You are assuming that when the miners signed the HK agreement,
they already knew what the final SegWit implementation would be.
The reality is that they did not perform their due diligence until after
SegWit was released. When the miners signed the "agreement" they
signed a promise based on a design that was still being worked out.
It is very likely that when ASICBoost Miners learned that the
coinbase is altered in SegWit, they would never follow through with
the full terms of the HK "agreement".
ASICBoost Miners, in theory, can never support new coinbase
references. The issue is not SegWit, it is the Coinbase data.
your assuming that bitmain read october 2016's segwit code and then time travels back to 2015 and made blueprints for a chip that could attack segwit.. .. more likely sceneario.. segwit is not ASIC compatible .. not the other way round.(unless time travel is possible) end result 0.13.x versions have issues with ASIC and no longer going to be segwit compatible .. time to wait a month and let 0.14.1 to be released and let blockstream restart their nodecount that will work with ASICS |
|
|
|
and now the burst your bubble moment ASICS have been around alot longer than segwit has. trying to assume that asics were hard programmed to actively attack segwit is like blaming a caveman for something invented much much later. let me guess Jihan has a time machine and seen october 2016's segwit code and and went back in time to 2015 and started building the blueprints for the s9 specifically to hurt segwit p.s im using gmaxwells announcement of him reverse engineering a chip... (before you propaganda twist it into being about software) afterall your all complaining about bitmain (hardware company) not CGminer (software company) kind of funny hardware and cgminer developed befor segwit:bitcoin was even released is suddenly.. 6 months into segwit deadline a "sudden threat" yawn gmaxwel has $70m debt to repay and is actually looking to for any reason to split the network. afterall he did ask nicely early on What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--
and has slowly got more and more desperate each week closer it gets to the deadline when he is suppose to offer something to appease his VC masters. meanwhile other implementations plod along for the last 2 years + making no threats no deadlines and no timebomb or PoW nukes.. time to say blockstream are getting REKT. all them real independant core devs. maybe its time to maintain core without blockstream reliance because blockstream wont be around forever |
|
|
|
Because Vermin is dash guy and let'm scale dash as he want and get the fuck out of Bitcoin
let gmaxwell play with his fiat and monero and stop making bitcoin into his 'centralist experiment' to appease his future bosses at hyperledger. let DCG go play with zcash and litecoin let BTCC go play with litecoin we al know they have lost their desire for bitcoin along time ago |
|
|
|
|
and now the burst your bubble moment
ASICS have been around alot longer than segwit has.
trying to assume that asics were hard programmed to actively attack segwit is like blaming a caveman for something invented much much later.
let me guess Jihan has a time machine and seen october 2016's segwit code and and went back in time to 2015 and started building the blueprints for the s9 specifically to hurt segwit
p.s im using gmaxwells announcement of him reverse engineering a chip... (before you propaganda twist it into being about software)
afterall your all complaining about bitmain (hardware company) not CGminer (software company)
|
|
|
|
The problem here isn't ASICBOOST. The problem is that Jihan Wu (and others) are actively blocking SegWit for their own personal gain, while pretending that it is a difference in principle and they are acting to help us all.
sorry to burst your bubble but ASICS have been around alot longer than segwit has. trying to assume that asics were hard programmed to actively attack segwit is like blaming a caveman for something invented much much later. let me guess Jihan has a time machine and seen october 2016's segwit code and and went back in time to 2015 and started building the blueprints for the s9 specifically to hurt segwit p.s im using gmaxwells assumptions of reverse engineering a chip... (before you propaganda twist it into being about software) afterall ur all complaining about bitmain (hardware company) not CGminer (software company) |
|
|
|
|
lol
i didnt see people crying when an AMD CPU had an advantage vs a Intel CPU
i didnt see people crying when an ATI GPU had an advantage vs a Geforce GPU
but all of a sudden "bomb ASICS coz gmaxwell says so"
why the sudden bomb threats and deadlines and blackmails..
is the $70m debt recovery process coming soo soon?
|
|
|
|
franky1 don't dispute, you know as well as I that BU would and will never happen, no fork as a matter of fact. Yes there's "no one forcing anyone" but yet that's all these kids have been talking about these past few days. It has been catalyzed by something...
i have been pasting this sooo many times this little nugget What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--
its not the intention of NON-CORE implementations to split the network.. as you say its gmaxwell and his chums baiting the community the catalyst is get the community pointing at BU, while blockstream try to make their TIER network for the DCG cartel. after all blockstream and DCG had a round table meeting over a month ago, and rather than publicly release the minutes of their meeting they pushed out the "craig wright is satoshi" mantra to distract the real conversation. i am not in any bandcamp no matter how hard they try to throw me in a band camp. i can just see passed all the blockstream reddit scripts of REKT campaigns to pretend blockstream are the victims. there should be no core TIER network (but gmaxwell needs it to repay the $70m debt) there are not only 2 implementations there are over a dozen. the only ones not playing ball by avoiding a fair open diverse decentralised peer network are blockstream(core) |
|
|
|
So Blockstream wants the bitcoin market to be centralized through a few central companies and hubs?
• Nope, that was Bitmain that wanted to maintain centralization of mining hardware and hashing power through their company and hubs.
LOL check out DCG portfolio http://dcg.co/portfolio/#bblockstream bitpay BTCC http://dcg.co/portfolio/#ccoinbase blah blah blah.. yep all the big names of the blockstream cartels cabin fever mindset of REKTing anything not blockstream sanctioned, as a altcoin are all on the portfolio P.S while its the DCG/bockstream cartel that are fearmungering, making deadlines shouting threats, mandatory activations, going soft to avoid node consensus, adding PoW nukes. the other decentralised peer implementations are just plodding along letting consensus decide.. no threats no deadlines. and saying no to splitting the network What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--
|
|
|
|
isn't this old?
i swear i heard about this at least 4 months ago, cobra or whatever said this and nothing happened.
has this resurfaced or is it a repetition of an old drama (sorry can't open reddit from here)
he re-launched his mission yesterday. reddit Cobra-Bitcoin -87 points 1 day ago
The paper is under the MIT license and part of the original Bitcoin project support files. The paper points to bitcoin.org, and was originally uploaded there, it's well within our right to produce an updated version that corrects the major problems. As things are right now, too many people get encouraged to read the white paper to "learn" about how Bitcoin works, and these people just come out with an incorrect interpretation of how things should be.
cobra tried to do this last year. many objected and the drama died..
seems like core cant take no for an answer and will just keep trying to push it rather then get over their own snobbery
|
|
|
|
By that I mean BITMAIN and associates. This includes the likes of ViaBTC, and other mostly Chinese organizations/individuals.
you might want to reach further over to the blockstreams associates side. EG F2pool and BTCC oh that reminds me. even f2pool was good enough to have morals to admit something meanwhile bitcoins segwit 31% block flagging is only temporary due to a hack expect it to drop back down below 30% in the next fortnight https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/848582740798611456 Wang Chun @f2pool_wangchun
Someone hacked major mining operations and their stratum had been changed from antpool, viabtc, btctop to us. Our hashrate doubled instantly
10:07 am - 2 Apr 2017
 |
|
|
|
apparently being used
prove it i do laugh at you and gmaxwell waffle about X but then throw in the "apparently" "could be" "potentially" anyway lets see what the maths really tells us just done some quick maths  * stats at time of post hmm looks like BTCC and F2pool are the ones making more blocks than their hash % not the other way round *for those wishing to question the numbers  i would have expected antpool to have a block % of something in the 40's while having hash in the 30's if all this gmaxwell PoW propaganda was real definitely not less than their hash% oh well gmaxwell debunked. kind of funny how many times gmaxwells announcement didnt name the pool and how many times gmaxwell uses the word "they could" rather then "they are" A month ago I was explaining the attack on Bitcoin's SHA2 hashcash which
is exploited by ASICBOOST and the various steps which could be used to
block it in the network if it became a problem.
While most discussion of ASICBOOST has focused on the overt method
of implementing it, there also exists a covert method for using it.
An incompatibility would go a long way to explain some of the
more inexplicable behavior from some parties in the mining
ecosystem so I began looking for supporting evidence.
Reverse engineering of a particular mining chip has demonstrated
conclusively that ASICBOOST has been implemented
in hardware. Due to a design oversight the Bitcoin proof of work function has a potential
attack which can allow an attacking miner to save up-to 30% of their energy
costs (though closer to 20% is more likely due to implementation overheads). .. just to let the script writers twist it into "its an attack, bomb them bomb them bomb them" P.S gotta laugh that when its an exploit.. he words it as attack on Bitcoin's SHA2 [adambacks] hashcash. but when its a bug he calls it an bitcoin proof of work oversight.... he is too far deep inside his bosses pocket |
|
|
|
lets see what the maths really tells us
this post is very clear to anyone that you not even understand what we talk about here....  what a crap what has to do this with ASICBOOST?  Ver is You? asicboost should be showing a 20-30% advantage not a minus% disadvantage now show me your stats dare ya! |
|
|
|
lets see what the maths really tells us just done some quick maths * stats at time of post hmm looks like BTCC and F2pool are the ones making more blocks than their hash % not the other way round *for those wishing to question the numbers i would have expected antpool to have a block % of something in the 40's while having hash in the 30's if all this gmaxwell PoW propaganda was real definitely not less than their hash% oh well gmaxwell debunked. kind of funny how many times gmaxwells announcement didnt name the pool and how many times gmaxwell uses the word "they could" rather then "they are" A month ago I was explaining the attack on Bitcoin's SHA2 hashcash which
is exploited by ASICBOOST and the various steps which could be used to
block it in the network if it became a problem.
While most discussion of ASICBOOST has focused on the overt method
of implementing it, there also exists a covert method for using it.
An incompatibility would go a long way to explain some of the
more inexplicable behavior from some parties in the mining
ecosystem so I began looking for supporting evidence.
Reverse engineering of a particular mining chip has demonstrated
conclusively that ASICBOOST has been implemented
in hardware. Due to a design oversight the Bitcoin proof of work function has a potential
attack which can allow an attacking miner to save up-to 30% of their energy
costs (though closer to 20% is more likely due to implementation overheads). .. just to let the script writers twist it into "its an attack, bomb them bomb them bomb them" P.S gotta laugh that when its an exploit.. he words it as exploiting [adambacks] hashcash. but when its a bug he calls it an bitcoin proof of work oversight.... he is too far deep inside his bosses pocket |
|
|
|
BITMAIN Equipment won't stop hashing. They have ASICBOOST built into its hardware, but only the units that BITMAIN is operating have the corresponding software for ASICBOOST to work.
This means that all of BITMAIN's farms/mines will lose the 30% advantage. However, they still own massive amounts of hashpower.
Consumer units shouldn't be affected.
only bitmain has the software? pfft if you keep pulling your own leg like that... only you will be the one walking with a limp |
|
|
|
just done some quick maths * stats at time of post hmm looks like BTCC and F2pool are the ones making more blocks than their hash % not the other way round *for those wishing to question the numbers |
|
|
|
|
Yawn
2013 - GPU miner- "some dude is using asics, thats unfair lets bomb them bomb them bomb them"
2014 - GPU miner- "decided to buy an asic, way cheaper than a bomb, happy now"
result
join the party of many pools of a decentralised PEER network using asics by bitmain..not throw a tantrum and refuse to give up your corner of your blockstream TIER network.
PS its not just antpool using bitmain products
|
|
|
|
We don't have problem here.  i think your spider is going in circles around the web. its counting the same nodes over and over. but hey, you used colour. so that it can gain attention and make the sheep smile |
|
|
|
Right, but the higher difficulty has the same security as the pre-ASICBoost difficulty...... This is not a problem BTW as it's not less security. It's why this is a shortcut, not efficiency gain.
If only one firm has ASICBoost, that gives them a monopoly, which is a real problem. But the devs are not willing to prevent that from happening right now.
The big issue, the main issue, is that covert ASICboost breaks many kinds of network upgrades, NOT JUST SEGWIT AND NOT JUST SOFTFORKS, but it does break segwit. This gives miners an incentive to oppose these changes. So covert ASICboost needs to be made impossible. antminers support overt ASICBoost, so they can still boost away if they want.
by the way. bitmain donot make rigs for $2000. it costs then ~$400 for evry rig they sell to competitors they get to key 3 rigs for themselves and have spare cash to pay for electric. this is the same for bitfury and other asic manufacturers... that is the true way they make their profit. secondly. by selling to competitors then its not an unfair advantage of having asic boost, because the competitors have it tooo.. think about it! i will laugh if gmaxwell pulls the PoW nuke and suddenly BTCC and slush(blockstream defenders) go down too |
|
|
|
@iamnotback: if btc acts as a settlement network and most of us aren't allowed to transact on it anymore because fees are too high, doesn't it also mean btc price will also be super high? how high do you figure?
if it starts costing $6 per transaction onchain then even with LN to open/close a channel is a $12 expense. so think of it this way, (think of a real world service. and run some scenarios like im about to) some banks charge $6 per wire transfer would you use paypal if they dropped the 20cent down to 1cent a tx internally but wanted to charge you $12 externally to use their service for 2 weeks. |
|
|
|
An ASIC moving from 56nm to 28nm is an efficiency gain, because it does more work (more operations) for less electricity.
ASICBoost doesn't do more operations for less electricity. ASICBoost lets the ASIC skip doing some of the work. It does not contribute any additional security to the network. If everyone used it, it wouldn't make a difference, it would still require the same number of operations to attack the network prior to it existing.
This is why ASICBoost is a shortcut, not an efficiency gain, it does not contribute any additional security.
if it makes bitmain solve blocks a little faster. then difficulty rises to compensate.. think about it! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
