Bitcoin Forum

luke-jr is another one to add to the line fo Craig Wright, Jihan Wu and everyone that decide to fork bitcoin without any consensus. By design Bitcoin is open to this but as with the previous ppl and now luke-jr claim to social media that his version will be the "real Bitcoin" :P

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/v0.17.1...luke-jr:example_300k-0.17

Free shit coins again.

free money is good all the time .

@op , is this the luke jr that you are talking about ?   > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3318

Looks like Luke DashJr made this commit in the hopes of people being more convinced to run full nodes. In my opinion, regardless if we have 300kb blocks or 100kb blocks, I really don't see getting the masses to use full nodes, as I think most are holding their coins on their mobile wallets in the first place anyway.

yes

https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1092625353774940160

he talk about a soft fork but if his nodes will not accept transactions ta blocks that are more than his 300kb plan for sure in some point bitcoin will forked.

blockweight consensus rule is 4,000,000 witness scale factor /4 (base block 1mb weight 4mb)
average blocks real utility is ~ 1,200,000 (not all transactions are segwit so a full 1mb base is only garnering a 0.2mb extra weight)

by luke wanting (actual blocks) utilised to be just 600,000 . at current utility that would make the base block around 0.5mb.
which if he then tries to push segwit adoption up afterwards by forcing his nodes to only use wallets of segwit based address formats. would push the base block to be ~300,000

luke is trying to bypass the consensus rule by not changing the consensus (4mb) but just controversially reject blocks that produce blocks of 600kb

luke method of doing such a fork is super ugly. controversial and foolish.

its not even good coding practice.. nor utility practical
..
seems lukes mindset is maybe too stuck in the push bitcoin utility down, deburden bitcoin of utility by getting people to use commercial service networks like LN.
oh the august deadlines are not coincidence. the investors of blockstream need to start getting repaid ASAP so they would wanna see LN's commercialised income stream adoption rise for the investors to get some returns

i dont know if have any connection but today all of my nodes has this wanring

  "warnings": "Warning: Unknown block versions being mined! It's possible unknown rules are in effect"

i have to see this warning to my nodes from segwit softfork activation

I wish there was a way to prevent these things from happening. So that the fork were possible only when a certain number of developers supports it or something. These people are harming bitcoin and bitcoin community. They disrupt the trust in bitcoin by making other versions and leading some people to support them. Why can't these people be grown-ups and care about the greater good? Is it really that hard to stay on the same line about new developments?
If there's a high risk that the innovation will not be accepted, why go for it and risk what we have?

Oh god no!!!!
Bitcoin is like some patient that every wannabe doctor want to experiment on with magical cures even if his only illness is a mild flu.

We already have 200 clones fixing everything that was not broken, now let's find a way to force people to do something although what they are doing is not wrong.


Ok, so 200 GB are a problem right now but 150 weren't a year ago...
I would understand his concern if we would grow by 300-1000 GB a year but with this?

His fork won't be backed by hashpower. It would be backward incompatible, just like a hard fork. One might call it a "soft-hard" fork.


After it's obvious that ~0 other Bitcoin developers agree with him, this will be forgotten about pretty quickly.

is very funny with all of this ppl that want to fix bitcoin when Bitcoin is the only blockchain system that is up and running for 10 years now

If it can indeed reduce the block size then it should improve upon transaction time.
Being the creator of bitcoin core he knows how it works from the very start.

bitcoin is being forked for profit gains, gains the big problem the trash media tries to sell that trash looking professionally. experts and perfectionism will get globally a bad image. mark my words

regards

im starting to think Lukes bip is not and was never a viable bip. but just some social drama to try averting peoples eyes and minds away from scaling bitcoin up. by using a fake bip to make people only talk about consequences of scaling down/up. to just delay scaling up.

(EG family wants to expand and have more kids. parent then drops in the abortion option distraction comment. and suddenly discussion moves to the pros and cons of abortion and how getting pregnant unplanned then becomes a sensative subject that should not be treated lightly.. end result dont have more kids due to abortion argument causing people to rethink)

i beleive it was never intended to become actual code that would be added to a core release. and as such, that by not being added. dev's can then pretend that devs are powerless janitors and unable to code things into core. thus not able to scale UP bitcoin.

thus being another psy-op bait and switch game to distract and play games. while the devs continue coding their roadmap and pretend they cant code anything else but their roadmap

(typical flip flop maneuver.. one minute they are authority in regards to roadmap. but only chimney sweeps(janitors) in regards to non roadmap bips) just like their 2016 backsteps

I don't ever get how this guy gets any attention. He always seems to be up to the dumbest shit and opinions of all time. And yet he's always headline news.

Ah no, are we really going through all that drama again!  ???

Why do these people not simply create their own Alt coin with all the features they want and be done with it? Yes, the FREE coins are nice, but it dilutes Bitcoin's value in my opinion and it splits the community with all the drama that are associated with a split like this.  >:(

Yes, I know this is how things are supposed to work and consensus should decide what the "real" Bitcoin is, but this is getting very old now.  >:(

Meh. Anybody can make a fork of bitcoin. This won't end up being anything.

I'm of the opinion that 1 MB blocks is the way to go, with the current blockchain in place. Its worked this far and been more successful than anybody's wildest imagination after 10 years.

If Bitcoin were a company traded on NASDAQ it would currently be the 30th biggest by market cap. Not too shabby.

Who the hell is luke-jr and why should we care about this?
There were about 1000 bitcoin forks and 99,99% of them are dead.Only the btc forks with serious miner +crypto exchange support,like BCH, managed to survive(for a while). ;D

someone to Reddit in a topic like this blame me that i am troll and i must not criticise devs because i own to them my profits from Bitcoin.
With the same logic i own profits and to Gavin and Mike hearn :P

You should really shut up, bow down, ass up and open your....to the mighty devs!!!

Funny how this idolizing of some people has reached this level nowadays, less widespread in BTC but with a lot of people who would try everything to make you shut up if you dare to even doubt the devs of a token or a shitcoin.

Probably a lot of hodlers are so scared of anything bad coming up that they would go against the very principles of cryptos by imposing censorship and centralization just to see their investments safe.


One of the people that can be labeled as "developers" for BTC and to be fair I think he is still the most active one.
But unfortunately, he has a lot...a lot of crazy ideas.
And this might be one of those.

He's made hundreds of contributions to Bitcoin Core and maintains the BIP process. He's the one who realized Segwit could be implemented as a soft fork -- prior to that, it wasn't a serious option. He was probably integral in getting Segwit activated on the network by championing BIP148.

He has some good ideas and also some really bad ones. It can help to have conservative engineers like him involved, even if their ideas won't agree with the consensus most of the time. They see things that other people can't and can provide important counterpoints in technical discussions.

It seems that after big blockers the next group that will leave bitcoin will be the "tiny blockers"

https://twitter.com/BitcoinErrorLog/status/1094731496638873600

we will see more of this new fork drama in the next months imo.

from what i see, there is no actual fork drama. people have been making this bigger than it really is, not to mention that it is not even a new thing! this weird looking proposal has been around for a long time (over a year?). and i suspect it has something to do with the price and the fact that some groups still want to lower it more.

and there it is squatter pumped the "conservative" speach..
ok squatter has now entered what seems to be the echo chamber of the core defence league andd centralist loving crowd

P.S bip 148 was not soft. ys he was instrumental in it. but in no way was 148 soft. it was controversial hard fork
hint august 1st.

BIP148 was controversial, but it was coded as a soft fork. Not all soft forks are backward compatible. That's one of things that upset me so much about the BIP148 camp -- they marketed it as a backward compatible soft fork, which was completely false and deceptive. Of course, no UASF can be a priori backward compatible because soft forks require majority hashrate to remain compatible. Indeed, one might call it a "soft-hard" fork because it was a soft fork that was extremely likely to cause a network split.

As you may be able to tell, I was vehemently opposed to BIP148. It was incredibly reckless to do on such a short timeline and I honestly lost a lot of respect for the people who pushed it. I also think Luke is an asshole who puts his own misguided principles above all else, including the health of the Bitcoin network.

But credit where credit is due: Segwit never would have activated if not for BIP148.

when speaking of things such as BIP148 it is best to avoid using terms such as hard/soft fork, backward compatibility,... instead i tend to stick to the fact that it was a fork and it had very little support from both miners and nodes and the risk of splitting the network into two was extremely high.
not to mention that proposals such as BIP148 with their low threshold must not exist in a decentralized consensus based system. in other simple words "if you can't reach consensus you shouldn't force it".

that is why i was against it. if you look at SegWit proposal itself you can see it was designed to be activated with a high support of 95% and that is how consensus should work and that is how bitcoin has always worked.

1. bip 148 was a controversial HARD fork. it was coded to be a hard fork, it performed as a hardfork. but was 'social dramatised' buzzworded as soft purely by the use of some baseball caps that samson mow handed out. and false promotions by the DCG NYA that pay blockstream/luke/mow and all them involved
basball caps and twitter pics does not make something hard go soft.(unless your looking at porn and then the next pic you see is trump wearing a 'make america ggreat again' cap :D)

2. one might call it an elephant or a helicopter. but doesnt make it so.

3. actually based on a 2015 meeting where there was a community compromise of a segwit2mb. if luke actually didnt back out of that decision with his chimney sweep/janitor/im not a contributor step back tactic.. segwit could have actually got activated a year earlier, while also letting legacy offer better transaction count possibilities and also without the wishy washy code. of witness scale factor.
but nah luke didnt like segwit2mb and only wanted segwit1x which when released as an option in november 2016, only obtained 35% approval by spring 2017...
so luke doubled down with wishy washy code and controversial tactics employed to force it in

and here we are 2019... transaction counts still under 600k a day(under7tx/s)
and here we are 2019... transaction that can still b malleated. yep both with legacy, and due to new opcodes, segwit is vulnerable again
and here we are 2019... with the only direction change being a new tx format thats only real purpose was to be a gateway to another network

..
so late 2015... early 2019. and people are still demanding scaling.. and what conclusion is there.. to deburden bitcoin of its utility and move people off the network
well done.. (sarcasm) way to go... celebrate bitcoin by saying get off the network. congrats for 3 years of.. well ill end my sarcasm there

He might be. Although I believe it is his opinion that the Bitcoin network is "not ready" to be utilized in a big way. It might come from the belief that if the users can't or won't run full nodes because the initial blockchain download is too much for their bandwidth, or hardware, or both, then Bitcoin therefore is "broken".

its not "broke" .. but yes people like luke*. will assume and try to promote such.
Lukes true nature is that luke is greedy. luke loves altcoins, merge mine income from different networks and such.  

there actually is no problem with bitcoin and blockchains, if certain real BITCOIN innovations occur. i am not talking about jumping to "gigabytes by midnight" which false mantra a that a certain group have stuck in their head as the lame excuse not to even try scaling bitcoin
im talking about bitcoin optimisations and SCALING(not leaping)

what i found truly funny. yes luke always hated bitcoin scaling and didnt even like the 1mb limit years ago. but as soon as it become apparent that the only way h can enforce segwit(to claim his VC funded prize) would be to accept 4mb. he soon went quiet about '2mb a block/100gb a year is bad'. and suddenly he became happy about 4mb possibilities(2.1-2.5 more realistic capability).
(now he has his VC funded tranche of income, now he wants to backtrack things. as do certain group that desire to de-burden bitcoin of utility to push people to other networks in the hopes of greedy income streams)

by the way, bitcoin is not too much for peoples bandwidth/hardware. in as much as online gaming or live streaming(which requires more data)


*(by which ill also tag you into that group as you seem to have your foot stuck in the door of preferring to de burden bitcoin of utility with your LN optimisms and not wanting bitcoin scaling)

As you said, too much social drama with not much of an use. The idea is not good.
Probably the guy is a good dev. Probably he made a lot of meaningful changes into Bitcoin. Maybe his idea has good or bad intentions behind. It doesn't matter. The idea is not viable.

And if he insists in making a fork for this, ... let's just hope it will not called again Bitcoin Whatever. If he doesn't, no problem: let the man experiment.

the difference in hardware needed for 1mb vs 300k blocks is trivial IMO. basically, consumer hardware can run either.

if i can run a full node at home with 1mb blocks on my pathetic 1.5 Mbs internet with a cheap 256 gb ssd (well soon will need a 500 gb ssd as the blockchain is currently ~220 gb), i see no need to go to smaller blocks purely from a technological standpoint.

as for the masses, they either will or they wont and it wont be based on 300k vs 1mb blocks that make the difference.. its the tech knowledge needed that is the selling point. few people have the security and computer knowledge needed to run full nodes with wallets securely at this point.

as far as mobile wallets for keeping coins. well i sure hope not. but again it comes down to security and computer knowledge. sure some people may be better of with mobile wallets (i use one for spending, most btc is in hardware wallets or paper wallets) as they lack the knowledge to run other wallets securely. they will be more likely lose their coins on other, more secure storage methods due to user error than have a good mobile wallet compromised.

why do you always seek to discriminate against all "coins"

Not according to the definitions we've been using for many years. From the Bitcoin wiki:


BIP148 rejected previously valid blocks (blocks that didn't signal for Segwit). That's how it pressured miners into activating Segwit. Miners risked losing block rewards if they didn't.


Sort of like you calling a "soft fork" a "hard fork." ;)

None of this matters anyway. Soft vs. hard is not important. What matter is whether a fork is compatibility-breaking. That is what causes network splits. That's why BIP148 was just as reckless as many hard fork proposals.

EDITED 21st september 2018
HA HA HA

heres a tip
buzzwords "user assisted softfork"(UASF)
buzzwords "miner assisted softfork"(MASF)
were non existant terms before LUKE dreamed them up .
it was all false social drama, to try to hid/downplay the controversy it would cause.. calling it soft doesnt mean its soft. it just a word someone chose for a buzzword to confuse the sheep

if you dont know what controversial fork (hard) is. then you really have not looked at what real hard/soft are in regards to real hard/soft forks since many years before lukes bait/switch social games name twisting buzzwords

but hey.. because a certain group buzzworded it in the last 2 years. (like 'conservative' you will follow their buzzword as the truth, rather than really understand/research
in short a soft fork is a fork that is not controversial or causes much network effect/damage. thus its soft
if it causes controversy/drama/alot of network effect.. its hard

even luke knows that. which is why he now wants to use the buzzword "inflight upgrade" for softforks
even other devs knows that. which is why they now wants to use the buzzword "compatible upgrade" for softforks

for anyone that want small blocks this is your system guys :P Not even close to luke proposal of 300kb

https://i.imgur.com/oxbOg6S.png

some more ideas about this ridiculous proposal.
First is very unethical to force ppl to use lightning network or any second layer system. Even the worst shitcoin dont do tricks like this and force ppl to use a solution. Only ethereum have done this but imo ethereum is one of the worst shitcoins out there with a completely broken blockchain system.
This ridiculous proposal works and a help hand to the dead fork bcashABC and bcashSV and is only there to create confusion and unnecessary fud against bitcoin.
In the other hand i dont think anyone will follow it and only a very small part of nodes will enable this soft fork. I also believe that sooner or later this nodes will fork off from the network

Those who will buy this kind of coin will regret afterwards. They should know that they are collecting useless coins here.

I guess you don't understand how wikis work. You're only looking at the most recent revisions.

The hardfork wiki was created on 22 March 2014‎, and the definition in question was published on 23 March 2014‎. See here (https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Hardfork&action=history) for the entire history.

The softfork wiki was also created on 22 March 2014‎, and the definition in question was published on 23 March 2014. See here (https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Softfork&action=history) for the entire history.

This is how the definitions appeared at that time:

more limited perspective by you.
try going back to 2009

your taking a certain type of soft and a certain type of hard. used as just one example in some wiki... and thinking thats the full scope.

to simplify the full scope
soft is soft because it doesnt require/cause mass disruption/controversy
hard is hard because it does require/cause mass disruption/controversy

you can try to limit the extent of disruption/controversy of hard and soft via different ways.
but you cant make a hard fork become a soft fork by just calling it such on a webpage and on twitter. or be selling baseball caps

your 2014 limited scope version is one example. where yes a hard requires majority upgrade for network adoption otherwise big issues
your 2014 limited scope version is one example. where yes a soft wont cause big issues if X happens

but now ur just meandering the topic away from the topic with your buzzword twisting
you can spend months meandering and playing the buzzword twisting game. so best you actually spend some time going back and researching things fully, rather than just taking the first google search result you find as gospel.
expand your mind. try not to limit yourself. and its better to spend months researching than months trying to pretend a hard is actually soft

Has anything good come out of forks?
Well, Fork is allowed for a reason. I wish they do not involve monetary rewards so people with good ideas can fork as much as they want.   Luke-jr is not an ordinary developer. .

LOL  ;D Why don't the big people give us a chance to stop laughing  ;D We can see such shitcoins everywhere and yet there are people who want to create more.
I must say that all the forked coins from bitcoin are nowhere near bitcoin right now while most of them are similar to dust.
There are only a few coins which have even crossed $10. There is no chance that any more versions of bitcoin will survive in the current crypto market.

Hey, as long as we are getting free money from it, I'm not going to complain lol. It's probably going to be another Bitcoin cash where they will shill it and make tons of money. To be honest, I don't even know who this guy is. But I guess he's pretty famous.

Don't gaslight. I said "might come from the belief". It's me trying to make sense of his want for 300k blocks. He didn't promote the idea that "Bitcoin is broken software", although I can see some newbies would think it is when they are discouraged from running Bitcoin because the initial block download is too much for their bandwidth, or hardware.


Take your personal opinions out of this.


But hard forks to big blocks are real "Bitcoin innovations" for you, right? ::)


Hahaha. What are you saying? You keep on adding lies after lies on top of personal attacks, and accusations.


I believe that was the compromise to appease the miners, and activate Segwit. But they still did their hard fork to bigger blocks at any rate.

windfury..
gotta love your "keep personal opinions out of it"
and your own gaslighting.

but.

1. luke is greedy. and luke got paid alot of money for UASF(as did samson mow). and aswell as the UASF.. luke got extra as a VC tranche of money in november 2017 for getting segwit activated before the november 2017 deadline.

there was no coincidence that luke started the timer for the initial version in november 2016 to end november 2017
no coincidence that he pushed the 148 UASF as early as august to ensure activating by november 2017. no coincidence for the NYA drama either.. and no coincidence that there was VC money thrown in this direction in november 2017

oh and also this new 300k thing.. also dated august 1st like the 148 was
no coincidence
you might want to try doing some research before replying.

because replying just to say you dont like me mentioning a bitcoin dev or core negatively when they are doing some crap stuff
i do wonder, why are you defending him. why have i seen you many times defending devs.

im guessing you think you can earn something by doing some PR. is that the goal. getting income for over promoting things and trying to push negative points into obscurity.
 
but here is the funny part. you and your buddy group OVER defend devs. because there have been many times when devs themselves happily admit their actions. but when i bring them up. you and your buddies try defending a dev as if the dev is innocent.
its either lack of research. or its kissing their ass without them knowing to then hope when you lot do highlight how much of an ass kisser you all are, they see lots of evidence.

are you trying to build up a portfolio of ass kissing before asking blockstream or DCG for a job or something?
because the lack of research and tactics of twisting things around just to try to make devs look good even when they happily admit they are happy being controversial capitalists.. seems a little off..

maybe next time start with research BEFORE hitting the reply button.

the reason i ask is.
this is a bitcoin forum, but it seems you and your buddies are more interested in the 'defend human and corporation' social drama.
so when people high light how humans(devs) negatively do things to the network. your not interested in defending the network. your more interested in the social drama

anyway
1. bitcoin is not "broken software". but luke has said the bitcoin blockchain is broke.
(gotta love your subtlety with 'software' to tweak the narrative away from his words).

2. however as a separate thing,, the "software" (core) has been tweaked in ways to stifle BITCOIN network utility to promote another network. there are many possible ways to appease users initial experience of downloading the blockchain. but the software has been tweaked to do the opposite. with only a few tweaks of pretend optimisation. which is just in reality to avoid the new features further irritating users, rather than sort problems

3. he actually is greedy. he actually does love altcoins, merge mining for extra income and doing things for money rather than caring about the network. check right back to his eligius days

4. the echo chamber rants of you using the term "big blocks".. you really are not researching, and just repeating the group mindset

5. again its not hard to follow the money. ill give you 2 tips.. $25m and 21st november 2017

6. segwit 1x was not a compromise.. you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel if you think segwit1x is a 'compromise'

No, I'm just using the conventionally accepted definitions. Discussing these things is futile if you can't agree on definitions. Also, if you go back to the mailing lists, these definitions go back far beyond 2014. That's just when the pages were created.

You're never going to get anywhere if you keep referring to apples as oranges.

Anyway, like I've said before, the name you give it doesn't matter, so foaming at the mouth about hard forks isn't necessary. The issue is whether a fork is consensus-breaking or not. In the case of BIP148 or a hard fork, consensus would be broken.

You're never going to get anywhere if you keep referring to apple slices as full definitions of apples
You're never going to get anywhere if you keep referring to apple phones as apple fruits simply because a name says its an apple

soft is soft because its soft.
hard is hard because its hard.

one hurts more then the other.. cant get more simpler than that

atleast you admit now UASF is a break of consensus.
meaning hard
one step forward.
but dont backtrack by saying its soft purely by the social word play drama tricks of "what does S stand for"
buzzword names mean nothing. the action/result speak for itself. UASF was hard. end of

I'm not the one who made up these definitions. They're just the definitions that everyone involved in Bitcoin development uses. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise. You are the one who is completely alone, referring to apples as oranges. You are at odds with the entire Bitcoin community. Deal with it.

As I've said over and over, the issue is whether consensus is broken -- we can agree on that. Why are you so obsessed with the definition of "hard fork?" Why does it matter one bit to this discussion?

Lightning Network is making people run full nodes. You can always use custodial wallets like Bluwallet but if you own a business and want to accept bitcoins as fast as possible, you need to run a full node.

300kb blocks on the other hand, won't be happening I believe.

FTFY

seems its you that cant define it.
a "soft-hard...."




easier to just admit it was hard.. and just social drama marketed FALSELY as soft, by use of baseball caps and twitter tags
it was never coded to be soft
the code itself shows as such

a soft fork would be something that only does something at high majority acceptance thats doesnt cause controversy.


148 and this new block lowering topic are not soft.

they are both set to activate at a DATE
meaning no vote, no consensus, no compatibility. just at date X do Y which affects anyone not following Y
thus hard

anyway.. you can spend months searching blogs and quotes...
ill stick to code, blockchain data and real events

have a nice few months

now Bitcoin cash is  trash.. Bitcoincash hardfork was more than 2 shit trash money later. these behaviors that ruin the market. they can never achieve their goal. bitcoin is the first coin and leader. The rest is nonsense, ..no matter how hard they try, they will never replace bitcoin.

Show how it was redefined every couple years. Actually demonstrate it. Based on the wiki, those definitions haven't changed in the last five years. As always, you never provide any proof for your false claims.


Sigh. In quotes, to emphasize the fact that consensus -- not stupid labels about soft vs. hard -- is what matters.


There is no evidence or logic for what you're saying. You're just repeating, "It was hard! Buzz words! Baseball caps! Hard hard hard!"

It's easier to apply the definitions we've used for many years now, so we can stop wasting time on these stupid discussions. BIP148 was falsely marketed as backward compatible, which is just as bad as marketing a hard fork as a soft fork, but isn't the same thing.

I'm willing to call a bad apple a bad apple. I'm not willing to call an apple an orange. Words have meanings.


That's ridiculous. We're talking about how to define code. Software doesn't care about controversy. People run it or they don't. We're trying to describe what the network is doing, not whether a code fork is controversial according to Franky.


I will defer to the community on that one. As for your obsession, keep on keeping on!

read the CODE squatter



no where is there any consensus about majority of user/pool acceptance before initiating that rule.
no where is there any consensus about it not activating if there was only a minority

148 and this topics bip are MANDATED controversy.. thus HARD

also Luke is trying to push it into CORE.
he isnt just trying to run it on his own node

I though we were done with the bitcoin forks? Well, I think those Faketoshi and friends' greed does not really end. I hope exchanges stop supporting these forks for the sake of the market so next time they would not make a bunch of them in the future.

we will never get rid of forks, as long as bitcoin has value and the forking doubles the coins you own people will continue attempting to make money from it. and exchanges will only care about the fees and the profit they can make from people trading (that is dumping) their newly gained free coins.

Listen to yourself, because no one listening to you anymore, including the newbies. You have been "memefied". But if you deliberately wanted to annoy everyone, then you did it. Job well done. 8)