As are anybody else. Miners, nodes, users, … all adrift on a dead network. You’re not supporting your point that nodes determine consensus.


I fail to detect a point here. Correct, miners spinning up nodes does not directly impact users. I was pointing how silly your claim was that miners have to abide by what nodes want. Again, even if miners were somehow magically barred from spinning up their own nodes, nodes are powerless.


Yes, the network of users may have forked off the non-mining nodes. Agreed. You’re not supporting your point very well.

The network of users may also fork off the miners. This is not in the interests of the miners. Which is why adhering to a single codebase is not important for maintaining consensus. Economic interest is what is important for maintaining consensus.


Absolutely false. The only entities that control the rules by which the miners operate are the miners themselves. Just as the only entities that control the rules to which the nodes adhere are the nodes, and the only entities that control the rules to which the users adhere those very same users.

Further, the rules the miners adhere to, and the rules the users adhere to, actually mean something. They determine whether the blockchain is extended by any given block, and they determine whether or not economic transactions will be carried out upon that blockchain. The rules that any given node adheres to, OTOH, has essentially zero impact upon the network.


I never made any such claim.


Shame on _you_ for attributing to me a false quote.


Because I would assume that miners would only build a chain adhering to rules that users would accept. It is against their economic interest to do otherwise.


Duh. Going for the reductio al stupido card again?


Let me refresh your memory. Upon receiving a transaction, a node has exactly two options to it:
1) Forward the transaction
2) Not forward the transaction

Other than “dropping the transaction on the floor” (i.e. not forwarding the transaction), the node has no ability to influence the outcome of the network.


Do you even bitcoin? If any given node does not forward a given transaction, it matters not to the network. As long as the transaction finds its way from the creator of that transaction to a miner that mines it into a block that is subsequently accepted by the bulk of the miners, then that is a valid transaction, and any number of nodes can stamp their metaphorical feet, but that transaction has been conducted.

Yes, this all presumes that this transaction adheres to the rules set by the miners that accept it. But if so, it will be included in the blockchain. Users that do not agree with these rules are free to abandon the chain as well. So what?

Nodes remain absolutely powerless.


Not necessarily. Agreed. Which is why miners are incentivised to implement rules that will be accepted by the majority. Of other miners, and of users. Again, nodes have no power here.


Bullshit. Miners enforce rules as well. Any miner that mines on a block that contains transactions that are invalid will eventually go broke.


Thanks for the tautology. If those users accept that chain however…


I did not say that it equates. I stated that the miners are incentivized to follow the will of the majority of users. Again, no mention of nodes in this calculus, as nodes are powerless.


While I’d like to inquire what it means for ‘users to fork off miners’, I think I agree with your implied statement. Although I would phrase it somewhat more precisely. Maybe ‘users will not transact upon a blockchain that contains transactions that violate rules that those users accept’. I don’t see what point you’re making by this though.


I would suggest that if you are seeking insight as to Gavin’s motives, you might want to ask Gavin. Anything I could provide would be speculation. Though maybe if I read his words, I might infer something. Care to provide a link?


Again, you’d have to ask ‘classic-cloud’. Actually, I am unaware of any entity called ‘classic-cloud’. Is there one? Or are you just making stuff up in order to have a false talking point?


What is untrue? That there is a network of Classic nodes? Objectively, I know that there is a network of Classic nodes. I have at times run a Classic node. It has connected to at least one other Classic node. The existence of more than one Classic node is a priori evidence of a Classic node network.

Are you ignorant to the fact that there are at least two Classic nodes? Or are you intentionally misusing language in order to build another false talking point?



Great! Orwellian doublespeak! The SegWit Omnibus Changeset purports to make all current full nodes incapable of validating all transactions. This is the very antithesis of ‘compatible’.


If that’s the way you see it.


Any statistics, risk and game theory analysis to support the contention that 75% is unsafe? Put up or shut up.

You are right. We do not have hard evidence that 75% agreement will necessarily result in essentially all economic value on a single chain. Indeed the only way to prove that proposition, even with 99%, is to run the experiment. I feel confident that 75% is sufficient. Which is why I am working towards that goal.


Cool retort. What I seek is also =/= what will not happen.

No I’m done with evidence. Or more precisely, this entire discussion - all three and a half or so years of it - has been completely bereft of evidence. There are plausible inferences on both sides, and each side is assigning different probabilities to the various possible outcomes. Your group have not provided any evidence not only that 75% is insufficient, but neither any evidence that Core’s scaling path is free of fatal flaws.

Nope, I’ve been told repeatedly to fork off. Which is one reason why I am working towards that goal. With 75% hashpower, and what we believe will be correspondingly high user support. Cheers!


There is no “75% miner attack”. We measure miners, as hash power cannot be faked. We believe that 75% of all hash power is as good a proxy as can be measured for majority user support. 75% of the hash power plus the majority of users is not an attack - it is consensus.


Again, my response is that I have no idea what you're talking about when you say “miner's ability to force users to install adversarial software”. I have certainly made no such claim.


Again, Miners determine what rules they will follow. Just as nodes determine what rules they will follow, and users determine what rules they will follow.


And again - utter twaddle. See above.


“There you go again”
   - RR


We shall see.


LOL. Really.


I have no idea what you’re talking about here. AFAIK, BTCD = the symbol used to refer to BitcoinDark. What the heck does BitcoinDark have to do with anything? As BitcoinDark is a completely separate blockchain, Classic will not accept BitcoinDark blocks.


Nice demurrance, given that you have been exposed down thread as making this up from whole cloth.

Sure. I'd love to be able to stick to discussing only things that are meaningful.

However, you are spreading bullshit, claiming it to be noncontroversial fact. Accordingly, I am calling you on it.

Either provide links showing that this claim that "This paraphrased theme of "Let's cause bitcoin prices to fall in order that core compromises with us"   is so pervasive and common amongst a large number of XT/Classic supporters" is "non-contoversial", or publicly rescind your fucking lie.

I think there may be much imprecision in your statements. Maybe I am just misunderstanding you. Let's see if we can delve down to the truth of the matter.


How can you say that the only thing traded will be the 'new-SYS'? Even if every last exchange granted their account holders 'new-SYS', and 'eradicated' the 'old-SYS', what of 'old-SYS' in private wallets? What is the mechanism by which those holders of 'old-SYS' will be prevented from trading it?


Exchanges are not required in order to trade. Such can be done privately. If it exists, it will be traded. By someone somewhere. And if the 'old-SYS' ends up retaining miners, activity, and value, why would exchanges not resume trading it?

eta: It seems there are significant _assumptions_ being passed off as _fact_.


AFAIK, the funds in (bitcoin-style) wallet.dats are in the form of fundamental units (e.g. in that case of Bitcoin, denominated in Sathoshis). If such a wallet.dat is simply copied to a new daemon's folder, would it not be incorrect by a factor of 299.4:1?

That is exactly what I am saying. I do not believe your representation. I have seen exactly zero instances of people trying to tank the price of Bitcoin as a strategy to get Core to capitulate.

So yes, a link is indeed necessary.

Otherwise, you are just pulling shit out of your ass.

Link please?

Yeah... that's what I thought.

All y'all need to forget about Paycoin. It's over. Done. So 2015.

Behold the new hotness. Syscoin!

Incorrect. It has been unambiguously stated by danosphere* that an entirely new coin is being created, and coins on this new chain are being granted to all 'old-SYS' holders at that point in time at a 299.4:1 ratio. That is not a conversion of anything. It is the creation of a new thing.

*https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=757255.msg14307923#msg14307923

Questions remaining unanswered include:

All exchanges that deal in SYS have indicated that they will implement this change on behalf of their customers which have SYS in their accounts?

Will each such customer end up with an 'old-SYS' account and a 'new-SYS' account'?

Or will these exchanges just be pocketing their customers' 'old-SYS' for the exchanges' own benefit?

So you believe you know more about my motivations than I do myself. Interesting god complex you have there.


I dunno. Seems to work for TCP/IP.

No. But nice try at reductio al stupido. Hashpower is a pretty good measure of economic resources. In this world where chicken littles are cluck-clucking about how expensive a 2MB node is to run, a mid-size miner can spin up any number of nodes. To such a miner, the cost of operating nodes is less than chickenfeed. For a mere two chicks. The non-mining nodes have cluck-all to do with consensus. But they do make the impotent feel good about their 'power'.


Even if miners were somehow magically prevented from operating nodes, if the miners build a chain with whatever rules they care to, and the transactionators keep transactionating upon that blockchain, that chain defines Bitcoin. The nodes have fuck-all to say about it. What are they gonna do, just drop all the incoming transactions on the floor? Miners unaffected - they'll just reach down and pick up the dropped transactions, and mine 'em in the next block. Or the next...

Now you can argue that the node instances are a reflection of the transactionators' will. But that is a different conversation altogether. Is that your claim? If so, well then let's discuss this real issue rather than imbuing 'nodes' with some magical power that they do not in reality possess.

Though to answer your question directly, the miners are interested in what 75% of those making transactions will choose. As those making transactions are the power that keep miners in check. They have no need to worry about amassing 75% of nodes. Nodes are powerless.


Yes. The reason is that there are many changes other than SegWit in The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.


In my book, any change that changes the protocol so significantly that formerly fully validating nodes become nodes incapable of validating all transactions is something other than 'backwards compatible'. But you can live in that fantasy land if you want to.


First, I'll grant you one fair point. I used the term 'BlockstreamCoin' merely in snark, based upon the similar derision cast upon the other forks. However, you knew exactly what implementation I was speaking of, didn't you? Your other terms? Not so much.

But more germane, neither Classic (which, by the way, is NOT the fork published by Coinbase), XT, nor Unlimited seek to split the chain. If they did, their activation threshold would be somewhat south of 75%.


Nope - you're still not getting it. We do not seek a version that no one uses. We seek multiple interoperating versions, all adherent to the same protocol based upon emergent consensus. We seek a coin guided by Nakamoto Consensus, rather than one restricted by the few. We seek these principles to be eventually adopted by the overwhelming majority of Bitcoiners. And at the moment, our trajectory is positive. Cheers!


Using a different implementation is not 'breaking consensus'. As long as a shared protocol (i.e. a protocol that has achieved consensus) is employed, it matters not what implementation each user chooses.


But you make claims about them that you cannot verify. The integrity of your statements is duly noted.

Ha. Haha. Hahahahah. HahaHahaHahAHAHA.

'the 8 peers'

hoo boy, that's rich.

Even better - 2 of 8 Classic is... err ... how many ? .... get mah fingers out ... hum - that can't be right? I'm coming up with about a quarter!? Lemme do this again

You really do live in a rose-colored bubble, don't you?





Well, other than your BTC price speculations, of course, which seem fairly moderated.*










* (see what I did there?)

Thank you for your forthright -- and clear -- answers.

I can't imagine why anyone would think this would be a good idea.

And all exchanges that deal in SYS have indicated that they will implement this change on behalf of their customers which have SYS in their accounts? Will each such customer end up with an 'old-SYS' account and a 'new-SYS' account', or will these exchanges just be pocketing their customers' 'old-SYS' for the exchanges' own benefit?

Here's a con. SegWit does not solve the O(n^2) hashing problem. Other fixes in the The SegWit Omnibus Changeset do. As do other changes in those other forks you so love to deride.

First, this has to do with _transaction_ size, not _block_ size. Sure, you can fit a larger than 1MB transaction in a larger than 1MB block. Yawn.

But even if the other forks had nothing in place to deal with this issue, you still need to explain to me why a miner would not stop validating a malformed block, rather than getting back to earning revenue*. If this sort of technical detail is what Bitcoin's continued success depends upon, rather than an alignment of economic incentive for being 'a good neighbor', we're all doomed anyway.

*For those of you who don't know what this is, it consists of being the first miner to find a nonce that brings the hash of a block to a result lower than that determined by the current difficulty.**

** Yes, I know you know this. Well, most of you, anyway. Think the incentives through.

Merely to amass 75% hashing power. Yes, it's a long way from here. But the trend is positive. As I said, we're working on it, thanks.


Is there something in your reply that you believe is a stunning revelation?


Oh - there it is. Though it is merely a stunning misunderstanding of the way Nakamoto Consensus works. The blockchain that emerges with the majority of the hashing power (e.g. economic majority) ends up being The One True Bitcoin. FWIW, The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, as proposed, is also not compatible with the original network. We need some way forward. I have cast my lot with bigger blocks for the time being.

How sure are you that you'll end up on the winning side of this trade? I'm working towards my side being the victor. You doing anything other than waiting for Blockstream to pull through for you?


You're right - they're pushing a contentious soft fork on the community. Yawn.


Yikes! I have no idea what 'adam's datacentercoin' is. I assume by 'CoinbaseCoin', you mean Classic? Or do you mean Unlimited? XT? Or maybe you mean the source tree that Coinbase's engineers forked? You're gonna have to specify.

I've made my choice for the moment, thank you. Interestingly, any of the above are compatible with any of the others. So when another incorporates features I value higher, I can simply switch. Oh yeah - you can throw Satoshi 0.12 in that pile too. At least for now. Next Core rev... err ... not so much.


Can you name more than five people that you consider to be 'the bitco.in crew'? How many of them are pumping DASH here?

We're working on it, thanks.


You misunderstand the situation entirely. We believe in the original Bitcoin vision. We feel you have lost your way.


No. It is Bitcoin. It adheres much closer to the existing principles than does BlockstreamCoin.


WTF are you on about?

Note that I have not asked questions regarding when the announcement will be made. I am asking very specific questions. So far, others in the community -- doubtless well-meaning, but not authoritative -- have made poor attempts to answer. However, these questions remain unaddressed - at least directly.

Please get some one on your team to clarify the questions at:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=757255.msg14297301#msg14297301

To wit:

1) An entirely new coin is being created. Holders of what is today being referred to as SYS (which I will refer to here as 'old-SYS' for clarity) will be issued 1 of these new coins for every 299.4 'old-SYS' coins they hold. Right?

2) Everyone will be expected to stop calling 'old-SYS' SYS. However, all holders of 'old-SYS' will still have all their 'old-SYS', and there is no technical reason that the 'old-SYS' blockchain cannot continue as a viable coin. Right?

3) Everyone will be expected to refer to this new coin as simply 'SYS', despite the fact that it has an existence completely independent of 'old-SYS', which was previously known as simply 'SYS'.

That about sum it up? Or am I wrong in one or more of the above points?

It seems that all that you are countering is whether or not the 'old-SYS' will have continued users. Correct?

And that there is no technical mistake in what I conclude, correct?

Perhaps I was not clear in my question. From my perspective I have an issue with the bolded parts above:

1) An entirely new coin is being created. Holders of what is today being referred to as SYS (which I will refer to here as 'old-SYS' for clarity) will be issued 1 of these new coins for every 299.4 'old-SYS' coins they hold. Right?

2) Everyone will be expected to stop calling 'old-SYS' SYS. However, all holders of 'old-SYS' will still have all their 'old-SYS', and there is no technical reason that the 'old-SYS' blockchain cannot continue as a viable coin. Right?

3) Everyone will be expected to refer to this new coin as simply 'SYS', despite the fact that it has an existence completely independent of 'old-SYS', which was previously known as simply 'SYS'.

That about sum it up? Or am I wrong in one or more of the above points?

I am new to SYS. Help me struggle through some possible misconceptions.

There is talk of a "conversion" of 'SYS1' to 'SYS2' at a rate of 299.4:1. However, reading what little description I have been able to find, it appears this is not a conversion at all. Instead, it looks to me as if a second coin is being created, and each holder of 'SYS1' will be issued some 'SYS2' at the rate of 299.4:1. IOW, this looks to actually be a new coin (i.e., new blockchain), with initial distribution determined by a snapshot of 'SYS1' distribution.

is this accurate? If not, what am I misunderstanding?

Do you have a link to a press release from Microsoft confirming this?