|
Thanks for posting this, a serf like me can't really get to these kind of meets so its great to read what is going on at them.
"Learn to love the fork" is an interesting idea.
For some time now it seemed to me that the accepted wisdom was that "Hard fork" is bad. The inference I think was that it forking is *more* bad than the status quo. I use "bad" as a simple catch-all here. The exact sentiment varies.
I think its not clear that either is more or less bad than the other. Emotive arguments exist on either side, the fact is that its such a complex system its almost impossible to know with any certainty what is best.
I think that "Nakamoto consensus" was the mechanism designed to try and avoid having to give anyone the responsibility of choosing a path. The idea being to leave it up to the free market to vote on the paths that have been made available. "Consensus" being an emergent property of all the participants within the system.
As messy as the "debate" sometimes is right now, I think the mechanism is alive and well.
|
|
|
|
Only in your fanciful hyperreality does "miners can't mint 1m coins == miners have little to no power"
You are distorting what Prof. Sirer's essay actually says. Perhaps if you bother to RTFA, its conclusions would seem less like "fanciful hyperreality." Au contraire blackadder, I was *quoting* your characterisation of TFA Miners have little to no power in Bitcoin. If you insist on hanging around and opining, you really should lean how all this stuff works. Here's a good place to start: http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/It is a common misperception that Bitcoin miners determine the shape of the blockchain. So common, in fact, that I had an academic colleague fall into the same trap, where the thought miners could arbitrarily decide to mint 1 million coins for themselves. |
|
|
|
|
Only in your fanciful hyperreality does "miners can't mint 1m coins == miners have little to no power"
|
|
|
|
Miners have little to no power in Bitcoin. If you insist on hanging around and opining, you really should lean how all this stuff works.
 |
|
|
|
Announcement: We will withdraw support from February 21’s roundtable consensus, unless Adam Back gives us a reasonable explanation why he quietly changed his title from Blockstream President to Individual at the very last moment — without anybody noticed. We feel we’ve been cheated. I don’t know how we can trust Blockstream anymore in the future.
Really? This is what we're getting all upset about today in Bitcoinland?  You owe Adam an apology for assuming he was responsible for the change in title, instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt and seeking clarification. The whole "zomg y u cheat me" thing is such a third world negotiating tactic. It's really tacky. You've been looking and reaching for things to get offended about for days. And this is the best you can do? Really? A discrepancy between draft revisions, one of which was released prematurely (without permission?) is no reason to get all whiny. Why don't you just rage quit like Mike Hearn, if your feelings are so hurt and fragile trust so grievously wounded? SHA3 is looking better everyday we have to watch the ASIC miner tail struggle to wag the Bitcoin dog. People are waking up iB.. Tick tock. |
|
|
|
Big Block & Classic supporters are all a little bitter at the moment aren't they? Seriously why do you care if somebody opens a self moderated thread?
Does it bring any issues to your life?
Yes it causes me great concern for the mental well being of the redditard that started it, so fearful that words might scathe their tender brows. Can't you see how important it is!!?!?! Do you not understand the great injustices!!!!11111!one |
|
|
|
The best part about censored threads is being censored. Until you are censored you are obliged to believe that any claims of censorship by some person is just opinion. Once it happens to you, then you know the truth. IMHO threads are either serious or entertainment. Self moderated threads, for me, automatically fall in the latter because why would you waste time posting anything serious in a discussion where the other guy can just delete you if they don't like it. Why would you even start a self moderated thread. Its a massive target. It screams that you are so scared of what someone might post that you want to be able to delete it. Why, its an internet forum FFS, who cares? There was a reason that for several years I only ever hung out on spec subforum. It was a much lighter experience  Still I'm here on general now might as well make the best of it! |
|
|
|
If not: take a look at the mirror...
What are we trying to imply here? That if we keep nodding contentedly, thinking that the description applies only to the "other crowd", we might benefit re-reading the article and perhaps our own output. That's what we try to do here. Even better is that this article applies to neither side. Its fluff and nonsense designed to enrage. The article is crap. |
|
|
|
So through social engineering, not technical skills. Also - why would you want to do something like this?
Interesting move, you've created an account just to make this post which mentions sock-pupets as an important point. It does sound familiar.  At least we all have one thing to counter this type of attack, our brains. When I hear someone talking about what he did or what she said instead of the issue I assume this is not about the truth. It is an attempt to persuade me based on my feelings about his/her actions. That does not work on me. I base my financial decisions on mathematics rather than emotion. I kinda think this is true of all serious people and that FUD only works on the weak and fearful. What I'm only uncertain of currently is, who's exactly behind the campaign. Divide and conquer!It's always the same dirty game.
EDIT: this should definitely be a sticky thread
Divide et impera, indeed. This is definitely an article that should be read by everyone in the ecosystem. Anyone who has participated in such campaigns or has educated themselves
in the history and cases of PSYOps and BlackOps knows this is very likely.
I'm looking into spreading my knowledge in these areas (especially concerning open source projects). However, I've recognized behavioral patterns and changes of such in certain members, ergo realizing the campaign in progress a few months ago. Here's a good video: How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People. There was no "divide" until the previously uncontroversial blocksize increase was yoinked in place of something else. All the drama since then is the stuff that is described in your linked article (on both sides) is what created a divide. The entire article is a cheap parody of the "CIA Handbook" in its various incarnations. It reads very naively to me "I'm a green beret.. I'd make sock puppets on reddit". This article seems intent on furthering the idea of a division. The article describes controlling everything on the ground. There is inference of some kind of central command, but then nothing describing how that central command would operate. A police force is only as strong a the government that leads it. Controlling the map is done by controlling the generals not the troops. Very little is said about central command. The article is written assuming that authority is the correct model. It characterises attacks on authority as attacks on bitcoin. Bitcoin *shouldn't* be controlled by anyone. Any attempt to create an authority structure around bitcoin is in fact an attack on bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I think you are being *mean*  |
|
|
|
There is no mention on the Bitco.in forum of BIP101 being withdrawn. Why is that? Are they so poorly informed, or is the cognitive dissonance too great to confront until later in the grieving process? I demand a Frap.doc greatly saddened reaction shot! OK, found one!   the only force i see is the censorship A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. |
|
|
|
Is there any transparent source (not consider.it) that shows how many miners are in favor of the bitcoin classic?
What about bitcoin users / merchants?
I`d like to see a transparent number about the % of bitcoin classic supporters.
Define 'transparent'? There isn't really a good way to measure exactly how many people are using Bitcoin, thus you can't really measure how many support Classic either. However, there are sites where you can vote on various arguments with your coins such as bitcoinocracy. Miners truly support an implementation only when they start mining related blocks. Currently nobody is mining using Classic. The number of coins voting on even the most controversial topic represent around 1% of Bitcoin holdings and at most 60 individuals. Then there is the case that all those big ass block size increase votes are from linked addresses. Whilst there is no way to count individual users, this is not really important. As there is a really good way to establish consensus. It's in the whitepaper. Everyone that is trying to reinvent the wheel probably ought to listen more and speak less. Bear in mind that it is this consensus mechanism that is maintaining the the Bitcoin core view of what the validation rules are. Arguing that 75% is needed to change is like saying that only 25% can veto the current situation. Which is patently ridiculous and why the rules were made like thy were. Q. What's more "hostile" than trying to change blocksize limit? A. Trying to change the consensus mechanism. |
|
|
|
Could you please finally once and for all admit that bip101 is off the table https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/329For the longest time now you have argued black and blue that that XT is rekt. Now we finally have the evidence that you need. It's been a long wait and we need to thank everyone that has been so patient. Finally we can put to bed the idea that XT=bip101 and focus on the fact that XT is just one of several clients that supports the block size increase. As the Wu Tang Clan might put it "The Chinese miner ultimatum ain't nothin' ta fuck wit' " Tick tock |
|
|
|
|
Your attempt to insinuate that the the parent was compromised is literally straight out of the CBGB public communication subversion handbook!
Seriously, this whole thread perfectly characterises everything that is wrong right now. nullc should know better. so should I, topping this bile fest is probably ill advised, but at least I'm not a 'core dev'.
Real people with real opinions just aren't this level of crazy.
|
|
|
|
-snip-
No matter how many walls of text you write, Segwit remains better than a 2 MB block size. Tell me exactly what problems get solved by the 2 MB block size? As always: none. Does it fix malleability, does it enable simpler script upgrades? Of course it doesn't. Again Segwit is more complex, but people are falling back on personal incredulity in this case. "Wall" of text. lol. The exact question you asked is addressed in the part you snipped! |
|
|
|
Another power grab from a desperate developer that might just work, if he play the fiddle in the right manner. The trolls with the limited knowledge will jump onto this proposal without considering the possible consequences. We are driving around with a bus that are 50% to capacity and we are already calling for a double decker replacement.
The Core developers have put a lot of thought into SegWit and scaling for the future and loads of other advantages and we just want to take the first proposal, because we were told the 2 MB Block size increase would be the Nirvana.
Your whole post is appeal to emotion. Using the phrase "power grab" is an acknowledgement that you think the core team have some kind of power, and that it might be taken away, and that the other guys *want* power. Nobody should have exclusive control over bitcoin. Even Gregory agrees with Gavin on that! |
|
|
|
Segwit works around the blocksize limit, it doesn't *not* increase resource utilisation in a like for like comparison.
You said segwit 'buys time', implicit in that statement is an acknowledgement that something needs to be done. Hence I think you already know the answer to your own question "What's the Urgency?"
No. The current argument is Segwit vs 2 MB blocks where Segwit is far superior in any aspect (aside of the complexity). You could also argue between Core and Classic but it is obvious which the better implementation is. "No, segwit is far superior in every way (expect a really important one), change subject to something emotive then state some undefined thing is obvious." That's your best argument? - Classic fixes full blocks by changing a parameter to allow for bigger blocks.
This change is simpler ( various objective measures: LOC,amount of functionality added, amount of exiting functionality modified) and directly addresses full blocks. It works around the sighash problem with another temporary cap. It introduces a bunch of trigger code. It increases resource utilisation on nodes. - Segwit works around full blocks by changing the way in which bitcoin blocks are built, and moving some of the data into a new data structure.
This change introduces more complexity than the blocksize update and fundamentally changes the way in which bitcoin works. It also affects some economic incentives around transaction size and miner fees, these directly benefit LN at the expense of miners and non mininig-nodes. It has several benefits with regards malleability, sighash and p2sh. In doing so it increases the effective block size without changing the blocksize limit itself. It too also increases resource utilisation on nodes. There are pros and cons to both methods (the above is not exhaustive). It is not clear that one is objectively better than the other. Yet you are stating that Segwit is far superior. How can you possibly know? You draw a comparison to the "Core vs Classic" debate. The implication here is either that you think Core is far superior to classic, or that you think that its obvious that Segwit is better than a blocksize increase. Its one of those opinions presented as fact things. It also serves to further polarise opinion on the topic. This is a fact: - It's not obvious which solution is better.
This is, on balance, most likely: - Core is not far superior to Classic.
- Classic is not far superior to Core.
(This is because they are largely the same code base, and the respective changes to each have their pros and cons.) This is another fact: - Segwit and Blocksize increase are not mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
|
...
And I was so hoping we could discuss the following: In one hand they are stopping block size increase citing lack of consensus, and in other hand they are force feeding RBF & SegWit without consensus.
Removing the rules against actions that the network protocol expressly forbids against the will of an economically significant portion of users, and risking a persistent ledger split in the process is not a comparable thing. It's something that Bitcoin Core strongly believe it does not have the moral or technical authority to do, and attempting to do so would be a failure to uphold the principles of the system. It's not something to do lightly, and people who think that it's okay to change the system's rules out from under users who own coins in it are not people that I'd want to be taking advice from-- that kind of thinking is counter to the entire Bitcoin value proposition. So just to be clear - do you maintain that block size increases are necessarily "Removing the rules against actions that the network protocol expressly forbids", and are therefore necessarily evil? Finally--at some point the capacity increases from the above may not be enough. Delivery on relay improvements, segwit fraud proofs, dynamic block size controls, and other advances in technology will reduce the risk and therefore controversy around moderate block size increase proposals (such as 2/4/8 rescaled to respect segwit's increase).
- Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.htmlIf a miner violates the hard rules of the system they are simply not miners anymore as far as all the nodes are concerned.
For better or worse (I would say for worse), in this era of industrial mining, non-mining nodes have essentially zero power. Any viable mining operation has sufficient resources to run a node of its own, and connect explicitly to other mining entities that share its philosophy. The only power outside of miners is the threat that users abandon the chain en masse. I think its safe to say non-mining nodes *never* had any power. In the white paper the word 'node' was synonymous with the word 'miner'. It's only over time that this 'node/miner' separation has arisen. Bitcoin is defined by hashrate, and the arguments (from all sides, me included heh) that something else *should* matter seem a bit petulant! The industrialisation of mining has happened exactly as predicted. The mechanisms to keep the big guys check are still there. One of which I think is exactly what you describe the threat that they cannot do anything that would cause user's to abandon it. Miner's and users are the yin and yang of the network. Developers and non-mining nodes grease the wheels but ultimately have no power. The code's out of the bag so to speak. If the chinese miners decide they want 2MB, even if they don't use Classic, or BU, they could always just roll their own. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
