First item is to understand why Blockstream refused to accept 2MB blocks along with SegWit.
I haven't actually looked to see their official stated reason, but I can guess that it must be because they know they each time they want to "upgrade" the protocol, they need have some carrot and stick that forces the market to want their upgrade. So keeping blocksize very constrained is necessary so that Blockstream remains in control of the protocol.
In other words, Blockstream can't accept 2MB blocks, because they know their business model depends on them being in control of the protocol of Bitcoin. Also factor in that maybe Bitmain has told them behind the curtain that Bitmain will block all their future protocol changes after the 2MB+SegWit. Blockstream probably couldn't repeat that in public, because Bitmain would deny it and accuse Blockstream of fabricating lies.
Am I correct so far?
They just have a secret channel where they organize their PR and trolling campaigns. go PM that guy, he should have a much better idea. |
|
|
|
|
Spoiler alert!
Gmax's response to bitmains statement is gonna be somthing like
" you dont use boosting? GOOD you wont have a problem running the BIP-all-your-boosts-are-belong-to-us"
than bitmain will run the BIP... and the space time continue will implode in on itself and then the big bang! you know the rest...
|
|
|
|
Bitmain has continuously been advocating for increasing the Bitcoin block size. Increasing the block size will make the collisions even more difficult, damaging the potential benefits of Bitmain’s gain from the private ASICBOOST assumed by Maxwell’s proposal. The conspiracy theories do not add up here. this? We have very firm belief that the block size of Bitcoin will be increased. It is the Bitcoin that our co-founders signed up for, it is the roadmap designed by Satoshi and it is the destiny of Bitcoin. We will protect it at any cost.. THIS must be what you find inconsistent... |
|
|
|
smells fishy... but maybe HE can prove what he is saying by running that BIP that kills boosting. This just gets more hilarious as time goes on  So we are suppose to believe that Bitmain has this 20-30% efficiency boost and they are NOT using it? That seems kind of hard to believe. I wonder if someone can prove that they are? In any event, interesting times these days. I can not see how anyone can predict the outcome of the scaling debate, it seems like it can go in any direction. Who knows what the next bombshell will bring and where that will lead. maybe they really do have it turned off, maybe they felt it would become all to obvious (30% more empty blocks?) if they did turn it on, so they ( mostly ) run with it off. in anycase, the link is a MUST read https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/ |
|
|
|
smells fishy... but maybe HE can prove what he is saying by running that BIP that kills boosting. |
|
|
|
And one of the replies was "Optimising algorithm implementation is not an exploit. SHA256 is quantum-resistant. Never figured you for propagandist."
If anything I see this as a strike against Segwit - how the f*ck did Segwit manage to change bitcoin mining parameters to such a degree that they broke an ASIC that does almost nothing other than hashing!?
And now Segwit is "needed for Bitcoin to thrive"?! LOL it's needed for Lightning to thrive, and for Bitcoin to become a settlement layer.
i sympathize with this point of view. and i find it ironic that core has stressed for so long how critical maintaining backward compatibility is, and then they propose to turn a huge amount of mining hardware into bricks! core obviously has very little consideration for miners. they see miners as dispensable work horses, not the critical-consensus-mechanism that is bitcoin and while i agree that in the event of a hashing power attack the user base can "overrule" miners authority. i do not think this should be taken lightly and i'm unsure if that this would be an appropriate response to miners boosting. |
|
|
|
The most shocking thing about this is --> " $100 million USD per year could have been earned extra through this exploit. I think the other mining pools can really feel pissed off with this "cheating" going on in the mining scene. The real loss is the people who exploited the whole standoff by spamming the network and chasing new adopters away.  Can you explain how faking blocks made him $100M? Break it down please  he doesnt fake blocks he kinda reuses hashes from current block on future blocks, and this isn't a problem, so he found a neat way of finding blocks slightly faster.. so what. the problem is hes neat way of finding blocks depends some of the blockheaders bits somwhere to be changed and the block still be vlaid, but that in and of itself isn't the problem.. the problem segwit code inadvertently breaks he's neat thing-ama-bob. |
|
|
|
I don't particularly like SFs anyway.
It is also my understanding there is a fairly small subset of SFs that are not compatible with ASICBOOST, and SFs could be tailored to ASICBOOST.
My understanding messing with the merkle root breaks covert ASIBoosting. It does not matter if it is a SF or HF. This makes many network upgrades impossible, there is a list floating around of changes that are outright incompatible with covert ASISBoosting as they change the merkle root in a way that breaks this. Segwit however, can be done as a HF without messing with the merkel root. doesn't segwit make a complete second merkle tree inorder to be backward compatible?? ahhh the technical details are to vague , and i'm not sure we can trust core to give us a straight answer. can we implement segwit and all these other SF's without breaking asicboost? lets ask the BU devs! |
|
|
|
Network "upgrades" can still take place, and can be done via hardforks.
Not the case, many upgrades are incompatible with secret ASICBoosting. HF segwit with some small changes is compatible however. If it were the case that ASICBoost makes all SF's impossible (doesn't seem like it TBH), having to do a HF for every upgrade would be the most painful thing ever. Take a look at how many SF there have been in the past 2 years. I don't particularly like SFs anyway. It is also my understanding there is a fairly small subset of SFs that are not compatible with ASICBOOST, and SFs could be tailored to ASICBOOST. i dont think it matters much if its soft or hard, from the sound of it any change to the header is going to break ASICBOOST Right, so just do a HF that provides access to whatever new "features" and don't change the header -- or allow extra information at the end of the header, which is all that is necessary for ASICBOOST (per my understanding) right i guess we can always slap on a new header and only this is New header is the segwit-ASICBOOST-breaking-bit required. this could be soft forked in. making ASICBOOST still possible even with segwit. its unclear tho, because the FUD going around is that ASICBOOST miners simply cant do pretty much any upgrades |
|
|
|
Network "upgrades" can still take place, and can be done via hardforks.
Not the case, many upgrades are incompatible with secret ASICBoosting. HF segwit with some small changes is compatible however. If it were the case that ASICBoost makes all SF's impossible (doesn't seem like it TBH), having to do a HF for every upgrade would be the most painful thing ever. Take a look at how many SF there have been in the past 2 years. I don't particularly like SFs anyway. It is also my understanding there is a fairly small subset of SFs that are not compatible with ASICBOOST, and SFs could be tailored to ASICBOOST. i dont think it matters much if its soft or hard, from the sound of it any change to the header is going to break ASICBOOST |
|
|
|
|
would anyone of these patents hold up in court...
|
|
|
|
|
Sergio Lerner patented this in US and Bitmain patented this in Chain?
|
|
|
|
this solution is patented and makes competing with them impossible.
Not if you use the covert (unprovable) way. well then they have no advantage and we have no problem.... all miners must start boosting once we have all miners boosting, losing the ability to boost is meaningless |
|
|
|
Why do the details of how this is accomplished matter (other than in hindering protocol updates) if it does not create vulnerabilities in the PoW process?
I see it now that its bolded. and i would answer that... the details DON'T matter, other than in hindering protocol updates and there's one more thing... this solution is patented and makes competing with them impossible. miners were told this was a bad idea a year ago. now what, we stop progress because progress means they lose a 20ish% advantage we stop progress so that they can continue to corner the market with their fucking patent? |
|
|
|
The same argument could have been framed around the move to ASIC from FPGA
No because that made the network more secure, as it required more work to attack it, ASICBoost doesn't do that. Lowering node size makes for lower power consumption from same hashrate. (or higher hashrate for given power consumption) ASICboost makes for lower power consumption from same hashrate. (or higher hashrate for given power consumption) Is this incorrect? Why do the details of how this is accomplished matter (other than in hindering protocol updates) if it does not create vulnerabilities in the PoW process? you're all missing the point its not about if its a cheat or not the problem with ASICboost, is that miners using it can't handle most upgrades, and they won't even care about loosing boosting capabilities if ALL miners were using it, since at that point we'd have a level playing field to being with ( every boosting ) and a level playing field after an upgrade ( no one can boost anymore ) |
|
|
|
i'd say you have invested interest in bitcoin remain stagnant and litecoin gaining advantage
You can choose to follow me into LTC or be jealous. The reason is because there are no changes going to happen to Bitcoin. Even if Bitmain didn't do what he did, the whales have been scheming for a long time to make sure that Blockstream is defeated. I am beginning to feel the need to flee to the LTC lifeboat.  |
|
|
|
says the guy that owns coins on a fork of bitcoin. (litecoin)
I sold all my LTC about an hour ago. Now you attack the messager who explains the inviolable reality of the situation, because you don't like reality? So when the reality kicks you in the ass, will you still blame me for reality being reality. As if I am the God who makes reality. BULLSHIT i'd say you have invested interest in bitcoin remain stagnant and litecoin gaining advantage and i would not be surprised to find out, alot of miners suffer from the same infection. we must cleanse ourselves of these toxic incentives GATHER THE PITCH FORKS!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
The immutability is the only thing that makes Bitcoin different than fiat.
says the guy that owns coins on a fork of bitcoin. (litecoin) ironic? if immutability of the protocol is such desirable property, why'd you buy litecoin when its literally about to mutate. |
|
|
|
I am in that 51% we all are, the 51% i speak of is unmeasurable, it not 51% of hashing power, its not 51% of coins, its somthing intangible but i can FEEL i am a part of it.
Ah that lie of democracy is hard to kill in humans. You want to believe you have a vote, but you do not. We never have. look at ETH / ETC who "won" who "voted" does anyone care? ETH and ETC both live, and no one is to say which is "best" all we can say is that CURRENTLY the market favors ETH. what you say makes alot of sense, but it simply won't change the fact that a fork means i get choices, support one or the other or both. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
