|
Second exist scam from Dan? I wonder how many people he can fool with a 3rd in the future?
|
|
|
|
|
This second compromise is nothing but a veiled attempt at setting a precedent that we force a HF without consensus on the community and either giving the decision to miners or developers instead of the users themselves. As we can see from this poll , consensus over a HF is not anywhere near being found and thus the HF proposal offered isn't anywhere good enough to be considered. I don't want to even consider accepting politically motivated hard forks and just want to focus on whats right for bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
We have reached 95% consensus among the miners many times in the past.
I don't see this as anything more than an attempt to activate a contentious fork.
There is good evidence that those opposing it are in the minority(Even many "Big Blockers" support segwit - Gavin/Garzik, ect...). Miners controlling most hashpower are only a handful of people and one miner Bitmain may control over 50% . Thus this proposal would not be about getting a lower level of consensus to activate a SF but an accurate and high level of 95% of the community. 95% hashpower doesn't necessarily mean 95% economic user support. |
|
|
|
I think 95% is not archieveable - independent from soft or hardfork or what about the change would be. I think we are already too big and diversified for this. imagine a society where you have a government which is only able to work if more than 95% of the citizen voted for it (in freedom). Sounds not possible anymore.
I would suggest over 95% support is achievable for a consensus critical bug like we saw in 2013. This solution may make it far easier to activate a SF , but yes supermajority HFs are still extremely difficult. I also believe that we should try and get segwit activated as it might be the last SF we see as bitcoin begins to ossify. |
|
|
|
Good follow up reply with some concerns - https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-February/013648.htmlI like the idea , but think it needs to be fleshed out some more. Perhaps lowering miner activation to 51% + getting direct support from all major exchanges and wallet providers + 95% full node support + long flag day delay + better education with users and miners about using border nodes for miners opting out + 95% developer support = a safe Soft Fork. |
|
|
|
]If you seriously believe that coinbase actually supports SegWit, then you are naive. Coinbase was attacked for months (if not longer) with baseless accusations (such as being hacked, insolvent, lying about reserves, ect.) on r/bitcoin after publicly supporting larger blocksize proposals, which promptly stopped when coinbase stopped being vocal about larger block proposals.
So you are suggesting Brian is lying because he was peer pressured or bullied instead of realizing that segwit is the best step forward after more reflection? I don't know his mind and won't entertain conspiracy theories , but him and others in his company like Charlie Lee have come out in support of segwit. If you do not think that exchanges employ any kind of experts then you are sorely mistaken. The experts employed by the exchanges may not be public figures, nor do they command the kind of salary that blockstream pays, however without their services, exchanges would be exploited on a regular basis. Please cite their experts direct opinion than. This does not match what I have observed. Can you point to attacks against Coinbase and BTCC, both of which you cite to be a SegWit supporter, on r/bitcoin?
Are you kidding me ? Samson Mow wasn't continually attacked for segwit support? Yes, attacking the former CTO is indeed an attack on the company itself. |
|
|
|
Thank you for your notes on the matter. 1. They still have to run the equipment to perform the mining. This has a cost associated with it, and they need enough revenue to keep it going. The more revenue their competitors get, the more hashing power their competitors can afford which increases the profitability of their competitors and increases the mining difficulty. Eventually the attacking miner (or pool) is operating at a loss. When they lose enough money, they can't afford to continue to run and have to shut down.
Mining is already extremely centralized and there is evidence that one company could already control over 50% of the hashrate directly or indirectly. There are profits to be made in raising the blocksize from this principle miner or a cartel of miners who wish to shutdown competitors elsewhere while they can further centralize mining in a single location like this where they aren't concerned as much with orphaning blocks due to increased latency: http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/content-tracks/power-cooling/bitmain-to-build-a-large-cryptocurrency-mine-in-xinjiang/97265.fullarticle2. They lose out on the transaction fees from the transactions they refused to include. This is lost revenue, and other miners or pools that choose to include those transactions will be able to afford more hash power, thereby making the attacking pool less relevant.
This miner, Cough...Bitmain... cough, would still be extremely profitable because most of the block would be filled with others tx fees and they would simply top it off occasionally when they wanted increase the blocksize. THis would actually likely increase their profit margins as the txs sitting in the mempool would than compete in a fee market which would drive up tx fees. 3. If their block gets orphaned, then all those "spam" transactions can be confirmed by some other miner or pool. As such, they can pay a very hefty fee for playing such a game and taking such a risk. Eventually this additional revenue for the "honest" miners and pools will allow them to afford more hash power, thereby making the attacking pool less relevant.
I would disagree , they would be encouraged to continue down the path we are already witnessing- centralizing mining further to reduce orphan risk by placing most mining under one roof - https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitmain-reveals-plans-for-major-bitcoin-mining-data-center-in-northwestern-china-1478797051/ , collecting rent fees from other miners who wish to be hosted in this facility, pretending that mining is becoming more decentralized by creating contracts with "other" companies , advocating for blocksize increases to onboard more txs and collect more fees while preventing competition from remaining profitable. The only way miners could be successful in such an "attack" would be if there was a cartel of miners (or pools) that controlled significantly more than 50% of the hash power. They could then all agree to exclude low-fee paying transactions and avoid mining each other's "spam". If this occurs, then bitcoin is already a failure.
Miners order txs and users validate them. Miners work for economic users. The current Miners are ultimately powerless to the will of these users and bitcoin will carry on with or without them. |
|
|
|
Well the fact is Danny, the "solution" you're oh-so subtly selling is little thin on game theory.
User selectable blocksize just moves the shouting match directly to the consensus rules, and of course, who shouts loudest wins. No amount of goodwill platitudes can wish that away, so you're going to have to admit you're selling yet another 2nd hand used-Bitcoin eventually
And that's without forgetting that even without the BU blocksize getting set to "datacenter" by bad actors, a majority of BU users aren't going to even set the mysterious "block limit" setting, much less the "Depth" setting, and so BU developers de facto choose it's blocksize anyway, as they choose the default
Well said, and miners can both sybil attack the blocksize vote while stuffing blocks with spam (for free as they collect the tx fees) to mislead the community into believing more capacity is needed, rinse and repeat. |
|
|
|
Although not directly related to SegWit, this reddit post is a better indication of the experts who are running major Bitcoin related businesses' opinions. Provided that you trust that the author of that post is not lying (I am unsure of his ability to be trusted one way or another, although I have not seen any contradictions to what he has said), then the majority of Bitcoin related businesses are neutral to the issue, and do not support one side or another. OKCoin, BitFinex,Gemini ,BitFinex,BTCC, Kraken, Bitstamp, Bittrex, Coinfloor , Btc-e , QuadrigaCX, itBit , bitMex= We don't have an opinion because we either don't want to upset a subset of our users and/or we don't understand the proposals enough Coinbase , Coinfloor= segwit Btcpop = BU Owners of BTCC and BitFinex have expressed segwit support elsewhere. Exchanges make money of tx fees and will benefit greatly in the short term from Bitcoin splitting in 2 and a trading war begins so aren't the best businesses to ask regarding their opinion. The experts achow101 refers to anyways are devs not exchange owners anyways. I would also point out that major businesses were threatened with bans on r/bitcoin after they publicly showed support for XT (and baseless ad-hominem attacks were thrown at the same businesses after they showed support for XT), so there is a legitimate business reason to withhold public opposition to SegWit (and public support for BU) if that is the business' actual position. There is no such business reason to withhold public support for SegWit when the business' actual position is that they support SegWit.
This isn't true. Supporters of segwit are viciously attacked all the time. |
|
|
|
that's a cool list altho the bitcoin.com joke of a website do get fiat to promote scams.
Yes you are correct. I removed them from the list as I see alts and paypal accepted now in their store. For a brief moment it was BTC only . Shapeshift.io also accepts alts to sell for btc so technically I should have never added them either. Removed https://infozara.net Music Instruments and Accessories - site down https://bitroses.com Flowers - site down |
|
|
|
|
Added -
Ledger nano S 58.00 €
|
|
|
|
Added new coin BTCC mint preloaded Titanium Bitcoins (not sold in US) https://mint.btcc.com/ 1.1BTC per coin (Includes virgin 1 BTC) Added Ledger Blue Announcement |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
