No, it's a game of "chicken", a battle of wills.

Miners are trying to frighten regular users into switching, and that is all they can do. If no-one uses their hard-forked blockchain after the fork, they have nothing but wasted block solutions for a currency no-one is using.

Ultimately, the users actually hold the balance of power.

Or they prepare counter-measures to whatever is (publicly) tested, because they are too belligerent to back down, tail between legs. I seriously doubt your scenario.



Or buying time.


I pretty sure you don't get it.

Bitmain et al don't care about their infrastructure, or negotiating, I'm convinced you've never dealt with sufficiently pathological characters to understand this.

Forget their words, or rhetorical actions, and look strictly at what their primary mode of behaviour adds up to. They will do or say anything in order to get what they want; the destruction of this currency and it's economy.


Decisive, strike-first and belligerent evasive action is probably the only thing that can save the value in the Bitcoin network as it is today, and if you can't see that, and some surprise move that nobody (except apparently me) anticipated sends things into even more of a tailspin, then you and everyone else who are saying "let's talk and pro-crastinate on our options for another 9 months" will get everything you deserve.

To put it another way, imagine that those directing Bitmain's actions have a planned killer blow to land. Do you think they're going to announce it 6 months in advance on a public forum? We must act, we're being forced into an "eat or be eaten" situation, and you can't see it.

I disagree, if there's a bug in the protocol, why bail-out the ignorant people who didn't discover the bug before they bought the coin


Your principle is flawed, and even if it isn't, what are you going to do about it? There's no way to force your idea on anyone, and so we'll just have to wait and see whether or not reality can demonstrate that you're either right or wrong....


......and oh look, the Bitcoin design and protocol have both been upgraded many, many times, and we're reaping the benefits of that right now.

Meanwhile, back in your own personal TheoreticalLand, you've got more tedious waffle for us, do go ahead

So every time a bug arises, hard-fork it, right? It's a good thing you're not project managing any cryptocoins, no-one would ever buy in to begin with faced with that prospect

Which is why we must do it, and "now" (i.e. as soon as a testing and roll-out schedule could permit)


The miners are fairly transparently uninterested in the value of their R&D/manufacturing/facility investment, otherwise they would not be doing this. The fact that Bitmain have spent several years developing everything they have, only in order to be as obstructive/destructive as possible should demonstrate that.


Get a grip, everyone. They're not playing nice, throwing away millions in investment just to screw up the entire value proposition of Bitcoin is proof positive of that.

PoW fork, "now". "Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure"

That was an example to contrast with the "Segwit address format = stealing Satoshi's BTC" argument


Please read the whole post in context before replying, you're wasting alot of space with your ill-conceived replies

I told you already: "preparing" sounds too much like a euphemism for "fucking around"


Quit the bandying of hashing algorithms around already, we need to pre-empt their attack, not sit around waiting for it to happen. If the lead-time to develop a Keccak ASIC is long enough, we need to get the ball rolling, as soon as is diligently possible.

I'm into this idea.


But let's not fuck about, forget the "only in an insurmountable emergency" rhetoric, the emergency is already here.

The longer it takes to build support, the quicker proven bad actors like Bitmain will just develop a Keccak ASIC, if they've not started doing that already. Keccak PoW coins have already been tested in the market, doing 101% rigorous QA is a trade-off against the actual attack we're trying to fend off.


And if it's more appropriate to change the name, The Blockchain Formerly Known as Bitcoin, whatever, then so be it. The brand is the flimsiest aspect of the current Bitcoin's value proposition, it's arguably a highly desirable public relations move, as it then forces the attackers into coming up with different reasons why they're now desperate to "save" everyone from the evil developers who switched from Bitcoin to neoBitcoin.

i.e. If BU saved everyone from the evil Bitcoin Core devs, what is the need to follow them around, constantly trying to hard-fork the new project?

You're both right and wrong.

It's true that the financial markets oligopoly act like a cartel, annexing regular people off from participating in setting the price of commodities, stocks, bonds and futures.


But don't you see: that's not capitalism. That's a fascist system, where deception, not physical force, has been used to keep the public's life so simple that they don't recognise they're living under something that is not very different in outcome from the communist system, where prices are fixed by the powerful.



Rigged markets are unfair. The free market isn't.


But if the majority of people aren't sufficiently educated to be able to distinguish between a cleverly rigged market and the free market, then IMO they therefore don't yet deserve to have a free market.

I keep saying this: there is no such thing as "rights", except those one establishes for one's self. If you allow others (read: politicians) to both tell you what rights you should expect, and simultaneously let those same people protect those "rights", you will get everything you should expect. And deserve.

It's very simple Dr. Liu.


Increasing the blocksize isn't scaling on-chain, at all.

All that achieves is increasing the resources (bandwidth, block/transaction processing, hard disk space) Bitcoin uses, 1:1. Increasing resource usage 1:1 is not scaling (where the two sides of the ratio are transaction rate:blocksize).



I'm in favour of on-chain scaling (there are many possible methods), it's an important part of Bitcoin's model. To improve the scale of the on-chain network, making the transactions more size efficient (aka smaller) is the only way to do it, by definition.


So, this so-called expert is basically pushing the debunked idea that blocksize changes = scaling changes, which is demonstratively false.

Someone is always going to do it, and I guess I must be more willing to sacrifice my peace of mind, because it's immensely frustrating. I'm not some kind of zen master, I think I've demonstrated that once or twice so far Biting back pretty hard is important IMO, part of the Bitcoin troll's strategy is to inflict psychological pressure on those who contradict them. I think I've shown that some of them respond to being pressurised themselves, while a smaller number of others do not. Which is interesting.

Ignoring them may not work, some of them are pretty skilled propagandists. Bear in mind, there are several who I don't respond to, despite them desperately trying to get my attention (I don't use the ignore feature at all, doesn't mean I have to read the trolls). Anyway, we're in danger of appearing a little diversionary ourselves, this is now way OT

When will these self-important wastes of money, space and oxygen learn: Bitcoin gives zero fucks, so they may as well stick the "bill" up in the same place they pay their "hired help" to put their tapered anal beads  

Can anyone think of a very conspicuous poster on this forum who goes on and on about how fees are now too expensive in 3rd world countries

Frankly, one forgets the name of this particular hypocrite

Just goes to show how many people on Bitcointalk are actually running full nodes. Unconfirmed tx's have been creeping slowly down from 10,000 for the past 2 weeks on my node.

That's an argument for sitting back and watching Bitcoin fail when the ECDSA signature scheme (which Bitcoin uses) is threatened by future cryptographic advances.

The keys and signatures are the weakest crypto in the Bitcoin system, all the honest experts agree that external attacks using new crypto will force us move to new keypairs eventually. In that situation, Satoshi will have to move his coins just like anyone else, or the new crypto methods that break the current key scheme can and will steal their BTC held at addreses using the old keypairs whatever they do or do not want.


And besides which, you're confused. Segwit is a soft fork, that respects the ability of users who want to carry on using P2PKH and P2SH keys. No-one is being forced to do anything, although it's going to be cheaper once the non-nested P2W key scheme is instituted (sipa made a new proposal for those new key types fairly recently)

....which means zero.

The inherent consequences of the proposal to the Bitcoin network is what matters, not only paying PR-like lip-service to the principles of good design methodology.




It's been said in this thread at least twice now, you must be blind:

If this proposal uses the fullness of blocks (and/or the fullness of the mempool) to determine blocksize changes, flooding the network is the attack vector.


Please, suggest something that will actually work in practice. Saying "let's all think of mitigations to the latest flawed design" doesn't help, it's your pet cause, you should be presenting something concrete, instead of wasting everyone's time.

It's a healthy approach IMO.

The whole of the 21st century is probably going to be this way, not just Bitcoin. If you don't keep learning, and learn fast, you'll be left so far behind so quickly that you'll get (figuratively or perhaps even literally) eaten.

No longer joint owners of CKpool then? Well, at least that's your major conflict of interest out of the equation. Why do you still post in the same threads as kano without contradicting his lies? It looks like the same implicit approval you used to afford him.

Uh, I'm not sure which version of reality you think you're living in, but if game theory rules it out, that means players in the game will exploit the exploitable. So, yes, "because game theory".


Which is precisely why the 1MB cap exists at all.

Instead of giving up, we capped the amount of resources the network can use. Can you not remember back that far back or something? 

---

Re: dynamic size


Can't you read either? Present a dyanmic/adaptive/responsive (whatever you want to call it) resizing proposal that can't be gamed, and I'll take you seriously. Instead, you just keep ploughing on, repeating over and over again about how dynamic blocksize is a better idea than a static or stepped static blocksize. And you've yet to recommend a proposal that actually does the job.


How can you not understand that when something is flawed, forget it. Recommending it again and again isn't going to remove the flaws but it will remove the number of people interested in listening to you.