I think the reason that your emails are being rejected is that you are not adding anything to the topic. Your posts are not constructive, you don't provide any reason except "You're stupid/wrong/insane". This is both toxic and not conducive to discussion, so your mails are being denied. You say that it won't work, but provide no additional reasoning or arguments to back up that statement. The mailing list is for discussion, so you have to have arguments that people can discuss, not just "You're wrong".
How is it not constructive to say that their system just isn't going to work and all their further efforts do not have to be wasted? It is true - trust me. How otherwise should I be trying to say it?  Explain WHY it won't work. Just saying that it won't work with no additional reasoning as if you are some all-knowing power better than everyone else is not conducive to discussion. Explain WHY, give reasoning, give an argument. Yeah, like the guy who claims it will work had explained why. It won't work -the guy is crazy. And if you believe it can work, your crazy as well. I think the moment people have to explain why such ideas is crazy, would be the moment human race doesn't survive, ending up eaten by zombies. I don't believe we are there yet. And I like forums where I can just say it |
|
|
|
I think the reason that your emails are being rejected is that you are not adding anything to the topic. Your posts are not constructive, you don't provide any reason except "You're stupid/wrong/insane". This is both toxic and not conducive to discussion, so your mails are being denied. You say that it won't work, but provide no additional reasoning or arguments to back up that statement. The mailing list is for discussion, so you have to have arguments that people can discuss, not just "You're wrong".
How is it not constructive to say that their system just isn't going to work and all their further efforts do not have to be wasted? It is true - trust me. For all I know I'm doing them a favour. How otherwise should I be trying to say it? |
|
|
|
I think you ran into a problem because bitcoin-dev is meant for serious discussion among developers. Well, than I think its missing the mission. You could try bitcoin-discuss instead. It's not the point. I just want to know who controls it. Why cant I say that UASF is a crazy idea? But I can post a date for uasf.. |
|
|
|
I think you ran into a problem because bitcoin-dev is meant for serious discussion among developers. Well, than I think its missing the mission. |
|
|
|
I remember Gavin Andresen saying that the serious bitcoin development debate is at the mailing list now, because the bitcointalk.org forum turned into something he didn't like anymore. Personally I like bitcointalk forum. It was started by Satoshi himself and there is practically zero censorship here, even if you say to the mod that he's an idiot. It's definitely my favourite bitcoin forum. Anyway, I sometimes read the mailing list. Now they have this thread there, about the user activated soft fork: http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg04774.html USAF against the miners majority - for anyone who knows about how bitcoin works, it's obviously a crazy idea. But it's ok - kids should also have their time to speak and feel important, I really don't mind. Except that the kids seem to be establishing some kind of cartel, where they don't want to listen to the adults anymore... So here is the story from today. This topic I mentioned before, there was this man saying: There isn't a flag day to set. If the major economic organs like exchanges run
the BIP, non-signalling miners simply wont get paid (starting October 1st) and
their blocks will be rejected. Miners will have the choice to signal, or find
something else profitable to mine. In turn, this will trigger the existing
segwit deployment for everyone who has already upgraded to segwit compatible
node software (currently Bitcoin Core 0.13.1, 0.13.2, 0.14.0, Bitcoin Knots
0.13.1+, and bcoin) regardless of whether they run this BIP or not.
But yes, it goes without saying that this BIP would need to have buy-in from
major economic organs, especially fiat egress points, before being deployed.
Failing that, a second deployment of segwit with a flag day, or preferably
using the bip-uaversionbits-strong BIP9/flagday hybrid would be required. So then I tried to answer: You're insane, man.
If miners had to 'find something else profitable to mine', they'd just start mining
double spends depositing BTC to the exchanges that are trying to fuck them up.
There is absolutely no way the UASF can work.
Exchanges would be insane to even raise their support for it.
Stop wasting your time, for your own sake. Few minutes later I got the message from the mailing list: Your request to the bitcoin-dev mailing list
Posting of your message titled "Re: [bitcoin-dev] Flag day activation of segwit"
has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the following reason for rejecting your request:
"[No reason given]"
Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator at:
bitcoin-dev-owner@lists.linuxfoundation.org OK... maybe he didn't like me swearing... lets try again with a more kids friendly syntax: I think you don't realize what you are talking about.
If miners had to 'find something else profitable to mine', they'd just start mining
double spends depositing BTC to the exchanges that are trying to remove them from the business.
There is absolutely no way the UASF can work against the miners majority. ... few minutes later: Your request to the bitcoin-dev mailing list
Posting of your message titled "Re: [bitcoin-dev] Flag day activation of segwit"
has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the following reason for rejecting your request:
"In the name of Wu, this post shall not pass." In case you missed it: "In the name of Wu, this post shall not pass."Which brings me to the question: Who moderates bitcoin-dev mailing list?Why are the actual serious developers using this mailing list? What is so special about it and who do I have to fuck to get my messages through? |
|
|
|
It definitely looks like some statement from the mining pool, saying 'if we won't activate segwit, look what can be happening'. Well, I've seen it... And I'm not impressed, frighten or shocked. Even though I'd like to see segwit activated. But not as much as most of the supporters I also spent my time to add segwit support to my software. It was fun and I won't be crying if this doesn't get used. |
|
|
|
so how "malleation attack" fucked up Mt Gox ? they were complaing about that if i good remember that they lost BTC in that process It's not really confirmed whether mtgox funds were lost through some kind of malleability attack. That's what they were claiming at some point, but they never showed any proofs, or even a technical explanation of how that would actually be possible. |
|
|
|
Not quite understood your sarcasm
You and bitcoin.com are using big words to describe trivial things. There was no "attack on the bitcoin networks" - that's ridiculous. Ever since bitcoin has existed, any miner could have taken a transaction (or all of them) and change the ID(s). There is nothing new or sensational about it and it is definitely no reason to spread a panic with big titles like "attack on a bitcoin network". IMHO, such events are actually a good thing, because they show whose bitcoin software is shit. |
|
|
|
Right! Any double spent attempt have one winner tx and losing tx or few losing txs
That's fascinating. Perhaps you should write a paper about it. bitcoin.com should be able to publish it for you. They seem to be very much into bitcoin science. |
|
|
|
2 transactions try to spend same coins and as result create different output coins
This is double spent
But only one of them gets confirmed - how is it a double spent? |
|
|
|
Yes different tx_id and create different coins in blockchain, technically this is double spending input coins, but no way to steal btc
No sir. This is not "double spending input coins" - not technically, nor in any other way. The spending transaction just ended up in the blockchain with a different ID - that's it. There is nothing more about it; no attacks, no double spending - nothing more! |
|
|
|
BTW, this article on news.bitcoin.com is hilarious. For instance, it says: In the two blocks they mined, 456545 and 456552, they changed all the txid inside the blocks. In other words, they “double spent” all transactions. What "double spent"?? It was exactly the same spent, just with a different txid. Then: Blockchain.info, the most widely used blockchain explorer, is basically crashed during the attack event. Since block 456545, blockchain.info no longer received any new blocks.” So it seems that what it "attacked", was not any "bitcoin network", but only a buggy software used by Blockchain.info Well, at least they got a chance t fix it And then: It’s still not exactly clear how the attack was performed. How is it not clear how it was performed, if they had just said that "by exploiting the symmetry characteristic of elliptic curves"? |
|
|
|
How does it answer any of my questions? Please explain why it is called "attack". Using such a word implies that there was an aggressor and a victim. So who was the victim and how was it hurt? |
|
|
|
|
How is it an attack?
Who is it attacking and what for?
|
|
|
|
They failed to destroy Bitcoin because it is not only about buying mining hardware, just like wining a war is not just about buying weapons.
There is a shit loads of logistics involved with using these weapons while there is a lot of human factor involved and the situation on the battle field is changing constantly.
They don't have an organisation in place that could handle manufacturing and deploying mining equipment quickly enough and then maintaining it (undisturbed) for long enough. And they have too much corruption inside.
The only way it can work now is because it is distributed and each mining operation is independent.
Some of them are actually secret.
For the big organisations that would want to get rid of bitcoin, it is much easier to corrupt people and conduct propaganda campaigns in the media.
And that's what they do.
Mining is the most important (and the most resilient) point of resistance of Bitcoin, against the governments and the financial oligarchy.
+1 Good to see some military metaphors used to describe the situation, and exactly on point! It's naive to assume that state actors are not involved in bitcoin in a major way. Personally I believe the Chinese govt. is subsidizing the miners, possibly even precisely to prevent a 51% percent attack from US banks? Makes sense to me. As far as US government involvement, normally that would be done via US multinational corporations and Wall Street financiers, who are in fact "hiding in plain sight" in bitcoin. Wall Street wants to control bitcoin for their own profit, but will do the bidding of the Fed when the phone call comes in. A Faustian bargain? There could well be financial execs "committing suicide" in their cars again... It will get more interesting in the next few years... This topic is actually far more complicated than anyone here can comprehend. This Chinese guy whose they made now the face of evil - whatever his name. If this is true what they say, that he actually owns major amount of the network's hashing power, he must have the shitest job in the world. Imagine what kind of system he must be having in place to deal with the corruption among his technicians. Technicians that he needs to have and who he needs to trust, in order to have his operation going. I'm betting that it's just a matter of time before the loses from the corruption among his employees will grow big enough to make his big mining unprofitable. That's all assuming that he's running a big mining now, which I seriously doubt, exactly because of the reasons I just described. Now, this brings me to the point that the corruption inside all kind of mining organizations (especially as big as governments) and the free market around it, eventually favors small miners - such that can control their entire operation by themselves, or with a help from a closest friends. Such operations shall naturally be run under some secrecy, as this is the best protection from all kind of crooks, let alone the government eyes (taxes etc. ) And with all this, I'm predicting that bitcoin mining will become more and more distributed in the future. The economy will make it happen. I'm actually saying it has becoming like this already... So all the fears about how the mining will be becoming more and more centralised - I think it's a bunch of bollocks and people spreading such info simply don't understand how the system works. Which for fairness nobody fully understands, but certainly some understand it more than others. Final note - this thread is almost devoid of technical debate on the UASF proposal. Is it safe to say that technically it's complete crap? Yes |
|
|
|
please stop spreading the lie that miners are in charge of Bitcoin
They are not and never will be. That's not how any of this works.
Sure man. You are in charge of bitcoin. You and the other people who are actually writing code and using Bitcoin for products and services. Hope you feel better now. Just don't come crying to me when one day you realize that this was actually a lie. |
|
|
|
|
How about that you are both wrong?
I've been hearing this argument for a long time.
"If a government or a big financial corp wanted to destroy bitcoin, they'd just buy a lot of mining equipment".
I believe first time I read it, it was gmaxwell calculated how cheap it would be to conduct 51% attack... it was ages ago.
Well, then my question is: why haven't they destroyed bitcoin yet, this way?
You really think they would not want to?
They failed to destroy Bitcoin because it is not only about buying mining hardware, just like wining a war is not just about buying weapons.
There is a shit loads of logistics involved with using these weapons while there is a lot of human factor involved and the situation on the battle field is changing constantly.
The governments and the big corps are too slow to follow this battle.
They don't have an organisation in place that could handle manufacturing and deploying mining equipment quickly enough and then maintaining it (undisturbed) for long enough. And they have too much corruption inside.
The only way it can work now is because it is distributed and each mining operation is independent.
Some of them are actually secret.
For the big organisations that would want to get rid of bitcoin, it is much easier to corrupt people and conduct propaganda campaigns in the media.
And that's what they do.
Mining is the most important (and the most resilient) point of resistance of Bitcoin, against the governments and the financial oligarchy.
|
|
|
|
I guess not.
I'm used to sarcasm being more obvious.
Your statement fell in line with some BU supporters ideas.
If you read my post above, you'll see I don't support UASF.
Nobody who understands what bitcoin is and how it really works supports it. It won't work. |
|
|
|
... This solution would be much more resistant to 51% attacks and the nodes would be needing far less resources +1 And so, the future of bitcoin was written.  Was that a proposed solution that relies upon a centralized system, controlled by a handful of people, who are subject to laws and agencies of the countries in which they reside? Sounds like we get rid of one attack vector to take on an easier one. I'm I missing something here? Obviously you don't even get it that we are taking a piss out of your ideas to "fix bitcoin" by removing miners out of the system. |
|
|
|
FYI, I'm fine with one blocksize increase up to a maximum of 8MB if segwit (or another linear transaction verification time method) is available and most of the community is supporting this change as well.
FYI, Bitcoin doesn't care about what most of the 'community' wants. It's only what most of the miners want that matters. In this case the nodes would not need to verify the blocks against the consensus rules. In reality all nodes have to verify and accept the blocks. Even if a majority of the miners create invalid blocks the other nodes will not accept these invalid blocks. Every node has to decide what is valid and what is invalid. Sure, that sound like a good idea... But why don't you optimize it even further..? Make the nodes not even needing to connect to the bitcoin p2p network! Instead they'd just fetch the 'distributed ledger' from a github repo controlled by 'the people who are actually writing code and using Bitcoin for products and services' This solution would be much more resistant to 51% attacks and the nodes would be needing far less resources |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
