner majority.

You are showing you are an intellectual giant! ::) Optimization is not the same as an exploit.  

So?  You actually have nothing ...


It would appear he is more trustworthy than Landa too ... at least he appears to be doing his own thinking.

You really are trying to make something out of nothing or you are just being a parrot.   Why don't you take some time and actually write a crypto miner and learn what you are talking about.   I've actually written two different miners.   The first one was for Proto Share mining and I used it for months.   The second one is for cryptonight and I'm currently using it.   Both of these were vastly more optimized than the ASICBOOST you are complaining about.  (Otherwise there really isn't any point to writing your own miner.)   Not doing more work than is necessary is just good optimization.  

If you really had a valid complaint that made sense, it would be focusing on the patent, not the technique.   That is where there is a possible valid argument.  

OK, how come the testnet Lightning software looks pretty easy to use already? I've seen nothing more than a couple of screenshots on this forum, and I could figure out how it worked just from that, without even using it.


So, remind us why highly qualified and expensive IT consultants will be needed to run Lightning nodes for businesses, when I can figure it out from a coupe of screenshots? On an early version of the software?

The Lightning network is actually my primary concern, not SegWit itself.    Personally, I don't care if it is done with a soft fork or a hard fork, but increasing the block size limit only provides more options.   We aren't talking anything crazy like 1 GB, 2 MB isn't that large any more.   Forcing the Lightning network without any fallback isn't rational engineering.   It might be great politics though.

But where's the force though?

On-chain capacity can be improved with efficiency increases. The vaunted improvements to tx encoding would give us 20-30% more blockspace, so the 2.1 MB Segwit would become more like the equivalent of 2.5 MB, but still only actually using 2.1 MB. Schnorr signatures would give us a similar amount of extra space in the witness blocks.


So when the Bitcoin devs have solid proposals to:

• Increase on-chain capacity directly from 1MB to 2.1MB
• Increase transaction block efficiency to the equivalent of 2.6MB using the encoding we use now (which would be only 1.05 MB)
• Increase witness block efficiency to the equivalent of 3.75MB using the encoding we use now (which would be only 3 MB)

Now, what's wrong with compressing an aggregated additional 1.25MB of transactions into the 4MB Segwit permits? Getting 5.25MB worth of transactions, while still only using 4MB total?


And why would you say "that's forcing everyone off-chain". On-chain is important, but so is the blocksize. If we can improve the efficiency of on-chain and keep the blocksize the same, adding more blocksize becomes even more effective, the gain ratio is the same improvement every extra MB in blockszie that gets added.

And what's wrong with doing those efficiency improvements before the blocksize is hiked? We already know the arguments against hiking the blocksize right now, what are the arguments against improving the amount of space each transaction uses to achieve more on-chain capacity? I've never heard someone even try to make an argument against the idea.


And again, the Bitcion devs cannot be construed as "forcing people off chain" when you consider that space-efficiency improvements are available and realistic, or when you concede that the blocksize is getting upped by Segwit. This "forcing" description makes zero sense, the devs are just being cautious and diligent, that's all.

Yet a another set of numbers being thrown around.   Seriously why isn't there any consistency when people talk about SegWit?

As for compression goes, it can possible be a boon.   It can also bite hard when it doesn't work correctly, I lost a disk full of data once because of that.   I'm not against it but it does hurt to have options.

Now I haven't studied the SegWit code, and apparently that is what one would have to do to fully understand it.   I did read various descriptions, even 2 different ones from Bitcoin core devs.   Granted they may have been talking about different versions of the code but it really sounds like no one is on the same page here.   To me as a software developer that is really scary.   At a minimum it throws up a flag warning that something pretty complex is going on.

As for what is wrong with changing the block size later, nothing technically.  There also wouldn't be any harm in comprising and hiking the block size limit up front.   The hard fork scare tactics are just that.   I'm not aware of any coin that has died because of a hard fork.    What is wrong is all the politics.   It creates an environment where no one can be trusted.

ASICBOOST is a serious problem and everyone even from big block camp must accept that bitcoin community something need to do
BU was not a movement to increase blocksize but to stall bitcoin from miners as he say and a former BU developer

https://medium.com/@heyrhett/why-im-leaving-bitcoin-unlimited-becbc5a149d9

AsicBoost is an exploit per definition.

I have just explained to you in a rather simplistic way, why covert Asicboost won't work with Segwit. Instead of actually learning something, you're shrugging it off as "nothing". Either you're very dumb, or you're on a nice payroll. ::)

The rest of your post is worthless.

This is made up fear mongering from BTU fanatics and shills. They keep making these strong statements, yet have no real evidence nor arguments to back them up. You've pretty much destroyed their statements with this response.

Er, the numbers for Segwit I gave are no different to any other numbers provided by anyone else. 1MB tx block, 3MB witness/signature block.

Sure, the estimates for how much today's 1mB blocks trnnaltes to that have change (1.75 MB at first, now 2.1 MB). That's because they're estimates. Estimates based on how people are using the blockchain at a given moment in time (i.e. the balance between tx data and signature data). What do you want, for the whole of Bitcoin to keep using it excatly the same every day, so you can have an estimate that never changes, even though that estimate is  based on changes in use? ???



Not data compression, that's not what I mean. I used the "compression" expression to simplify the explanantion, but I guess I'll have to explain seeing as you've come to the wrong conclusion.

Data compression on computer disk or media files (mp3, DivX etc) just looks for patterns in data, and then keeps 1 copy of the pattern instead of every copy. Then a map of where the copies occur must be made to re-assemble the original data. If the map gets damaged, there goes your data, as there's no way to re-assemble without the map. That's what happened to your hard drive, the map got corrupted.

All I mean when I'm talking about compressing transactions is encoding the exact same information in less space, but without depending on a map charting the repetitions in the data. When the shrinking of the data doesn't need a map, the risk you're referring to is no longer an issue.


If you are able to read code, you should read it. There's no room for misunderstanding if you can just read what it does, the code doesn't have differences in interpretation like humans can have when describing something. As a software developer, you can easily put your misunderstanding to rest by just reading and thinking through the code.

And sure, Segwit adds some complexity. But not really that much more, if you can understand how Bitcoin already works, Segwit is easy to understand. It's often said (by detractors) that Segwit changes millions of LoC (lines of code), but that's a bit of a trick. Segwit adds alot of LoC: but not to existing Bitcoin code. Segwit is more testing code than it is any changes to the main codebase, and as a software developer, I'm sure you understand why more testing code is diligent.

Really sweet, you don't like something so you define it as an exploit.   There isn't any exploit in doing work more efficiently.   There might be an issue with preventing others form doing the same, but that is a legal exploit.

An exploit would be creating fake coins, double spending, stealing from someone's wallet ... those types of things.   

There are two types of compression, lossy compression and non-lossy compression. Lossy compression is tended to be used on sound and video files, it reduces the size of the file, but it also reduces quality. In many cases people do not notice the loss of quality. Hard drive compression is non-lossy, that is you will get the same file back when it is uncompressed (e.g. zip file). If wck  lost data due to disk compression, then it is due to the file or hard drive getting corrupt.
There are some compression techniques that are intensive to compress, but unintensive to uncompress. This type of compression would be good in a crypto propagation system, since nodes could store and pass on the compressed data and validate it rather quickly. The downside is that the miner takes time to compress it (and runs the risk of being orphaned in a block creation race).
Then of course there is more efficient transaction encoding. This is not actually compression.

Actually I was just starting to look at the code.  It isn't a minor change.   That doesn't mean it is bad.   Yes your use of the term compression was confusing.

I actually know a great deal about testing.   A lot of bugs I've worked on turned out to be bugs in the testing code.    It is extremely difficult to do good testing.

SegWit will actually be tested though by LTC.   It is also gaining in adoption probably because of LTC.   Still at only 30% of the blocks signalling SegWit, it has a long ways to go.  

Reading through the BIPs it is pretty clear that the Bitcoin core has become extremely political.   I'm actually happy I choose to work on other miners.  

However that wasn't by choice, I was simply too late to Bitcoin as I didn't start playing around with crypto-currencies until 2012.   Initially I was more into trading and trading bots.   That is why I wrote a PTS miner because I was selling the Proto shares to get BTC.  I didn't like the miners that existed and I wanted to do some AVX assembly.  By 2012 one couldn't profitably mine bitcoin on a computer but some altcoins were very profitable.   At one point I had worked myself up to 60 BTC, but then I got dumb and was scammed by a several cloud mining sites.  Still going after one of the scammers with a class action lawsuit.   One already refunded and a third is hiding in South America from what I can tell.   After that I put stopped playing with crypto-currency for over a year, but was pulled back by the lawsuit.   So I have a lot of general distrust this point for pretty much all the Bitcoin players.   Of coarse altcoins are filled with scammers too.   Actually I've been scammed 5 different times, 2 in bitcoin and 3 in altcoins.    I can't tell you how many scams I successfully avoided though.   So you have to excuse the lack of trust.

So getting back to UASF ... it just seems to be another way to try to force SegWit.   I don't see that it is necessary.   SegWit will stand or fall on its own.

Which fits perfectly for AsicBoost. This is unintended behavior which is being exploited by Jihan for personal gain. Living in denial won't help your payroll.

Yes that's a helpful distinction to make. I am aware of these differences (lossy and lossless alike, you could argue that lossy should make use of a different expression to compression, as the actual concept of compression, i.e. with air or a liquid, involves no loss, these are imperfect metaphors and not really properly defined technical terms).

And because computer nomenclature frequently borrows physical concepts to use as metaphors, your assertion "this is not actually compression" isn't as absolute as you suggest. It actually is compression, just not in commonly accepted technical jargon, in the English language. For all you and I know (I don't speak foreign languages or know their computing jargon so well, do you?), the way that file compression and efficient data encoding is described in one language or another may well use the same word for encoding as is used for improved encoding efficiency. I used the expression "compression" just to make sure as many people as possible reading would understand.

While I'm going to exploit your by simply ignoring you.  That is definitely use this forum to my own advantage.   :D

Silly core sheep do not have any data showing asic boost has been used at any point.
Statistics show that bitmain pools are performing within 1% of other pools. And their empty blocks mined are in line with every other pool also.
Find a new imagined make believe reason.

lol you do know the S9 and asic boost were created before segwit right..

so did they make a time machine?

in the end you will ask everyone to apologised to Jihan.... :P I see where this goes :D

It is amazing how little critical thinking is going on in this forum and with what is going on with Bitcoin.  From what I've seen there is little doubt that SegWit will happen at some point.   UASF isn't necessary for that to happen.  

"Miner Mafia"?  please.

Bitcoin was always a miner vote system, if you read and understand
Satoshi's whitepaper, but somehow the miners
(70% of them) not signaling for Core's roadmap
is a now a mafia. right...

Bitmain would support Segwit WITH a HF block increase,
but Core will not compromise.  They would rather
not have segwit than increase the blocksize.
They are the obstructionists.

*omg*

I completely agree with your post.   After being outside of bitcoin for a while, I'm kind of shocked by the attitudes that now exist. 

https://twitter.com/LaurentMT/status/851173367759728641

bitcoin is not a miners world but a consensus system. Get use this.

If you want to be a part of the foundation of bitcoin and have a vote. Get off of your cheap ass and buy some miners.

Yes it is a consensus system, and it is true that users can vote with their dollars and not invest/use a coin
they don't like...

But that being said, how else do you think new consensus rules can be agreed on fairly?  

jonald_fyookball

miners AND nodes have a symbiotic relationship. in satoshi's day it was [siamese twins joined at the hip]. mining and being the node were the same single joined entity.
now its separate[un conjoined twins] it doesnt mean only miners[one twin] get the vote or only nodes get the vote[one twin].. they both[as siblings] have equal power and should learn to share the power not fight for it.

blockstream INTENTIONALLY ignored nodes[twin A] and gave pools[twin B] the vote. but now that [twin B] is refusing to eat what daddy blockstream wants to feed them. blockstream is the one having the angry tantrum blaming the [twin B] pools.
even as much as to now have daddy blockstream tell twinA to beat up and kneecap twinB

blockstream should have prepared a proper healthy [food] solution that both nodes and pools [both twins] can happily accept. or if not happy blockstream should not try forcing it down their throats, but go back to the kitchen and prepare a different healthier meal

I agree with you. But do you not think it is possible for the miners to collude and conspire behind the scenes to get what they want? Tin foil hat on. But I believe there is an argument that the developers of BU are supported and controlled by the Chinese miners.


A block size increase is inevitable in my opinion. Why not be patient and support Segwit now and get a block size increase later?

to save repeating myself segwit is not the 'solution' its the bait for future debate to push an agenda.

Collude and conspire how exactly? Sure its possible, but you'd have to be more specific in the scenario you think they will do.  I think dynamic blocks (flexcap, etc) are even better than emergent consensus, as it would take it out of human hands completely.




I think segwit is far from perfect, although it does have some unique benefits such as UTXO growth reduction.
I think other proposals are better.

But to answer your question as to why I don't support Segwit now and 'get' an increase later, well, I think
it would be more accurate to say 'hope to get'.

It comes down to not trusting the core development team.   They are openly saying 'blocks aren't full',
and then out of the other side of their mouth saying 'full blocks are good, high fees are good'.  They've
done their best to stall for years, spun up a false narrative about hard forks, broke the hong kong agreement,
censored dissent, and formed a corporation to profit from off-chain solutions.

They've completely, utterly lost my trust, and I do not believe for a second that we would get a satisfactory increase later,
and I believe this is why the miners will not follow their leadership either.

Things have reached the point now where we absolutely place far too much emphasis on trusting what developers might or might not do in the future.  It's the same warped human trait that generally leads to two-party political systems in so called democracies.  It's undeniable now, we have central planning instead of decentralisation and a power struggle over which central planning political party we elect.  We've lost all sight of what was supposed to be a trustless system because you're all so quick to worship or denounce one particular group of personalities or another, as if the decision was theirs to begin with.  I honestly thought we were above that here, but evidently that isn't the case.

Stop begging for an overlord and an antichrist to fight to the death and make your decisions for you.  Shame on you all. 

Your argument is hypocritical seeing how core is being supported by the people that own patents for off chain tech and will syphon a shit ton of money from miners.

UASF nodes has passed 300. I think everyone support the movement against a corrupt miners that want to control bitcoin ecosystem even from big block camp.
Jihan maybe is him that will unite bitcoin community again.

http://uasf.saltylemon.org/uasf_nodes_all.png

how so?

By going soft fork and not hard fork. That's the speech that was written for franky and he recites it in every second thread.

Bitcoin would be @moon already had it not been for Jihan.

now Jihan try to block segwit to litecoin but the response from Litecoin devs was very fast.
They choose to UASF litecoin at 1 June with official release.
I think is time to everyone put aside our difference with big-small blocks.
Jihan is a big threat to bitcoin ecosystem and there is a serious reason for everyone in bitcoin community to unite against him to defeat him.

UAcomment seems like a great idea. I understand that people may not be comfortable running code that is not Core approved, so with UAcomment we are able to fight this war too while still using Core software, am I correct?


1 cpu = 1 vote

not

1 miner monopoly = 1 vote

Simply setting a uacomment doesn't really do anything. It won't make your node enforce UASF, it simply shows your support for the proposal, but the problem is node counts can be faked.

But it's better than doing nothing. When we get closer to the activation date you should switch over to the UASF client, which will enforce the new rules. Doing this is very risky, as you could very well end up on a minority chain.


I always took that to mean voting on the order of transactions. Satoshi never had miner activation for any changes, those were all user activated. Miner activated forks didn't exist until 2012. Though none of the changes prior to 2012 were contentious, the community was smaller and everyone supported every change that had been made. Miner voting on economic policy seems like a bad idea, mining is afterall pay-to-vote. It's useful to use it to gauge miner support so that we know how safe a fork is, but if the economic majority supports the change and the miners don't, then we may have to take some risk.

All of satoshis changes were done by "proof of satoshi" not USAF/UASF.

Since Bitcoin was ~worthless when the changes were implemented, no one had any reason not to oblige. Also satoshi has significant amounts of mining hardware (when compared to the total network), so he would probably mine the chain with the most work anyway.

:D :D :D :)

I agree with you to some extent. However to quote Satoshi:


This is a user activated flag day fork. There is no miner signalling.



I don't think thats the case, maybe in the very first few months of Bitcoin, but I don't think that he controlled large amounts of mining hardware in the later part of 2010, in around June 2010 people began writing their own GPU miners. One person controlled 30% of the hash rate with 3 GPU's. When this revelation that people had GPU miners later became more publicly known it seemed to shock satoshi:



Also satoshi never publicly stated when he did forks. He always hid the change in with some other commit and never told anyone or documented it until after activation. This was likely to avoid any kind of debate.

That's the thing. Miners carry the majority of the risk. Which is why we are the ones to decide.
If people are tired of the "centralized china mining". The solution is quite simple. The so called "economic majority" can take part in the high risk and buy some miners. Problem solved.

You won't be able to compete with the chinese miners in the long term unless you have free electricity or you buy your electricity directly from a nuclear power plant like they do, which is illegal in most countries including China, you must buy it from the national grid at increased cost.

Additionally you must buy your hardware from a manufacturer. The Bitcoin ASIC manufacturing industry is become more and more monopolized, just look at how many manufacturers have been put out of business. It requires tens of millions of dollars investment to get access to 16nm tech. To make it even worse, patented mining "optimizations" like ASICBoost are just around the corner. If the Bitcoin ASIC manufacturing industry becomes monopolized, the manufacturer may decide to stop selling mining equipment to the public and mine themselves, or just sell it at exorbitant prices to prevent people from competing with them effectively.

I suppose you could spend the $1 million is costs to design an ASIC, spend the millions it costs to get access to a foundry, bribe the foundry to produce ASIC's with patented tech, bribe officials to get access to nuclear power and pray the patent owner doesn't sue you for millions. Then you could stand a chance at competing. You would have to become a criminal to compete.

I am a miner and I make money. There are places that host miners for you.
And it is impossible for the china miners to out number the entire bitcoin community.
If each person that owned a bitcoin wallet owned a miner. Chinese miners would be out numbered.

Currently there are three asic manufacturers. Two sell to the public and one does not.

Right and one owns ASICBoost, a patented tech. They may refuse to let the other 2 use it. Their equipment will be inferior and those manufacturers will go bankrupt. This gives the remaining manufacturer a monopoly of the mining hardware industry. They have no competition so can sell their miners at whatever price they like and people who want them will have to pay it as there is no alternative or they may decide it's more profitable not to sell it at all, and they can mine on their own with their superior mining hardware which existing hardware can't compete with. It would be like a GPU trying to compete with an ASIC.

For starters there isn't any proof that asicboost actually works. People patent things all the time that will never work  Secondly bitmain only owns a patent in china. Thirdly nothing is stopping another asic manufacturer from coming out with a smaller better efficient chip.
But then all we would hear about is people complaining about the new monopoly.

It's real. People are using ASICBoost right now with their antminers on antpool. All that has to be done to turn it on is change "multi-version: 1" to "multi-version: 2" in the config, and point your miner to antpool which has an ASICBoost enabled stratum server and it starts doing covert ASICBoost. One person has been doing this for 9 months.

According to bitmain, 16nm is the best we will have for a long time due to moore's law. This seems to be true as this is on-par with chips produced by top tier microprocessor manufacturers such as Intel. We've been stuck with 12-16nm for a while now (EDIT: intels smallest chip is currently 14nm). Companies like intel are increasing the number of cores and adding additional tech in like co-processors such as the AES instruction set to speed up encryption. They haven't made significantly more efficient chips in a while.

There are only a handful of foundries in the world, most of which are in China. ASICBoost is also patented in the US by someone else.

People are not using asicboost on antpool. You have fallen into the propaganda trap laid out by core.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/dfy5o65/

You can test that antpool supports ASICBoost yourself without an antminer by reading that post and following the instructions, or you can check the code here:
https://github.com/bitmaintech/bmminer/blob/b7cddda740378ed94ee9425f63c269ac0322a131/util.c#L2495

If you have an antminer, follow that post and turn ASICBoost on yourself.

That guy made a post 9 months ago stating he got ASICBoost working on antpool:
https://archive.fo/Ok3SJ

I really wish people that throw accusations around would do the math themselves to find out the truth. Before they start spreading false information around.
The only real smoking gun is empty blocks. Now core sheep often say antpool mines a lot of empty blocks. But they never provide any data on the subject.
Antpool mines around 18% of all empty blocks. Which is right in line seeing how over the past year they have had 18% of the network hash rate. Which also means they mined 18% of all total blocks.
Here is some numbers comparing three different pools controlled by three different entitys.  Taken from 4/06/16 to 4/06/17.


All you have to do is compare each pool found block to hash rate. For example I will show you stats for three pools. One of the pools is Bitfury. It is really hard for me to think that a company that received 90 million from investors is using Bitmain miners. So they shouldn't have any asicboost tech.

Antpool. 18.71% of network. 10,224 blocks found.

Bitfury. 9.00% of network.  4,919 blocks found.

Kano ck pool. 1.89% of network. 1035 blocks found.

As you can see Antpool is 9.89 times bigger than Kano ck pool. Kano pool found 1035 blocks.  9.89x 1035= 10,236. Which is less of a 1% difference when compared to Antpool 10,224.

Now let's check Kano to Bitfury.
Bitfury is 4.76 times bigger than Kano.  4.76x1035=4,926. Pretty close to Bitfury's 4919.

Now let's check Bitfury to Antpool.
Antpool is 2.07 times bigger than Bitfury.  2.07x4919=10,182. which is less than a 1% difference. Close enough.
Antpool performs within 1% of other pools.
This is an obvious attempt of core trying to confuse non miners. So people will continue to voice out against anything but segwit.

No it's not. Empty blocks can mean headfirst mining. It's since been discovered ASICBoost can be done without empty blocks or reordering transactions (though it can be done that way too) by malleating a transaction that pays themselves. This is fully undetectable on the blockchain. The only indication is that blocks will contain txes that were never broadcast on the network prior to the block being found, which antpool does.

The smoking gun is that the firmware that was extracted contains ASICBoost hooks:
http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/irc/bitcoin/bitmain-firmware/

That the stratum server contains code to support ASICBoost and the post above shows how to prove that. Open cmd, telnet into antpools stratum server and check yourself.

That bmminer contains code to enable ASICBoost.

And that people ARE using it right now. They're not wild accusations, I mean there are step-by-step tutorials explaining how to enable it and how to check antpools server supports it. Buy an antminer and turn it on yourself.

We don't have proof if BITMAIN used it, but we know for sure miners on antpool are using it right now this second.

I see now that you are a paid core sheep. Good luck.

Why would a miner who is not bitmain use ASICBOOST on antpool? I don't think it produces more shares, so anypool would pay out the same as if it was not being used, and additional investment would have to be made on the part of the miner.

They are trying to say it is bitmain mining on antpool. What they don't understand is that there is far more money selling miners than mining with them.

Because you need a stratum server that supports ASICBOOST for it to work. Currently only antpool does, but there is rumours slush may add support for it. It doesn't pay out more shares but reduces power consumption.

I'm not saying bitmain is mining on antpool. I have no idea if they are nor have I any idea if they use ASICBoost for their farms. I'm saying normal joe bloggs has figured out how to turn on asicboost and is using it on antpool.

My understanding is that it reduces power consumption on a per block basis, not a per share basis. So any miner doing this would just find more blocks for antpool. A miner that was contributing 10% of antpool' hashrate that was using ASICBOOST would get a net gain of 2% of revenue and the remaining 18% would be split among the remaining 90% of miners on antpool.

And yet when you compare pools. Like i did. Antpool is not finding more blocks per hash.

i'm confused... before i heard there is no pool that allows it... then someone else mentioned that : that would be overt mining, and this is covert asicboost... so does overt vs covert require the pool configuration??  You sound like youre somewhat knowledgeable, ... i still think its all a huge distraction from scaling and bigger blocks, but its interesting, so give us the gangster deets.

https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/

Bitmain admits they have used it on a test network but not for actual mining.    The only issue I see around asicboost is Bitmain holds a patent on it, at least in China.   Other than that, I all for whatever can be done to reduce the amount of work necessary to find a block.   However I'm in the process of writing my third miner and I may decide to build a hardware implementation of it.   These though are for my own use as I really dislike supporting software, that is what I do for a living I don't need to do it for my own personal business.   :P

What a lot of people seem not relies is. Just because something is tested. And just because something is patented. Doesn't mean it will ever work.

That is also a valid point.

It is also undeniable that some central planning is good for the overall development of Bitcoin. The developers propose something then it is for the nodes and the miners to decide which ones they want or what they do not want. It is the centralization of mining or the possibility of miner collusion that is bad. They have gained much leverage on the network that now they have become like an enemy of the Core developers to impose what they want.

No we should go for full anarchist decentralized development. We need to enable anonymous commits so anyone can push code into it without a PR so they don't need permission from a centralized authority for their code to make it into the binaries.

It is true that bitmain has released a statement that they have not used asicboost on actual mining but rather on a test network. But there was one person who said that he is going to attack the core developer and he is doing it by using asicboost. Thus if Jihan has already started using it on the actual mining does it mean that bitmain is lying or Jihan is not connected to bitmain. Which is true, any ideas guys?

Many more options exist for example:
1) You are lying
2) You are crazy
3) Someone else lied or made up crap and you are repeating it.

Seriously ... Asicboost or no asicboost really doesn't make a difference.   It is someone's imagination that asicboost will let Bitmain control the Bitcoin network.    I simple won't happen.  They need a lot more than 20% boost in performance to do that, and that is assuming asicboost actually works.  

In a perfect world where everyone is benevolent and where everyone is looking out for the welfare of everyone else that would be good. But this is far from a perfect world where greed, politics and the need for control is always in the game. Anarchy is an impossible idea. There will always be a group who will take advantage of the sheeple.

It seems that I was mistaken thinking that LTC is going to end up as a test-bed for UASF. BW has just started signalling Segwit over there, which puts it above the necessary 75% (unless Jihad tries to rent out more hashrate in an attempt to stop it).

It seems like you are really frustrated about ASICBoost being outed. I wonder why that is. ::)

Decentralized planning doesn't work. Just use the plane analogy. Do you let you passengers decide the size and type of your engines?

lauda, your showing little to no understanding of bitcoin but high understanding to blockstreams control. i wonder why.

asicboost is no secret. in 2015 it was an efficiency boost. hardware and software was developed.
MONTHS LATER blockstream decided "wait we could implement segwit using the anyonecanspend backdoor exploit" thinking blockstream can have a easy life adding in code without node veto and thinking buying the pools a free lunch gets them segwit by christmas 2016..
so a year after asic hardware is designed. sgwit code is ready for testnet.
but the testnet tests are not thorough enough.
months later segwit gets a public release and starts having a deadline.
so thats a year of coding.. blockstream failed to realise their 2merkle backdoor version wouldnt be compatible with efficient hardware software.
they released the code.. 5 months of having the release blockstream had no clue their backdoor (going soft) would have issues.

then last month gmax hit the wall by realising that all the year and a half of trying to bypass node consensus by going soft would never have worked out right anyway.

so now gmax is having a temper tantrum and blaming pools.

---

please do something before replying to defend blockstream.
clear your mind of blockstream.. relax, take off the defender hat. and wear the logical thinking cap.

---

and imagine this.
its 2011 ATI have this snazzy feature that Geforce doesnt. is called openCL. it gives ATI an advantage.
now imagine 2012 some new bitcoin feature was needed, it was hoped to use some backdoor to implement it to not need full node consensus.
you have done lots of tests using Geforce and ATI non-openCL hardware.
near 2013 you realise your backdoor attempts hit a wall because openCL affects it.
do you
A. tell the world ATI is attacking bitcoin because of openCL
B. be honest and tell the world the node consensus bypass backdoor would never have worked as expected but you only just found the problem
C. do B but then raise your hands and say ok community, lets node consensus a new cleaner recoded version and this time lets include dynamics and other proper fixes.
D. do A and double down threatening ATI and insinuating people should hate ATI with racial rhetoric while you try killing off anyone thats using openCL

Mate, you have almost no idea how Bitcoin works. You have an extremely flawed understanding of it and the underlying technology. You keep repeating the same twisted story in every thread, even where it has no relevance.

It is an exploit.

Anyonecanspend doesn't actually mean that 'anyone can spend'. It is not an exploit. Looks like your employer is mad that your results are weak. ::)

Covert exploit hardware*.

---

You are defending everything that is on the wrong side of the spectrum (BU, AsicBoost exploit, Jihad Wu, et. al). Yet you claim to be neutral and caring about decentralization. ::)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9NHP-hXoAAh0Z-.jpg
https://twitter.com/prasosltd/status/852104011767566336

The community and the economy is rallying up for UASF. Your employer is going to be so pissed. :D

lol
you have no clue.

next you will be telling me that the chinese do infact have a time machine went back and made hardware purely to attack software.

wake up to logic.
hardware came first,
new software came second
new software is not getting the appreciation
new software not active
new software has a flaw

you cant blame old hardware

TL:DR
how can summer 2015 hardware be exploiting autumn 2016 released software

---

secondly blockstream admit the going soft anyone canspend route was a backdoor to avoid node consensus

thirdly
actually you will find it is an anyonecanspend. which is why if segwit activates they have to PREVENT old nodes seeing unconfirmed segwit tx's and also prevent old nodes from mining blocks ontop of segwit,
and why the segwit keypair wallet is not active in any of the 0.13.X 0.14.x
and why even when segwit is activated the segwit keypair wallet wont be available instantly because they need to ensure the old nods are cut off from manipulating unconfirmed tx's by ensuring the network is tiered with segwit at the top.

atleast try to learn the finer details and stop just pushing the utopian 30 second sales pitch

Thank you!   I had no idea where the absurdity was coming from.   

But at the same time, do you only allow one single entity to design all planes?  If another entity designs a plane, does that constitute a hostile takeover or a power grab in the aerospace industry?  Surely it's healthier if multiple entities come up with their own designs and then passengers decide which plane they want to board based on their own preference.

As a community, we still can't manage to square the circle that while we think open source software and users having a choice over which implementation they choose to run are good things, at the same time, anyone running or supporting a different implementation isn't a good thing?  It's completely contradictory.

We've clearly moved past the stage of "I think plane A has a superior technical design to plane B" and have now arrived at the "we're going to make everyone use plane A by threatening to change aviation rules to put Plane B out of business" stage, so I can't help but wonder if we still respect market freedom if we're willing to go to such lengths to enforce the status quo.  I'd like to see SegWit activated, but I'd rather it wasn't at the expense of healthy competition.  Moving the goalposts to obtain your goal is almost always considered poor form.

There is no 'one single entity' in Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not ETH, therefore does not have a supreme high king. Bitcoin Core is not an entity, it's an open source software project. If you are indirectly talking about BU in this analogy, then by following it we can conclude that the plane crashed already once and all the passengers are dead (the massive exploit that crashed all the nodes, for those that don't remember or are trying to shove it under a rug).

We have moved past that long ago considering that Segwit is clearly superior to EC, which is a radical and dangerous change. That said, the market is doing what the market wants. This is clearly visible by the super majority support by the users, nodes and economy (see all the signed statements either wanting to list BU as an altcoin (BTU) or in support of UASF). A vocal minority or a mining cartel is not to be in decision of what Bitcoin is or is not.

lauda the activation of segwit itself is meaningless..
if segwit is so 'compatible' then why even need deadlines, threats. bribes ans blackmails.. they could just turn it on right now, right.. because 'its fully compatible' -as they say

but segwit activation does not give the bitcoin network any positives..

what it does do. is for the people who have a segwit node (under100%) who THEN...
wait around for weeks.. and then later download yet another spoon fed implementation just to get the real segwit wallet functionality
and then. of those that download they future release voluntarily move funds to segwit keypairs WEEKS - MONTHS after activation(even lower amount of people).. disarm themselves from performing quadratics, malleation, etc.

but this is where your not comprehending BITCOIN as a whole network.

- does it eradicate malleability (emphasis: for the network).. no
- does it eradicate quadratics (emphasis: for the network).. no, infact it makes things worse (4ktxsigop becomes 16ktxsigops)
- does it ensure all full nodes are full nodes (emphasis: for the network).. no, infact it makes things worse

you live in the dream world of an only blockstream/DCG existance, you can only see the world from the point of view where only blockstream/DCG software is rnning

forget about defending blockstream/DCG,
when you come to this forum.. try real hard to look in the mirror and ask yourself what hat your wearing.. and if the answer is the blockstream/DCG defense cap.. then dont reply to any posts.

stop defending them as kings of the utopian castle. and realise that bitcoin is beyond your kings.

anyway.
back to the question at hand.
would you blame and call ATI an attacker for using openCL if a year after GPU mining started gmax found an issue in gmaxes code that caused gmaxes code to not be as 'compatible' and as he promised

try to learn about bitcoin. because you have subtly omitted you have wasted the last year not learning. but do try to learn about bitcoin beyond a 2 paragraph blockstream/DCG script. and then reply using the cap of bitcoin network understanding

you do realise bitcoin will and should be around for centuries but blockstream/DCG wont be. so vesting your entire mindset around defending blockstream/DCG is a temporary thing that wont last and you will regret it later once their experiment is over and they have moved on to hyperledger

i would rather see a split network than one that buckled to UASF.  At least then I'd own both coins and we could see what the market really wants over time.
If segwit is forced, i'll still hold some bitcoin but i'll slowly sell it off for ethers or whatever is the main competitor.

You are comparing apples with pears. The two solutions don't have to be mutually exclusive, and could be used complimentary. What is the best technical method of implementing these solutions?

I don't think we will get a bilateral split. The economic actors and mining actors will come to a consensus rather quickly. If Segwit as failed both a MASF and UASF, then it's time to call it deadwit and not waste any more time on it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1865966.20

UASF is the market deciding that it wants to upgrade.

If BU is forced, you are all settled. If Segwit is forced, you are preaching doomsday. I wonder why the implanted bias exists. ::)

No. I'm comparing healthy apples to rotten ones. You need a soft fork + hard fork or a hard fork that incorporates both at the same time. This is the project that you're looking for: https://bitcoinec.info/

Do you not think segwit could be a better implementation as a hard fork? Perhaps it could even learn some lessons from classic's flextrans features. And BU's implementation of EC could be considered over complicated, and a better KISS solution could be used.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1864477.msg18541674#msg18541674

What's it like to spend all of your time with some imaginary grudge against "Core" - do you even know what core is?

this is almost perfect. almost...
its needs to revert all of segwit's "blockweight" aspects, and let EC determine the blocksize exclusively.
however their reasoning for letting segwit in AS IS, is a pretty Fing good reason...
I like this project.

I spend far too much time on this forum.

I can assure you my grudge is real.

Yes.

poeple think EC is complicated, because the crazy scenarios in which EC could be leveraged to attack the network, are complicated as hell.
EC is itself is quite simple...

core is 2 things.

1) master of bitcoin
2) slave of blockstream

 :D

Jonald: "We the market, should choose BU"

We the Market: "Uhhhh, no, let's use the same power of choice to user activate Segwit instead"

Jonald: "Bu... bu... bu.... bu.... bu..... but that's buckling! Your choice is called buckling, when I want you to choose something, it's called choosing"


Take the hint Jonald, fuck off

UASF is just any random node throwing a comment into the useragent but still waiting for weeks after 'activation' to actually get an implementation that does anything more than the tier network.

where as using the implementations that have dynamics actually start allowing blocks over1mb to be built without needing to be spoonfed yet another release download.
where everyone thats part of the network are all on the same level playing field of a peer network, not tier network

(understand the difference between peer and tier)
 learn the consequences of the tier network, the dilution of full nodes that are not equally syncable to each other, where the downstream cesspit of prunned, stripped, nodes that cant sync and become RELIANT on upstream nodes.
think about it (using the bitcoin network hat, not the blockstream defender hat)

peer networks is where people dont need to move funds to new keypairs and everyone can benefit from real extra space even using native keys and everyone is equal full node.

Franky,  I wonder if you're worrying about the wrong thing.  Either segwit is going to be used fully
by the network or its not.

I'm much more interested about tier network implications for the LN and how we can
create decentralized routing.

sgwit is not a yes or no. the activation is meaningless in relation to the "fixes"
the activation just changes who's ontop as a seeder(upstream filter) and who's a leacher(downstream cesspit, not full node) while actually opening up more attack vectors.

the end user 'benefit' / functionality gesture of segwit is about the keypair utility, but even this does not 'fix' things at a whole network level. it only affects those who voluntarily disarm themselves
if you think that the 46m outputs of native keys will all happily be segwit outputs magically without causing issues .. then please run some scenarios

segwit is not really about LN. (its just 'sold' as needed as one of many last ditch plea's to get their way)
anyone at any time can set up a multisig and then have many ways to communicate to another person to agree on who owes who what

ive been doing it for a couple years. even escrows have been doing it for a couple years.

my fear of LN is more about who controls the DNS seed as i can see a few attack vectors/control issues with it.
my fear of LN is more about who controls hubs and how blackmail and CSV(real world chargeback) as i can see a few attack vectors/control issues with it.

yes LN has a place in the bitcoin eco system as a voluntary side service for the niche users that need it (day traders/gamblers/faucets) but should not be treated as the end goal of bitcoin solutions because even LN has limits

What makes you think there's only one 'DNS seed'.  Anyone can theoretically create a routing system and there could easily be many ways to route.

A HF doesn't make Segwit more than trivially simpler than it already is. EC is actually the bigger problem when it comes to KISS. Flextrans is garbage FYI, just an attempted copycat of Segwit which was riddled with tons of bugs.

Wrong. You don't even understand it, yet you are attempting to spread "knowledge" to others. ::)

Stop subversively promoting BU. If you care about decentralization, you'd be running away from BU not towards it.

Relevance to Segwit? None. Relevance to UASF? None. #Tactics.

how many people actually know what the ins and outs of a uasf would look like? there seems to be a tendency to jump on new ideas without knowing enough. has it actually been pored over properly?

dont get your panties in a wad, Lauda... its not like every thread stays perfectly on topic 100% of the time now does it  :D

You should be happy I told Franky not to worry about tier networks if segwit is activated.  Don't worry, be happy.

lol i know your cencentration span is only 2 paragraphs. but please try reading more.

here.. even from the docs of your overlord
http://www.uasf.co/

translation. instead of waiting for nodes to upgrade, they just need to signal desire (hence: UASF is just any random node throwing a comment)

again. its about just signalling by any random implementation throwing a comment.

the real end user ability to actually move funds to segwit keys and disarm themselves will come later. weeks/month after 'activation'
https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_wallet_dev/
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/




by thinking its just core vs BU. shows your lack of understanding of BITCOIN NETWORK

things you dont realise.
many people have a bitcoin-core node but have set the consensus.h much higher than 1mb. they just dont advertise it to avoid DDoS by your clan
many people running bitcoin-core are not actually advocating for segwit.

One thing is for sure.  If some miners activate segwit and don't have 51% of the hashpower, it will cause a network split (unless they give up , orphan their blocks, and rejoin the main chain)

What!?!  I just looked at the blockstream site.  Most or all of the "core" devs seemed to be employed by blockstream.   Wow!   Huge blatant conflict of interest.   I'm even more out of touch than I realized.   I didn't realize that Bitcoin was being hijacked.    

look deeper down the rabbit hole about the new drama of segwit getting into litecoin
names to look out for
charlie lee - litecoin master.. employed by coinbase
bobby lee BTCC pool (charlies brother)

now check out
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
blockstream
BTCC
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c
coinbase

even another drama event of bcoin made by purse..
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#p
purse

all the segwit news buzz
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c
coindesk

the 'economic majority in favour of segwit'
http://dcg.co/portfolio they are all under the dcg VC list.

yep blockstream are IN DEBT to a tune of $70m+ and they are really needing segwit to be pushed to get controlling interest in bitcoin so that the debts can be repaid via trading and LN hub fee's (how else do you think blockstream will relay the "loan")

then ask yourself with segwits release in october. BTCC was first to jump on the band wagon without even giving themselves a couple weeks to even review the code. they jumped in full on instantly. and are now pushing the same for litecoin.

and let us not forget the unpaid spell check interns hoping to kiss ass by being blockstream loyal, for the dream of getting a blockstream job.. funny part is they think its a $70m pocket of money ready to hand out. reality is blockstream are in DEBT to a tune of $70m if they cant get control

and lastly.
if you think that novembr 2017 would be a give up and try somhing different and accept no mean no if not activated by then. pfft.
blockstream will just ignore the pool/user abstaining and just cause another year of delays and doing nothing more then re-pushing segwit as it all the way upto the end of 2018
so dont expect the drama to end this year
http://www.uasf.co/

please note all links and quotes are pulled from the sources of blockstream/DCG. they are not random opinions from unknown reddit script writers or just propaganda wrote by random people

Thats exactly what BU is doing too. There is no activation code or threshold for BU. There is a suggested threshold of 75%, but that is not final and the current implementation has no activation code, so everyone will need to upgrade when that code is released. BU miners signalling is pretty much the same as the current uasf uacomment crap.

lol
all nodes that are ok with dynamics and REAL mainblock growth have the code there already. (my node has variable limit right now. i can change it at runtime and not need to download anything later)

no need to download a new implementation later for those that are already dynamic ready.. no need to play around with resyncing no need to change the network topology no need to get people to move to different keypairs.

its a simple. if there is a safe majority to not cause much fuss of orphans or node drop off.. pools just make bigger blocks. right at the point its safe to.

yet those wanting segwit WILL need to download something AFTER activation, ven if they have v0.14 they will still need to be spoonfed another version if segwit activates

blockstream made many foolish statements
"its ok sheep you dont need to upgrade, be happy to live in the cesspit"
"its ok everything is compatible if you accept the fact you become reliant on a tier network"
"when activated everything is fixed and utopia for everyone"

Amazing and I thought the Trump drama was deep.   Maybe the best thing would be for BIP148 to be activated with too little mining power to pull it off.   Let them rot with with their own worthless chain.   

What I don't understand is why blockstream is so bullheaded.   They could easily provide a block size increase and still get their lightning network.  Yea it wouldn't be worth as much up front but it would be better than getting nothing.   

They are incentivized to stall on chain scaling as long as possible so that the LN gets a competitive advantage.  One of their primary tactics to achieve this stalling has been to create a narrative that hard forks are bad (even if there's wide consensus).

That makes sense and also explains the hard fork nonsense.   Having gone through a number of hard forks with altcoins it is pretty clear they don't end up destroying the coin. 

blockstream removed many onchain fee control mechanisms..
- removed priority formulae
- removed reactive fee estimation (so fee's dont instantly drop in low demand)
- added average fee (so fee's stay up even in low demand)

funny how coders remove code rules and instead just scream "just pay more"

all so onchain fee's are now ~$0.80(160sat/b on average tx of 400byte) instead of $0.04(average fee a year+ ago)
so that when they control the LN DNS seed to grab fee's they can charge anything from 0.01-0.75(per route through them) and people will still think its "cheaper" than normal onchan transactions

so imagine $0.07 LN fee for 1m people a day - repay $70m in 3 years
so imagine $0.035 LN fee for 2m people a day - repay $70m in 3 years

so imagine $0.07 LN fee for 10m people a day - repay $70m in 4 months
so imagine $0.035 LN fee for 20m people a day - repay $70m in 4 months

right..as long as we are bringing wck up to speed, the other narrative has been the 'we must have a healthy fee market now because block rewards are going to diminish later' narrative.  So they have been saying 'high fees are good!'   

Thanks, I missed a lot in two years.    The current high fees is a bit putting the cart before the horse.   20 years from now when the mining reward is less than 1 BTC / block, then maybe it will be all about the fees.   It sure isn't about technology limits anymore.   

I have a transaction stuck because I only paid 50 satoshi per byte.   I'll just have to wait a few days because it isn't important enough for me to double spend to cancel out the transaction in a hurry.   I just sent another transaction to cover it.   It is absurd that one has to use something like https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ to figure out what a reason fee might be.   If SegWit goes through my gut tells me the fees will be still be high.   That is really the reason for not allowing a larger block size.

In Bitcoin, no. Bitcoin Unlimited is still fighting for their case right? No one can shut it down and make them stop. It is their right. So with them or against them we should respect that right.


Yes and no. In the case with Bitcoin there are arguments it is both.

No. You don't understand the idea of UASF nor the implications of it. Use your head and stop with your stupid assumptions and conspiracy theories.

Bullshit. You are promoting the BTU shitcoin and you know it.

Both statements are a lie since there is no way to back that up with data.

Wrong, they are not.

LOL
no way to back it up ??
LOL

have you seen how many people have grabbed the core code and made their own client after doing their own tweaks that are not actually part of 'core'

there are 8 'branches' (versions of core)
there are 7857 forks (people taking the code so they can do their own tweaks away from cores repo)

think about that logically

That's not conclusive data, that is pure speculation. What people do or do not with their forks and whether they primarily download released binaries or compile themselves is not something that you can know. Stop spreading false information around this forum.

Speculation.

If you have business and someone will make soft forks than upgrades network and you don’t do anything is SUPER GREAT because as businessman your time is money.
Hard fork rise unnecessary costs to system . If you have custom security client you will pay HIGH price.

So backward compatible soft work is Highest quality standard worth king of crypto.
If solutions are based on HF and Couse problems then I don’t see that many will relay business on such unstable/unpredictable stuff.
Business hates rule changes.

Ok, there's that aspect of it, I'll grant you that.  Keep in mind a blocksize limit change is 1 line of code.

Your claim is ironic, because Segwit requires updating hundreds of thousands of lines of code in business software, which STILL is not complete:
https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ (https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/) , guaranteeing hundreds of bugs. (Source: bitcoin core site)

Hard fork to 2MB (or whatever) would require either one line of code or zero lines of code to be updated in this same software, depending on the function.