Bitcoin Forum

No poll. I believe this would be a very good topic wherein everyone can discuss, learn, and express their own opinions. 8)

Are non-Segwit nodes, full nodes? Why or why not?

they still are considered full node but i believe they shouldn't be. because one of the things a full node should do is to store full transaction/block data and be able to give it to you when you request it. and as far as i know non-segwit nodes do not store witness part of transactions which means although they still function but they can't give you "full" data so maybe we shouldn't consider them full nodes. they also don't relay SegWit transactions.
but as i said that is only one of the things full nodes do, they do a lot of other things which the non-segwit nodes are still capable of.

I'd argue they are absolutely full nodes.  Every user relaying and verifying transactions is helping the network.  Each user has a choice if they want to utilise SegWit or not.  The best part about SegWit is that it was implemented as an opt-in softfork.  So, having given users that choice, I don't think it's healthy for the community for us to start defining some nodes as a kind of secondary underclass just because they've opted not to support SegWit.  We've had enough in-fighting already.

legacy only nodes do not:
1. receive unconfirmed segwit transactions
2. relay unconfirmed segwit transactions
3. verify unconfirmed segwit transactions
4. verify confirmed segwit transactions in blocks
5. receive true full length blockdata
6. store true full length blockdata
7. relay to other nodes true full length data

if a legacy node sent a stripped legacy block to a segwit node(for syncing purposes). the block would get rejected as its stripped and not got the data segwit nodes need

so legacy nodes are not part of the:
1. full validation
2. full relay
3. full sync
4. full archival

if you did not know this. then please research:
stripped blocks aka filtered block data
downstream nodes aka filtered/bridged nodes
if you think all blockdata is sent and everything gets the same thing. research
--witness
which is a parameter addition to the blockdata RPC call that asks for full data. which legacy nodes do not get to call

the bitcoin devs were very clear about this

legacy only nodes are treated as downstream(separate layer) nodes that receive filtered data
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/#not-upgrading-1

they even draw pictures for the non-technical minded to understandhttps://bitcoincore.org/assets/images/filtering-by-upgraded-node.svg
legacy only nodes do not fully validate blocks. as the devs have said they rly on segwit nodes to validate fully and then for the segwit nodes to send out data the segwit nodes believe to be true. and so the legacy nodes then simply accept them as true without validating signatures of segwit transactions in blocks. because they are not supplied with signatures that they can understand to verify.

this was explained many many times.
heres one example, explaining it even before segwit was activated that the compatibility was not actually as compatible as proposed.. i even draw pictures..(yea i tried to help ELI-5 it for those that are not technical)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1760149.msg17580661#msg17580661


(p.s before triggering a rage reply. take time to notice the source of the information(the link is from the devs themselves). understand the information. and reply without insult and only with content about the topic. do not meander it into personal attacks at me to avoid learning the truth from the devs themselves)
ooh and do not reply just to reply about this grey paragraph.

its not a full node. because as you say it doesnt do all the critical tasks
but its what some call a 'heavy node' or 'old node' or a few others (who dont understand the meaning) a 'compatible node'
or as the majority prefer. to save confusion.. 'legacy nodes'

as its not a lite node that is just has a wallet.dat and a transaction creator ability, but not a full node either

Yes. They validate transactions and blocks against the consensus rules, as always. They process Segwit transactions because they're fully compatible with the protocol. They just don't directly participate in them.

That's why the "legacy nodes don't fully verify" argument is weak. If you run a legacy node, you don't directly participate in Segwit transactions -- you aren't accepting payments where you don't verify signatures.

(facepalm)
not fully verifying..
dont directly participate

full nodes doesnt mean just verify transactions aimed at you. it means fully validate all data to ensure NETWORK security.
come on. imagine if all nodes didnt fully verify.
the whole point of full nodes is that the whole block should be verified.

this debate has been discussed. if full nodes should only verify transactions that only relate to a payment recipient then the payment recipient should only request blocks containing transactions that are addressed to the recipiient.
short answer to that debate was that full nodes should validate everything. not just its own personal needs but validate the networks data.


legacy nodes are on a sublayer and also not part of the full network relay
sending out a stripped block to a full node will get rejected. you can only send a stripped block to a fellow downstream (legacy) node.

         0
       /   \
      o     o
   /    \ /    \
0  -o- o -o-  0
   \   /  \    /
      o     o
       \   /
         0

the actual topology of the network if you were to lay it out in a straightish line would be (left is top(upstream) of network right is bottom(downstream))

                                                              
pools->fibre ring network->segwit nodes  - > segwit lite wallets
                                                             \-> legacy(old) nodes -> legacy lite wallets

blue and red are segwit nodes part of the p2p network(pool and fullnode). then on the outside are the green legacy nodes. they receive stripped block data but they dont relay full data. hense they end up as leachers rather than seeders (using torrent terms)
the red and blue work at the centre and full data sync of p2p using the '--witness' parameter of the rpc call for block data..
which legacy nodes are not privileged to. so legacy sit downstream (outside edge) of the network

(let me guess instead of a open consensus debate. certain group will now say that by not upgrading to their code your a network leacher..(did i accidentality give them the next REKT buzzword for next future REKT campaign) as their excuse to force people to adopt new code their not comfortable with activating.. (although it would still end up getting activated via their tricks anyway but i still see future REKT campaigns)

 :D
LOL, you are one of those confused people.

A True Bitcoin Full Node has a complete copy of the blockchain, and relays all Transactions included per the last code update.

A non-segwit node is basically a Node that never bothered to upgrade , it used to be a full node , but it lost that status with the segwit update.
At best now called a legacy node, since it contains a copy of the legacy bitcoin and only relay original pre-segwit transactions data.

Nodes that are not Full Nodes are Pruned Nodes / Lite Nodes / non-segwit nodes.
Now you have many foolish ones in here that claim they are.
So anyone claiming one is Ask them Directly why the Bitcoin Network Can Not Survive if all of the Nodes are only Pruned / Lite / non-mining segwit.
*Bitcoin-Segwit Network Can only survive if their are Full Nodes in Place, and those Full Nodes allow the Pruned / Lite / Non-mining segwit nodes to pretend to be valuable members of the network, those other nodes do not allow the full transactions versions or relay the complete chain , therefore they are inconsequential in the bitcoin network.
Just a PR Tactic to make people running Pruned / Lite / non-segwit nodes believe their support is vital ,
when in fact they are entirely irrelevant to the bitcoin network.      

Disclaimer:
If all of the Nodes revert back to the Legacy non-mining nodes , then you basically have a fork that removes segwit from bitcoin and then and only then would those legacy nodes revert back to being true full nodes. But only with the death of segwit, which by the way will kill Lightning network. :)

FYI:
The Contrast is quite amazing, on 1 hand Bitcoin Network Energy Waste is hailed as a great thing, but on the other hand pruned/lite/non-mining segwit nodes are used because god forbid, everyone be required to run a full node which is a necessity of a running network, let's pretend these sad pathetic imitations actually served a vital function, when the truth is anyone running one of those nodes is just too cheap to maintain a Full Node.
Maybe it is because the core devs are too cheap to devise a way to pay those running a full node they want to trick them into wasting their money running those useless nodes that won't even work without Full Nodes.   :P

update:
Wind Fury can't handle the truth.  :D

not exactly. (pools would need to stop collating segwit transactions)
i say not exactly because you excused mining pools from your downgrade. meaning you want pools to allow segwit

a better example:

if there was a segwit bug. requiring segwit deactivation.. the network would end up having to:
orphan off all the blocks back to mid august 2017 (very worse case(research anyonecanspend debate))
or
continue at current blockheight. but revert to legacy block additions.. but then people with funds in segwit addresses wont be able to spend their segwit funds, if segwit got deactivated.
thus funds end up lost to the true recipient because legacy nodes wont 'playball' with them due to no signature.

yea i know what you are thinking. in such a bug the reversion would mean old nodes see segwit UTXO as "anyonecanspend" but not anyone will... trust me. the pools will grab the funds not average joe legacy node

but yes .. other side effect.. bye bye to btc access to the SEPARATE NETWORK that many coins can use called LN

Stop it. You were already replied to, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5061961.msg47803087#msg47803087

Continue your debate there.


What would be a more sane path to take though? Patch the bug or Segwit deactivation? Would a deactivation have consensus? 8)


In such an outcome, which one of the split would the community follow, the Core developers support, and the market value?

sometimes definitions are not opinion based! there is a clear definition and it can not be changed. and that definition for a full node according to bitcoin.org is this:
"A full node is a program that fully validates transactions and blocks."
an old node can not "fully" validate transaction and blocks so it should not be called a full node. although since we have no other word for these types of nodes we have no choice but call them full nodes. we may call them "old full nodes" or something like "limited full node".

But is that not simply a case of updating the technology and not updating the terminology along with it?  If someone invents a flying car, do we suddenly have to stop calling the conventional ones "cars" because the flying cars can utilise extra space that the conventional ones can't?  

although this is not a good example but if we also remove roads so that the conventional cars could no longer be used in transportation then you can't call them cars any more. they become obsolete.

Just the old nodes are not completely useless/obsolete, so maybe we should rename them into legacy nodes or something like that, since the "new" full nodes will remain the only full nodes.
Legacy nodes' name should not contain the word full, they are not full nodes because, as said, they "can not fully validate transaction and blocks".

My stance remains there are different varieties of full node and that we just need to update our vocabulary a little.  We've always been flexible with this.  I don't see why that should suddenly change now.

A full node can either be selfish or networked.
A full node can either be pruned or archival.
A full node can either place limits on their bandwidth or not.
A full node can either be SegWit-enabled or not.

They'll all reject a block as invalid if the coinbase reward contained 100BTC.
They'll all reject a block as invalid if it was 100mb in size.
They'll all reject a block as invalid if it contained a double spend.
They'll all reject a block as invalid if the block header isn't formatted correctly.

Each help in their own way.  Whatever settings they might have, they're all still enforcing the current consensus rules.



They still fully validate what they can understand.  And again, these nodes still enforce current consensus rules.

Plus, as I alluded to in my first post, if you start to define some nodes as a secondary underclass, you're only playing into the hands of those who seek to create tensions and divisions in the community (and look who showed up shortly after  ::) ).  

validate full data=no
validate full rule set=no
archive full data=no
mempool full transaction types=no
relay full transaction types=no
relay full blockdata=no

is it a full anything=no

logic check.
if a node only has X rules it specifically knows and checks X rules.. does it mean its a full node.
wait.
a) what if X was 1 rule, 10 rules, 12, 15
wait
b) what if x was the NETWORKS FULL list of rules

mainly people would follow whatever the majority of merchants use. and the merchants will follow whatever one will cause them least losses and most functionality without most delay to get back to business as usual.

until an event occurs there are many decisions.
but having diverse nodes of different codebases/teams would atlease give options to remain running instead of spending hours worrying/or having only one choice.
 
EG take the 2013 bug. 0.8 introduced a new database format to store block data in a different way(levelDB instead of berkely). but they done it as a inflight upgrade that didnt require network consensus.

nodes of 0.7 were treated as equal as 0.8 but beneath the social buzzwords. rules did change. although the sentiment was that it was all "compatible"
however
0.7 nodes couldnt store data of a certain amount of 'locks'. so they stalled out at blockhight of 225430 while v0.8 continued on. thus causing a orphan drama event of differing lists of blockheight.

the network decided to downgraded to 0.7 orphaning off blocks accepted to 0.8. simply to get everyone back up and running and business as usual. and then regrew a new block height using rules about the data being below the database 'lock' limit..  until it overtook the blockheight of the chain that was 0.8
. then later released version 0.8 again and promoted that everyone should upgrade
only once majority moved to 0.8 as a mandatory event. and then progress where those running 0.7 were just told to upgrade or stay stalled out as they were just laggers/second class(not to be treated as important to the majority)

so in short the 2013 was a downgrade.. then patch then upgrade then ignore those that remained downgraded
....
the 2018 bug. if a DDoS would occur taking out all core nodes of 0.14+ would have been a patch to all versions of 0.14+ because not everyone just runs new code(0.16 -0.17) "on trust" without independent review.

so not everyone would instantly upgrade to 0.17 and some would fear downgrading to version 0.10-0.12 as this would cause bigger issues around the whole mandatory ban/segwit drama stuff(as a second event ontop a DDoS event) so patches would have been released to version 0.14+ much quicker. where a quick review that only one code function/rule was changed.

so in short in a 2018 DDoS event it would have been a patch and then upgrade later

but if segwit itself had a bug. then depending on the bug and its impact. it could go as
downgrade, patch, then upgrade
or
patch then upgrade..  

until you know the possible cause, historic damage(orphans) and future impact(functionality). asking specifics are unknown

The point of running a full node is to validate payments received. That's what "being your own bank" means -- validating payments you receive against the protocol instead of trusting a centralized authority.

If a legacy node forwards valid transactions it doesn't fully understand, how does that jeopardize network security? Can you explain how Segwit jeopardizes network security and why we haven't seen the "ANYONECANSPEND attack" come to fruition?


Why? Explain how legacy nodes are endangered, and why the network is now insecure.

This is a valid point I cannot argue with, although everybody knows that the older software may not perform as good as the newest ;) and here it's somehow the same thing.
And although my previous statement can be read that I'd prefer everybody would upgrade, I'm not. I think that some legacy (not deprecated!) nodes would be good to have, just because you never know...

to those that do want to learn about full nodes. research
NODE_NETWORK, NODE_BLOOM, NODE_WITNESS, NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED (1037)

1. litenodes are more intended to just validate that your own personal transactions are verified in a block(there are many variants that can give you variant levels of data that are as simple as just blockdata related to your own list of addresses(bloom).. just the latest 288 blocks(nodenetwork limited) all the way up to full blocks of data(nodenetwork)).. but a full nodes purpose is to have full data and have that full data fully verified(all of the above).

2. "instead of trusting a centralized authority" yep. exactly.. so legacy nodes are trusting the segwit node validated ALL  transactions... (ofcourse its not your transaction,, but a full node is about network. not just personal)
(emphasis "full node" does not mean "personal only my transaction node" it means "full node")

3. full nodes are to validate the FULL DATA for network security. and to have full data to allow the other network participants to have a source to get data from.

4. and no. dont try to dilute the meaning of full for 'personal use' as thats just weakening the amount of nodes available to properly sync to.. imagine it. nodes pruning out transactions that are not important to that person.. means the next peer cant get them

imagine if some nodes had a stripped block of legacy only.
imagine if some nodes had a pruned block of only data that was still UTXO
and only 1 node was actually fully archival.

now imagine a fresh user wanted to run a actual full node. guess where they will get thier data from.
it wont be from the stripped nodes.  it wont be from the pruned nodes.

thats why its important to identify whats actually a full archival node.
same goes for validation
no one wants to be messed around with receiving invalid data, even if their actual full node is going to full validate anyway. but atleast knowing theres many true sources of believed full valid data. saves time and hassle of not having to drop connection and wait for data

in short. imagine if out of 10,000 nodes.. not all are actually full archival, fully validing nodes.
but a mish mash.
thats not supporting the network with a 10,000 strong network of full 100% 10k copies of the blockchain. the reality is far less than 10k.

as for the anyonecan spend stuff.. thats where many argued from 2016+ and the end result was dont release the wallet for making a segwit tx until weeks after nodes activated.
(the arguement prior to activation was that its fine, all compatible and people could make segwit transactions inflight without consensus)

but end result was consensus was needed. hense the november 2016 consensus
consensus was not reached. hense the mandatory
then after the mandatory. the wallet facility to actually make transactions was allowed weeks later.

..
now if there was a bug and segwit was deactivated the transactions revert back to anyonecanspend. and because pools are the ones collating the transactions. guess whos gonna pick up those funds

..
as for the if legacy dont forward transactions it dont understand how does that jeopodise the network.
(funny)
if the network doesnt actually have 10k full nodes that do forward.. but only a few... imagine that,

trying to say there are 10k nodes that do a to z. when in fact theres one a few thousand that do a-z shows how people dont understand that the numbers are fudged

...
ok imagine it this way
you go into a shop. wanting a buy a few things. you prechecked online and seen 10 in stock.. you go to the store and told actually theres only 3 in stock as 7 are either older models, asian 'replica's missing vital things or they are ex display

would you treat them all the same or question the quality of the 7
you probably would likely ask why were they not advertised as ex demo or exrepair or replica models to save your journey and so that your fully informed before getting involved in a decision process.

Prune / Lite / non-segwit Nodes are All INFERIOR compared to a True Full Node capabilities in maintaining the btc/segwit network.
That is not a argument to create tension in your false btc religion beliefs , that is an undeniable Fact.

Only True Full Nodes can keep and maintain the btc network,
all of the others are there for people unable or unwilling to maintain the expense of a full node
so they take a shortcut that in no way helps the network only their personal needs.
And their is nothing wrong with that. That is their personal choice.

The only thing that is Wrong is the Lie perpetrated by you and others , that those INFERIOR Nodes are Full Nodes ,
when by the very fact that none of the inferior nodes (pruned/lite/non-segwit) can maintain the btc network alone without losing current capabilities,
should be enough proof for anyone that they are not Full Nodes.

But node operators can always downgrade their nodes to the version before Segwit, while the software after Segwit is being patched, right? Wouldn't that be an argument supporting that "Segwit as a soft fork" is better?

We are off-topic. This should be discussed in a new thread. Haha.

Soft Fork is not better than a Hard fork.

Hard Fork takes only 51% to agree and a code update, and then it is safe to use.

Soft Fork takes near 90% to agree and can be reversed at any time if 51% decide to discard it.

Hard Fork is safer after the code update is complete ,
a Soft Fork is never really safe as the miners can all switch to the legacy nodes anytime.
Groestlcoin was the only coin to actually hard fork and activate segwit.

*Segwit only activated because the miners preferring larger onchain blocks moved to the bch network , allowing segwit to then reach the needed % to activate.
If the bch miners had stay on btc, they could have blocked segwit permanently. *

If any code problems occur on any network, it can hard fork one day, release a downgrade hard fork the next , and a week later hard fork to a permanent fix.
Hard Forks don't require months to years of begging the communities to switch, they execute on the program date and people join them or they don't.
Hard Fork can be fast and decisive , Soft Forks are slow and indecisive , because you can still change your mind later.

Right after the hard fork it is safe, with a soft fork you are never really safe.

if segwit itself was broke then there could be a case where all unspent segwit utxo's need to be removed. thus literally orphaning off 15 months of blockchain data AND reverting nodes to version 0.12 for instance
it could be that it just needs to revert to version0.12
it could be that just a quick patch and release of new 0.14.b -0.17.b
again it could cause many issues or many different scenarios, requiring many different responses.
soft or hard could be a blessing or a curse.
but
just letting in any random change "inflight" puts the network more at risk of bugs occuring
just having one source of full node code, does not defend against trojan code. and puts the network at more risk of bugs occuring

its not just a case of diversity of levels of validity levels of upgrade. its also about what code language diversity there is, what database store of blocks. and many other things.

what a few people foolishly believe is that the entire chain should be secured by one codebase. and if there was a bug they think that its better that the entire chain should fail(facepalm) rather than a bunch of nodes from brand A continue while another brand is stalled..

FYI:
Bitcoin last big snafu , was caused by the fact some people upgraded and some did not.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-network-shaken-by-blockchain-fork-1363144448/

While in theory I agree that multiple code bases should add diversity and increased protection like in a biological system.
Where Diversity is a protection from biological attacks.

The Problem arrives in the fact, that unlike a biological system the ones that fail die, and the strong/adaptable continue without them.

Bitcoin has proven that the miners will decide themselves which fork they want to allow , and choose based on their colluded ideology ,
not allowing a true evolution of the strong or most adaptable to survive.
Since that is the case , there is no real point to multiple code bases if and I repeat if the coin's specs are essentially identical.

Clarifications, I mainly speak of a single chain,
if one were talking about multiple coins/chains, it makes perfect sense each have a different code base,
just not different code bases for a single chain as nothing is really gained except increased chances for disruptions between the two,
requiring one be picked over the other in event of disagreement.

Wouldn't that be a contentious hard fork?


I would only agree  to your debate, if the Segwit "bug" was VERY serious that it would be the "death of Bitcoin", and that a hard fork to fix the issue would gain consensus.

But let us avoid the conversation in going to the gaslighting zone. Haha.


Yes, you can run Bitcoin Knots by your favorite developer. 8)

Not necessary, only 51% minimum needs to agree ,
however the agreement % could be closer to 100% , just depends on the community involved and how divided they are by the changes.

Hard Fork is just safer as the code guarantees it and the 51% ensures it is the stronger chain.

Soft Fork does not guarantee the code updates won't be reversed at a later date.
The introduction of segwit should have been a hard fork to make certain it could not be deactivated by the miners at a later date, which is still a possibility.

Miners are starting to go to war for the dwindling profits, so their concern for coins health is declining by the day.
Their are no guarantees of what they will or won't do now.
ie: https://sharkpool.cash/
 

More specifically, in Bitcoin, would the "51% minimum" not result in a contentious hard fork causing a chain-split?


 8)


More specifically, in Bitcoin, if it had consensus, and if the hard fork is not merely because of the whims of the developers, or the miners, or the community, then I would agree.


More specifically, in Bitcoin, soft forks assures inclusivity, and that no nodes are dropped. It was what made Segwit as a soft fork ingenious in my opinion. A block size increase, with backwards compatibility, and inclusivity.


What would be your proposal in connection to "hard forks are better"? 8)

It's worth pointing out that hard forks are only "safe" in the event of the minority fork implementing replay protection.  Otherwise things can get very messy indeed.

actually there is
EG, if a road has a 30 mile an hour limit. should we all drive an identical car that has a 30mph limiter in it

or have different types of cars. that way if one brand of car ever had a recall due to bad brakes. it doesnt affct the entire transportation industry, and only affects one brand of car.

imagine if the only ever sugar free soda was pepsi max
     pepsi max de-carbonised,un-food colored, unflavoured is 'compatible' (pepsi branded water is allowed)
the only pants people could wear was blue Levi denim
     Levi denim high knee cut shorts with less pockets is 'compatible'

again staying on one network but being told there should only be one brand of codebase that is a "full node" that does all the tasks.. thats called tyranny.

the reference client should only be a reference to current ruleset code. which people can REFER to when making their own clients.
then the diverse clients all release bips and the community vet them and contribute/compromise until a single unified progressive upgrade can be majority agreed.
EG2015
65%8mb legacy
35% 1mb legacy
high percentile contributed and compromised to 2mb.. which should have been a release all diverse codebases done.
but foolishly a few leaders of the 35% crew backed out, said they wont code it. pretended they were not contributors and couldnt code it.. and instead 2 years later. they whammied in their own alternative while ignoring the 65% interest in more than 1mb legacy

which is where we have the wishy washy code thats not even 4mb true full utilisable limit. lots of multiple X and Y by 4 to fake some other numbers. and we still dont have double transaction counts with fee's averaging only a couple pennies

all because one group didnt want diverse codebases and community involvement. thy just wanted "compatible" sheep that had the wool trimmed off and covering their eyes
(dang it.. i tried not to rant)

....
EG imagine if in 2013 the majority wasnt core 0.7(berkely(locks)) with a few 0.8(leveldb(no locks))
but instead loads of other brands with no lock database

the consensus would have been that 0.7 is stalled so just go straight to using 0.8 and continue growing the chain without orphan
and just call 0.7 dead much sooner and without having to orphan off the a couple dozen blocks..

EG imagine 2018. if someone did do a DDos and everyone was running 0.14+.... do you rally want the entire network of nodes to keep going offline
or would you prefer to have diverse nods that continue while dvs patch something on one brand

nope thats project fear,
same as what a certain someone just done by thinking things all end up as a chain split(altcoin creation). and add more fear by saying its up to the minority to alter their altcoin code to stay away(replay protection).

truth be told is 51% is contentious. but its not always a chain split.
it can be where the minority just stall out and hang at a certain block height (2013 proved that an altcoin was not formed.. just 1 chain growing and other nodes stalled)
emphasis no 2 parallel chains growing..
in the case of something being active at low consensus

.. but going back to lets say a low threshold of 51% agreement. that criteria doesnt mean activate. it can mean you have X weeks to upgrade or have your node stalled out when it activates later.
it could also be. now it reached 51% the community has interest so let the diverse nodes code a version that includes it and see if we can get to 75%, then 95%. and only then activate so only 5% is stalled out. (again no parallel chains growing. just one chain growing and 5% nodes are stuck)

i do find it funny how project fear has no clue about a good consensus mechanism and is on a full tirade to only promote one 'brand or doom'

and yes. the majority that have accepted a upgrade can themselves implement a replay protection on the upgrade. without demanding the minority to have to re-code anything.
i too found it hilarious that a certain team refused to add replay protections in an upgrade they done. but wanted those that didnt change code who didnt want the upgrade. were told to change their code..

but thats just the comedy to be expected

Who is that "certain someone"?

But specifically in Bitcoin, if the hard fork proposed does not gain consensus, which would always happen because of politics, would you say that it would not end up as a chain-split? 8)


Vitalik Buterin was also confident that the DAO bail out would not split Ethereum. It did.


That is weak reason to justify it. There has to be consensus.


What are you talking about?

Pretty sure he's referring to me, since I mentioned the replay protection bit.  Call me crazy, but I don't think it's realistic to expect BTC developers to check to see if we need to take action each and every time some other coin forks away.  We've had enough of them for it to be a hefty workload if devs on this chain had to worry about Gold/Private/Diamond/Zero/Atom/Smart/etc.  It's not up to devs on this chain to keep an eye on what all the altcoins are doing. 

But then, that's pretty much the attitude I'd expect from Franky1, since developers are apparently his slaves to order about.   ::)

And here he is yet again saying that devs working on the reference client shouldn't have the freedom to propose and develop BIPs and other changes, as if that was somehow his call to make.  But even though he's keen on taking peoples' freedom away, he's definitely not an authoritarian.  Nope.  Not at all.   ::)

I mean, If we're going to talk about "project fear", let's start with the demented fruitcake who is convinced that we're on a tyrannical, dev-controlled chain where users have no choice.  I'm pretty sure that sounds like FUD to anyone who isn't wearing a tinfoil hat.

In a Normal Hard Fork the minority chain has no value and no one supports it.
It just dies off as it should.

But adding replay protection is totally unnecessary unless your users are idiots.

Replay attack is of no danger unless they are playing both sides and sending coins on both chains,
basically playing a double agent trying to profit from both instead of ignoring one completely.
Greed does have consequences.

People that ignore the weaker chain, have no concern because they could care less what happens on the weaker chain.
Since they don't make transactions on the weaker chain , they have no fear of a replay attack on the chain they do support.

However people playing both sides of the coin chains,
all they had to do is hold until the forks stabilized and then create new wallets with different addresses in each separate fork,
and transfer their coins at ~ the same time to the new addresses to avoid any danger of a replay attack.

To put everything in context, did DooMAD talk about "normal" hard forks, or contentious hard forks? I am asking for the sake of the lazy readers, like "sometimes" me. Hahaha.

doomad yet again avoiding the topic to poke the bear into a personal social drama...
ill bite.

my mind set is MULTIPLE teams able to operate without the REKT campaigns of core or nothing

my mindset is where if core want to be REFERENCE. then thats meant as having code for CURRENT ruleset. to allow people to have a stable source so others can make their own clients....
........not to be the rule changer source which the code changes daily
........not to insult teams who do take core code
........not to say its a breach of copyright to use core code
........not to use core code, alter it and put in features core doesnt like and get rekt by core people

but hey doomad doesnt understand the technicals which is why he just loves the personal attacks. he has had months to learn and do research, yet has insultingly been very vocal that he wishes to refuse to do research.

im guessing he will play the victim of personal attack, but he is the one poking the bear. so cant cry when the bear bites back

anyway, if he thinks im authoritarian
show me some code that i created that mandated or demanded core do something or get chucked off the network.
then show some code where cores bips mandate and demand non core clients do something or get thrown off the network...

guess which code only exists... which proves who is the authoritarian

again my mindset(OPINION NOT CODE, thus NO TYRANNY from me) is multiple teams to be allowed to run on the network without cores code blocking and knocking them off the network due to it not wanting to follow cores roadmap

..
the funny part is doomad cannot separate the idea that core should not BE bitcoin. but instead core should only participate in bitcoin.
but doomad will pretend to flip flop in and out of that.. one day he says core do have control without needing community permission. next he will say the community would give permission for core to activate.. he just cant make up is mind.

anyway, back to the topic

to those that do want to learn about full nodes. research
NODE_NETWORK, NODE_BLOOM, NODE_WITNESS, NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED (1037)

Multiple teams do operate.  You can run BU, XT, Classic, TRB, or BTC1.  All of these clients are running on the BTC network right now and are 100% compatible with the current consensus.  None of them support Core's roadmap, but they're all allowed to run on the network.  If enough users decided to run them, consensus would change.  I don't see any problem here, other than the one you're attempting (and failing) to engineer from nothing.



Your (broken) mindset doesn't make the rules.  There is no rule that says a developer working on Core code can't propose a BIP and there never has been.  There is no rule that says changes can't be made via softfork and there never has been.  There is no rule that says the reference client can't introduce new features and there never has been.  I don't think it's unreasonable to describe someone who would try to introduce such rules as an authoritarian, because such rules would clearly undermine freedom and weaken Bitcoin's permissionless nature.  

Also, I know you haven't got code I can point to that would demonstrate your desire to enforce your totalitarian fascist wishes on everyone.  There's a very good reason for that.  Primarily, it's due to the fact that it's not possible to code rules to enforce your demented wishes.  You're asking for the impossible.  There isn't any code on Earth that can force developers to behave in the way you describe above.  Bitcoin will never function like that because you can't control people.  But if it could function like that, we're all abundantly clear on the part where that's how you'd prefer it to be.  

Tell me how you'd stop any developer from coding what they wanted.  Tell me how you can stop Core proposing new features.  Tell me how you'd prevent softforks.  
You don't have answers to any of that.  Because it's not possible.  Cry about it all you want.  It won't change anything.  The above idea of yours is totally unworkable.

And to top it off, you already have a "stable source so others can make their own clients".  That source is called every single previous version of Bitcoin that has ever been released.  You can pick any one of those previous versions and build what you want from it.  Once again proving that you don't even understand what it is you've got and how good it is.  You have all the freedom in the world and yet all you can do is bitch about what other people are doing with their freedom.  



I'd have to care what you think to be concerned about personal attacks you make against me.  You're the one whining about insults.  Say whatever you like about me.  



I don't know how to explain it to you any other way.  I'm sorry if this is too difficult a concept for you to wrap your feeble mind around:

Developers of any codebase can code what they want.  Users are free to run what they want.  If users don't run it, nothing activates.  This applies to all dev teams equally.

As I've explained to you before, I've used the same argument to defend alternative clients.  This is why it's such an effective argument.  It's universal.  In 2016, before the forks started occurring, when Carlton used to argue that alternative clients shouldn't be allowed to "steal" Core's code, I used this exact same argument.  Remember this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1644724.msg16585340#msg16585340)?  I categorically said that anyone is free to code their own proposals if other developers disagree (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1644724.msg16606454#msg16606454).  Oddly enough, you didn't seem to have any problems at all with me saying that back then, when it suited your argument, so I don't see why you're so opposed to it now.  Maybe it has something to do with the fact that you're now basically using Carlton's arguments that a certain dev team should be restricted in what they can or can't do.  

But neither of you can overcome the argument that all devs are free to code what they want.  Neither of you can change it.  It's a fact.  You can't fight the cold hard reality of how things actually are.  All devs are free to code what they want.  Including the devs you (and Carlton) don't approve of.  Literally the only difference between you and Carlton is that you both hate different groups of developers.  I'm just here being completely neutral and transparent, like BTC itself.  

What you think Core "should" do doesn't matter.  What matters is people are free to code and run anything they like because the system is 100% permissionless.  As such, Bitcoin is working perfectly.  

But is it really the Core developers' fault that the users want to run their software and validate their rules?


I believe your debate is not against Core but against the community for its loyal following of Core. Maybe a blockchain networks' decision of what should be or should not be is not made of code but of social consensus.

if cor developers want to offer a new transaction format, and worry that opposers will replay attack. then its actually foolish to demand that opposers change code and change the transaction format.

opposrs wanted to stick with the same code and transaction format of 2009-2016
core wanted to change the transaction format.
so core should have changed the transaction format to be incompatible..

segwit should if they loved segwit so much when they done their mandated split. enforce people used segwit so that opposes cant replay transact as segwits enforcement would have been the replay protection.

again trying to say "if you want to stay with legacy you need to change the tx format to not be bitcoin legacy" is wrong on many levels..
.. but to be expected by those that loved segwits mandated and demanding principles

just wait until they start mandating people use LN