1. Quickseller says "all miners are perfect economic actors who only behave with rational self-interest towards the Bitcoin network"

2. I say "That's wrong, what about a malicious miner scenario"

3. Quickseller says "I'm not wrong, what about a malicious miner scenario"



Exactly how stupid do you think everyone is?   Can I have my 90 seconds of skim-reading back?

I understand that risk. I don't believe the issue is insurmountable, and the staged approach reflects this. The risks can be mitigated, and will in the end be worthwhile.


No. SegWILL should be indistinguishable from regular nodes of the corresponding version of Bitcoin Core. This is part of the partitioning mitigation, to prevent counter measures against the overall strategy.

I will be distributing gitian signed builds.


Anyone who wishes to contribute a gitian signature will be welcome to do so (this is currently a WIP)

I'm going to attempt to modify the 0.14.x clients, try to popularise the modified client so as to put this nonsense to an end.

I'm done talking with these cowards

---

Stage 1: BU is pushed to the edges of the network

Add a condition to net_processing::ProcessMessage that detects BU client strings and set the maximum banscore, invoking net::SetBan()


As more nodes run the SegWILL client, BU nodes become pushed to the edge of the network topology, isolating them from the vast majority of nodes (the obvious counter measure is to use regular Core clients as proxies for BU nodes to stay connected to the rest of the Bitcoin nodes, so this simply places the BU nodes around the edge, to make Stage 2 as effective as possible)





...when the effect of this is seen to be sufficient (judged manually by the proportion of nodes running SegWILL), we go to....

---

Stage 2: BU blocks are no longer relayed

Add a condition to validation::CheckBlock() that detects BU blocks, and rejects them.


BU miners either switch to a Satoshi-consensus client, or go down with the sinking ship




...when the effect of this is seen to be sufficient (judged manually by the proportion of BU blocks entering the chain being sufficiently low), we go to....

---

Stage 3: Non-BIP9 signalled blocks are no longer relayed

Add a condition to validation::CheckBlock() that detects blocks that lack BIP9 signalling, and rejects them.


If the miners aren't getting the message by this point, this will help them out further; start doing as the network wills, or prepare to enter the paperweight business

---

IF we can build high levels of support for this plan, and once it is sufficiently refined, I believe we can draw a line under this whole soap opera. We can demonstrate that the people who are actually supporting and or using Bitcoin are ultimately the arbiters of what gets accepted and what gets rejected vis a vis the Bitcoin protocol.



My Personal Message settings are set not to e-mail me any PM's, if that concerns you should you wish to PM me about this. A moderator can hopefully confirm this.



Please comment, on-topic

Why waste your time writing this:


When you could just be honest and admit that this is the real "consensus mechanism" in BU:



....which is just an invitation to an endless string of noisy, shouty 51% fork after 51% fork?




Alice Wonder, why aren't you able to present clear, honest arguments?

According to that logic, the whole blocksize debate is pointless, because none of the queued transactions are Bitcoins yet anyway lol



Alice, are you even capable of making genuine technical arguments, or will you just continue to use semantic tricks?

No one  in this thread said it did.


Are you capable of making a technical argument Danny Hamilton, instead of just using semantic tricks?



And when "enough" (i.e. 51%) miners agree, the other 49% get turned into yet another altcoin (BUcoin2) when it happens, don't they? Call it "activation", call it a "fork", but the truth is you just don't want to point it out, because it's inconvenient to your highly selective presentation, huh Danny Hamilton


Are you capable of making a technical argument Danny Hamilton, instead of just using semantic tricks? Or lying by omission?

the 75% figure is basically a gentleman's agreement, the truth is that BU gives miners the power to fork at 51% hashrate, if they're that suicidal

You're sounding like a Segwitter jbreher


How come Franky, the Bitcoin genius who loudly shouts about how loudly shouting makes him right all the time, can't figure this out too

No-one will force you to use the largest channels. They will have their place, for super cheap non-sensitive purchases. But if you want it more private, you'll be able to traverse the Lightning network in the smallest channels. Both ways, and anything in between are possible with Lightning's design



lol, think harder then, Dino.


You need to run a separate piece of software on top of Bitcoin to use Lightning. Pretty easy to avoid, just do nothing

Why not get it correct instead


Satoshi's original client had NO blocksize limit at all, the 32MB limit was on network messages, not blocks


Then, who introduced the 1MB limit? It was Satoshi

Explain. Writing ... is not an explanation

Incorrect.


With Segwit, consensus is uniform (i.e. the actual definition of the word "consensus") and so the blockchain will be in no danger of spontaneously splitting according to diverging blocksize preferences. And in addition, Blocks will get bigger, there is no "maybe".


With BU, the consensus system is changed so that blocksize consensus no longer exists. This means that the chain can be easily forked, constantly. And there are no guarantees the blocksize will increase, the miners could easily flood the network (or networks, once BU has forked into BU 1, 2, 3  and so on) with voting nodes to force through whatever blocksize they like (which of course includes smaller blocksizes than 1MB). Note that the banking industry would love this outcome, as it would be all too easy for their corporate media buddies to claim convincingly that Bitcoin was then a failed experiement

Then why not say that, then shut your mouth?

Every other part of your post is simply subtle politicking, as if you're somehow the voice of reason if you say "I'm the only one who says this is political", when in fact at least 2 other posters have made the same essential point already (demonstrating you're manipulating the narrative to make yourself appear trustworthy, pah)


Danny's post is covertly political, he publicly states that BU is actually an attempt at a genuinely intended dynamic block sizing concept, but really it's just a dressed up way of allowing miners to entirely control the blocksize, and to cut the honest hardworking professional software developers out of Bitcoin development. Danny never addresses any of this, he simply says "I don't do politics" when invited to discuss the technical "merits" of BU


If Danny was really interested in the technical argument, he would be mentioning the serious technical attack vector that BU represents. But of course, because no real Bitcoin users are actually interested in having any aspect of what should be a system with limits becoming unlimited, Danny has no choice but to continue the social engineering attack on Bitcoin instead (currently the only effective attack against it)

Again, you're deriding all microtransactions systems by saying that.


Of course it's like an IOU, duuhhhhhhhh. They just so happen to be cryptographically enforced IOUs


So how would you define +80,000 unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction backed up in larger mempools? "Not Bitcoins" presumably.

Did you just solve the blocksize problem with semantic trickery alone?






Alice, can you make any arguments that don't involve absurd exaggerations? i.e. not valid arguments at all

Regular Bitcoin client use always involves having both public keys and the private keys online. You're stating the usual extreme exaggerations about Lightning; it's not designed for you to put your life savings into, it's for regular, everyday transactions. If you want to store your main cache of Bitcoins in a micropayments system, guess what? You're an idiot



So, therefore all microtransactions systems are altcoins or "not BTC". Riiiiiiiight


This sounds like some Jeff-white-socks-Garzik hand waving. In capitalism, I can do what I want with my money, that's what owning capital is all about. You don't own it if you can't choose how you use it, quit trying to boss other people around


They're Bitcoin transactions in every single way, except they don't hit the main chain unless the channel closes. That's the whole point, that's how LN saves blockchain space. If LN "is like an altcoin", then you should look forward to when this Millions of tx/s coin hits the markets (which it won't, because Lightning units are all Bitcoins anyway)


You can find them in the mempools of the nodes in their channel



Alice, can you make any arguments that don't involve absurd exaggerations? I sincerely hope no-one is using your Miscreated software, if you apply that reasoning ability to your coding

I love how version 0.14 of Bitcoin is more popular with real Bitcoin users than BU in less than 1 day after release. Funny, 75% of people on Bitcointalk are BU diehards, but they're a tiny proportion of the userbase (~8%). It seems they're just a very noisy minority (and I wonder how many of those nodes all belong to Roger Vermin)


I'm just waiting for the trolls to start shouting "SHEEEEEEEEEEEP!!!!!1". Don't they realise these "sheep" are the people they're trying to convince? It always works on me when someone insults me to get me to change my mind

apparently, Sigop DDoS attack is possible now, because the Sigops per block limit is too high.


Why isn't anyone using the attack then?

Maybe you can help to dispel some commonplace FUD about the sigops DDoS attack.

Bitcoin already has a sigops per block limit to mitigate the risk of this attack (despite the FUD that introducing such a limit is all that's needed to solve the problem, which is pretty dumb considering that's already what happens )




Now, surely this limit could continue to apply to the base 1MB block _after_ segwit is activated (which can only contain sigs from non-segwit transactions)? Is this how the fork is coded anyway?

I didn't respond to text in the article

It's not my responsibility that the text (quoted from the article, presumably) reads the way I interpreted it


And it's still moronic, even if it's a different type of foolishness. An assessment which you appear to share (it's even more moronic than it appears at first, what shall I say now, "double moron alert"?)