Bitcoin is beyond the influence of any one person, but not beyond the influence of a >51% group.
Just remember you and I are not in that 51%. None of us in this thread have any influence whatsoever on what will happen to the Bitcoin protocol. The whales will decide. The point of my prior msg was that you don't like Satoshi's PoW, because you prefer a democracy. You already have a democracy, it is called fiat. I think you guys are highly confused. 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, and i believe we have the final say, if our opinion is solicited via a forking. while we have very little power over what options are given to us once a fork happens. we are free to choose, and we are by no means forced to side with the chain that ( currently ) is getting dumped on by some whales. I dont think i can choose to side with a whale and his un-upgradable hardware. |
|
|
|
How exactly do any UASF proposals break the immutability of Bitcoin? Serious question. Ledger will remain unchanged, Bitcoins will remain unchanged. What am I missing here?
(I am asking someone to tell me like I am 5 years old without posting a wall of text and non-referenced/tagged links. We can continue talking about this stuff in the echo chamber of bitcointalk but it'd be nice to have some digestible evidence for the community at large)
Immutability of the protocol of Bitcoin. If we can mutate the protocol, then Bitcoin is not a level playing field. It looses its value as a stable metric of value which beyond the influence of anybody. The gaming of the mining will be met by other gaming the mining. That is just free market competition. The free market finds ways around patents. But if we have King Blockstream acting as a government lord, then Bitcoin is as worthless as any other fiat. @gmaxwell is protecting the "improvements" he wants to make to Bitcoin's protocol. He is saying he knows what is best and will modify that level playing field. He will not be allowed to do this. He has been banished to do his scaling work on Litecoin. None of you can change this outcome. Bitcoin will retain small blocks and so Litecoin will get much of the scaling. Hope Gregory takes it in stride and doesn't get too depressed. Immutability of the protocol, is not on the table, it never was. The whale with a million coins willing to dump on a chain that favors improvement over stagnation, is free to make shit tons of fiat while selling us massive hoards of cheap coins. Bitcoin is beyond the influence of any one person, but not beyond the influence of a >51% group. Bitcoin is not what it was in 2009 bitcoin will continue to improve for better or for worst. just because you dislike the democratic aspect of bitcoin doesn't mean its invalid. and just because bitcoin is governed by its user base in a sorta democratic way, doesn't make it comparable to fiat. the FED is a private organization, bitcoin is whatever most poeple agree bitcoin is. you can argue this cheapness bitcoin's fundamental value, all day long, that will not stop core from forking bitcoin, and the whale dumping million of coins will not necessarily make everyone dismiss this fork. bitcoin as you see it may or may not survive this. after reviewing the available info, i am on the fence... ASCIBoosting fucks with miner incentives and if the majority want to fork away this flaw they perceive, i might side with them, i am on the fence... |
|
|
|
I don't really care which upgrade goes through as long as it goes smoothly (though I would really like to see Lightning Network go through) but seeing Litecoin double in price due to the likelihood of Segwit going through makes me want to see the same thing happen to bitcoin's price.
Make it so.
^Poon is a ninny! :-D i don't see the future of bitcoin based on LN adoption..not at all lulz I just want to be able to run a LN node and make money from my CPU and network connection. Kinda like what was promised by a certain cryptocurrency back in the day. my gut tells you wont be able to run a LN node. this is will be up to places like Stamps, Bitpay, Blockstream, etc to implement hubs. besides the ridiculous programing expertise that will be required to set up hubs ( because "beta software" ) I bet the amount of bandwidth/CPU required to download/verify the nearly infinite number of highly complex BTC TX, will require a datacenter like setup. your only hope for LN is to run a highly confusing UI which will allow you to send and receive money, but you gotta make sure to WATCH YOUR CHANNEL or you'll get fucked by the LN trolls! discimaler: I'm 51% sure my above statements are somewhat inaccurate . |
|
|
|
 i made a few edits to the stock graph to better illustrate what i'm saying as block size goes up fees go down, but fee revenue is at its highest at 2MB, because science. The error in this plot is that you think that fees are elastic. Fees are VERY INELASTIC, meaning your blue curve goes to the sky on the left. If only 10 transactions are possible, people will be paying HUGE fees in order to obtain one of the 10 places. The guy wanting to transact 10000 BTC for a huge cocaine deal will need to get the transaction through, no matter what, or they'll get him, so he'll pay 200 BTC of fee. 10 of these transactions, and you earn 2000 BTC per block in fees. From the moment that you relax, fees will drop drastically per transaction, much more so than your straight line suggests. And then you see that the optimum is on the left side of the plot, because fees rise much faster than 1/block size, and drop much faster with block size. i think its hard to incress fee pressure without increasing TX demand and simply limiting blocksize. Demand comes from people "locked into" bitcoin, and NEEDING to transact (the only thing bitcoin is good at). If you HOLD bitcoin, the only reasonable thing you can do with it, is transact, sooner or later. That's the demand. at one point fees are so high a lot of potential TX can't happen anymore, and this removes some fee pressure,
Uh, no, that is exactly the pressure. All TX have to happen. If they can't happen, or aren't needed to happen, then the bitcoins involved in them are useless. If you mean, however, this will limit bitcoin's usage to only big transactions, you're perfectly right. Bitcoin with small blocks is not a payment system that can be used for small transactions, only for big ones, at low transaction rates. In as much as this has an incidence on the bitcoin market value, this will probably not even matter. If the fees increase 10-fold, the market cap must fall 10-fold before this starts to be negative for the miners. So squeezing fees out of users, even if this crashes the market price, is still interesting for miners if the inelastic wall of "I absolutely need to get my big transaction through" is steeper than the price crash. you have to be shitting me.... most poeple think 90% of the bitcoin TX are spam they complain that "spam" is creating fee pressure. remove the "spam" and you think we'll fill block with nothing but Big TX willing to TX at anycost? ya right,at that point poeple are sending there hoards to poloniex so they can buy the digital cash they were promised. |
|
|
|
FUD. Asicboost been known about for a long time and Bitmain holds the patent in China.
[very long link]
Just more distractions from king Gregory.
your link looks fishy no hostname? whatever They Patented this? so only they can produce chips with this hack-like-optimization? we knew about this for how long? Still nothing from the shills? Come on guys, I want your opinions  BU shill here. this is the free market at work... if you want to mine less effectively go ahead and mine with your CPU. Its ALMOST as if they created a new chip that simply mines bitcoin more effectively and all of you are like WELL THAT'S UNFAIR! 2 issues 1) Its patented and selectively available, in a competitive industry like mining it gives huge advantage and has lead to centralisation of mining and could lead to even more centralisation. Centralisation of mining is not good for Bitcoin you agree? We should act to prevent centralisation of mining right? 2) The miner that has benefited from centralisation is now blocking a hugely beneficial protocol upgrade and capacity increase that is for the benefit of all Bitcoin holders. By blocking this they are improving their own financial position at the expense of holders and centralising bitcoin to their benefit further. 1)the validity of the patent has not been confirmed to me. and the tech APPEARS to be openly available to anyone that wants it ( at some price i assume ) https://www.asicboost.com/ for a year. should we punish miners that bought this tech in order to improve there service to us ( hashing faster )?? IDK 2) the claim that segwit breaks asicboosting appears to be a lie, there is a separate BIP that aims to break asicboosting. clarification is needed. it going to be interesting to see how this story evolves... But I find it Strange that its been over a year, and today its being pushed again... |
|
|
|
|
seeing how a UASF is becoming more of a real posisblty
and ill be hodling this shit i better get use to talking the talk
we take core's rightful place as bitcoin's overseer to be self evident, and would ask it exercises it mighty power to vanquish those who would oppose us.
am i doing it right?
|
|
|
|
|
we take core's rightful place as bitcoin's overseer to be self evident, and would ask it exercises it mighty power to vanquish those who would oppose us.
|
|
|
|
The whole BU drama appears to be nothing but smoke to allow the manufacturer (Bitmain?) to enjoy an unfair advantage over the competition for as long as possible. Greg Maxwell is working on a BIP that would render the advantage useless.
Pretty disgusting to see all of this opposition being down to money being made but I had been thinking this and it's a known point that money is usually the point behind most arguements. In this case, that wonderful point stands true. All you communists are going to be pushed onto to Litecoin with your fellow communist/fascist @gmaxwell, where you belong. Bitcoin will remain immutable and reliable protocol where the free market is free to compete in all its ugly but efficient glory. Will be interesting to see the public reaction of the patent holders of the ASICBOOST exploit - since G. Maxwell's post makes it clear they were made aware of the hardware exploit. If I was Jihan and company I'd stop screwing around deleting tweets (as reported on reddit) and be lawyering up right now.
You're hoping China will enforce a Western patent, which then means China's government can have a monopoly on covert boosting. Jilian Wu has tried to defeat patents. I have to congratulate him on that aspect. Also he has defeated Blockstream's attempt to turn Bitcoin into a communist/socialist/experimental clusterfuck and made Bitcoin more immutable. The guy is becoming a hero. I hope he wasn't stupid enough to really believe that BU was a sound direction forward. I think likely he was just bluffing. He apparently did try to prevent Litecoin from getting SegWit also, so not sure if this means he has a covert boosting for Scrypt also (which seems unlikely). A judgement against them in the US would destroy their business, they wouldn't chance it. That is far from certain also. I expect support for this improvement to be beyond overwhelming, but we'll see. I think you better scurry off over to Litecoin where you belong. You are soon going to find out that Bitcoin is immutable. Satoshi (Nash) designed it that way. If you want your democratic communist/socialist clusterfuck, then you'll have it on Litecoin, except the Chinese are going to be your bosses. Well they already are aren't they. you got some balls man! |
|
|
|
Yup. I was wrong. SegWit has cut a deal with BU. We are going to fork. RIP.
everyone hates Segwit2mb yet there's what, 30% signaling for it? or am i mistaken? I assumed what york meant when he said SegWit has cut a deal with BU was the Segwit SF + 2MB HF (Segwit2MB) being proposed. this will produce a Effective 8MB block weight. everyone hates it. 20MB everyone hates it. 8MB everyone hates it. BIP101 everyone hates it. 2MB HF everyone hates it. Segwit everyone hates it. BU everyone hates it. UASF everyone hates it. Segwit2MB everyone hates it. I don't know why people hate things like . This shouldn't be a do or die situation and the issue about the block size shouldn't generate something a war I think. What we need is to understand each other if the Chinese miners love the BU so be it. Let's work together to make bitcoin great that's what matter most. We should all be happy cause the price per bitcoin is now $1150. Hopefully it will reach $1200 before the end of this week  i've said it many many times do a simple malleability fix, with simple 2MB Bump and BU will be compatible with core, for some time. But nooooo maybe its because my name is Killerpotleaf, and they are racist! |
|
|
|
FINALLY segwit will burn and we will have BIGGER BLOCKS
No worries, Jihan can just fork over to a wonderful, closed-source, buggy-as-hell, unlimited blocksize, fully exploitable (er "optimization-able") blockchain called BU-whatever, and mine it exclusively until his heart's content. Only problem is, the "economic majority" won't be following. Sorry. my dream has been realized. |
|
|
|
|
i just love it when shit hits the fan like this.
the pure entertain value of holding some bitcoin is very real.
|
|
|
|
Note the proposed BIP is not SegWit. It is a separate BIP to force the boosting to be overt. I have asked Gmaxwell a question:
SegWit has to play a role in breaking "covert" (aka as publicly patented) boosting, everyone's going on and on about how this is the reason why they oppose SegWit. |
|
|
|
|
i bet most asic used today are Boosting, and possibly ignoring the pending-chain-patent
segwit coreBIP??? will break some 80% of hashing power.
|
|
|
|
What I don't know is, can existing ASIC's switch over from the secret way to the obvious way? I don't see why not, but I'm not entirely sure.
you can't simple change the logic a ASIC runs, its burnt into the chip Part of the logic of ASICBoost is done on a separate computer's CPU. There is preprocessing. well thats the 50million dollar question, isnt it. and hearing Gmax avoid the answering the question by saying " we aren't blocking boosting all together" ( which is clearly bullshit, he has every intention to totally block boosting of any kind, it says so in his email ) seems to suggest it will brick there current hardware |
|
|
|
What I don't know is, can existing ASIC's switch over from the secret way to the obvious way? I don't see why not, but I'm not entirely sure.
you can't simply change the logic an ASIC runs, its burnt into the chip also Gmax said in the email that should anyone start using the obvious way, then they will take steps to stop them too. |
|
|
|
FINALLY segwit will burn and we will have BIGGER BLOCKS  |
|
|
|
you are running an illegal bitcoin minning optimization
 |
|
|
|
If you fork and bankrupt miners who bought hardware, Bitcoin can never again be trusted. It means Bitcoin is run by democracy and not by immutability. Satoshi (Nash) will roll over in his grave.
The whales of Bitcoin will destroy any such fork. I guarantee you that!
without too much thought i tend to agree with you. this would be very similar to a POW change simple because china managed to out compete others. suddenly the incentive to optimize minning operations kinda go out the window, and no one can take bitcoin seriously anymore. so basically this means segwit is completely off the table. if it activates then we do a chain split and dump the living crap out of the segwit chain. |
|
|
|
My understanding from the paper is that the proposed segwit BIP will render obsolete only the covert version of ASICboost, not the overt portion. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/dfvvhvn/We, in particular I, am not. This proposal does not prevent ASICBOOST, it only interferes with the covert version and only to the extent that the covert version is incompatible with protocol upgrades.
The argument for blocking ASICBOOST outright is that a patent is a government granted monopoly and restrictive licensing of ASICBOOST is likely to result in an eventual monopoly in mining (because difficulty adjustments push mining to a break even equilibrium, so potentially all unboosted miners would operate at a loss). I share the concern but I do not consider it to be as serious an issue as the disruption to protocol upgrade capability.
If any parties who would be adversely impacted by this proposal would like to speak up, I would love to hear their arguments. My guess is that they will not want to admit to patent infringement in public, and so they will not. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/dfvzklr/You need to distinguish overt and covert boosting. The proposed BIP only addresses covert boosting.
If miners all used covert boosting Bitcoin could never gain, or gain only with significant increases complexity or loss of functionality many different protocol improvements, including:
(1) Segwit. (2) UTXO commitments. (non-delayed, at least) (3) Committed Bloom filters (4) Committed address indexes (5) STXO commitments (non-delayed). (6) Weak blocks (7) Most kinds of fraud proofs -- to state a few. I don't fully understand how blocking the covert portion of ASICboost would affect mining performance on pre-existing hardware containing this feature. Whether you simply lose the increased efficiency (all S9's increase power consumption by 30%?) or reduces hashrate by 30%. Either way, it is unlikely for Bitmain to side with any proposal that will effectively neuter their hardware and cost them 10's or more millions of dollars per year, and disrupt sales. Especially if they are unable to openly admit that such technology is in fact in their ASIC's due to patent infringement. So where does that leave us, omit their hashrate while taking block signalling into account and force a hardfork, or concede that you cannot circumvent a player like themselves from the table and find a compromise? maxell tends to say things that while perfectly true, are misleading... 2 bloody paragraphs and we still dont have a clue if this BIP would brick there hardware, or simply make their advantage useless. |
|
|
|
well its certainly not " secret reasons " anymore. i find it odd... BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the Bitcoin POW function
...
This proposal does not[block non-covert boosting]because it is so easily detected that it could be blocked if
it becomes an issue in the future.
the proposed BIP does not block boosting |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
