Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers)

[BitUsher]

What is your definition of valid chain?

The one that everyone agrees is valid or the one where a small minority refuse to accept things have moved on.

The longest chain, will invariably be the longest 'valid' chain by definition. The longest chain (discounting for luck/variance) is the one with most hashing power. The longest *defines* valid.

So the word valid is redundant, and using it doesn't make any sense.

If a >1MB block gets mined and that chain stays longest (because the majority build on top of it) then sorry dear, it was tonight.

Until it does we watch and wait, and people continue to post drama on the internets.

This is frightening.

Are you aware that invalid forks with the longest chain can and do happen and they are ignored because they don't follow consensus rules?

Are you aware that miners can continue hashing all they want and if the economic majority of nodes disagree with their chain being valid than it is ignored and those blocks are orphaned?

Do you understand that the economic majority of nodes holds the power to dictate what chain is valid and whether a chain is longer or not is secondary to the consensus rules of these nodes being followed?

[watashi-kokoto]

This is frightening.

Are you aware that invalid forks with the longest chain can and do happen and they are ignored because they don't follow consensus rules?

Are you aware that miners can continue hashing all they want and if the economic majority of nodes disagree with their chain being valid than it is ignored and those blocks are orphaned?

Do you understand that the economic majority of nodes holds the power to dictate what chain is valid and whether a chain is longer or not is secondary to the consensus rules of these nodes being followed?

What's actually frightening to me that these people actually think they can take over Bitcoin.

We've talked about it many times. They've spent countless funds to propaganda and whatnot. Their days are counted. We are well entrenched,
they can't do shit to damage the system. They don't have the balls to actually do 51% attack.

[sgbett]

What is your definition of valid chain?

The one that everyone agrees is valid or the one where a small minority refuse to accept things have moved on.

The longest chain, will invariably be the longest 'valid' chain by definition. The longest chain (discounting for luck/variance) is the one with most hashing power. The longest *defines* valid.

So the word valid is redundant, and using it doesn't make any sense.

If a >1MB block gets mined and that chain stays longest (because the majority build on top of it) then sorry dear, it was tonight.

Until it does we watch and wait, and people continue to post drama on the internets.

This is frightening.

Are you aware that invalid forks with the longest chain can and do happen and they are ignored because they don't follow consensus rules?

Are you aware that miners can continue hashing all they want and if the economic majority of nodes disagree with their chain being valid than it is ignored and those blocks are orphaned?

Do you understand that the economic majority of nodes holds the power to dictate what chain is valid and whether a chain is longer or not is secondary to the consensus rules of these nodes being followed?

What is frightening? That you misunderstand? Lets give you the benefit of the doubt, and blame me for not explaining well enough.

For miners to build on top of a block then nodes would have to have propagated it to them, i'm sorry that I didn't explain this. I should not have assumed implicit knowledge.

So to be doubly clear, if the majority hash rate is ming >1MB blocks and the nodes are propagating >1MB blocks then that is the longest chain and by definition it is valid. So I say again 'valid' is redundant.

[watashi-kokoto]

dear grandpa sgbett.

It must have been an amazing post. Sadly you're ignored.

[sgbett]

This is frightening.

Are you aware that invalid forks with the longest chain can and do happen and they are ignored because they don't follow consensus rules?

Are you aware that miners can continue hashing all they want and if the economic majority of nodes disagree with their chain being valid than it is ignored and those blocks are orphaned?

Do you understand that the economic majority of nodes holds the power to dictate what chain is valid and whether a chain is longer or not is secondary to the consensus rules of these nodes being followed?

What's actually frightening to me that these people actually think they can take over Bitcoin.

We've talked about it many times. They've spent countless funds to propaganda and whatnot. Their days are counted. We are well entrenched,
they can't do shit to damage the system. They don't have the balls to actually do 51% attack.

"Us and them" very droll.

[sgbett]

 

dear grandpa sgbett.

It must have been an amazing post. Sadly you're ignored.

Ignoring is a funny thing. People wave it around like a threat, like they have some kind of power over the other.

The only thing ignoring serves to do is to insulate the 'ignorer' against having to consider another point of view.

There are countless people that I disagree with, and likely more that disagree with me!

I still read their posts, the ones that aren't banal and trolling might contain something that I can learn from - however much it may differ from my opinion. I'm secure enough to know that being wrong about something isn't some huge character flaw, or qualitative judgement on me as a person.

So whenever anyone says they have 'ignored' someone, to me, it just demonstrates how close minded a person is.

To be so insecure in your own beliefs that you cannot bear to even consider an alternative? Opinions formed in a vacuum, out of fear and superstition? How can anything that person says have any credibility.

[watashi-kokoto]

you seem stressed. I wonder what you wanted to communicate with that double post.

[sgbett]

I bet the small block proponents are super pleased to have you arguing there corner right now

You are doing a stand up job of representing them!

[watashi-kokoto]

the last one is right?

What about raise limit and clog Bitcoin with dust?

[franky1]

What is frightening? That you misunderstand? Lets give you the benefit of the doubt, and blame me for not explaining well enough.

For miners to build on top of a block then nodes would have to have propagated it to them, i'm sorry that I didn't explain this. I should not have assumed implicit knowledge.

So to be doubly clear, if the majority hash rate is ming >1MB blocks and the nodes are propagating >1MB blocks then that is the longest chain and by definition it is valid. So I say again 'valid' is redundant.

it doesnt matter if the majority of hashrate is mining > 1mb.. the important part is.... if nodes are in the majority to accept >1mb.

and in the case that IF nodes are in the majority(deemed as being 95% consensus) able to accept blocks >1mb.. then it doesnt matter if the block is 0.2mb, 0.9mb, 1.01mb 1.5mb.. its all the same.. and all that matters is who solves a block fastest.
miners wont be creating 1.9mb blocks instantly.. at first it will be a safer plan to create 1.025mb blocks and slowing grow when comfortable

then the 5% of nodes who dont accept >1mb will orphan off those 1.025mb blocks making the non >1mb nodes slightly lagging behind, because they only accept certain blocks.. and thus be a few blocks behind and no longer in sync with 95% of consensus. making them no longer part of the chain. and required to change the blocksize limit to be part of consensus again..

and the reverse.. if 95% of consensus is to stick with <1mb then the 5% >1mb.. all nodes will still accept all <1mb blocks.. and the problem would only occur if a miner sent out a blockheight X of 1.025 faster then another miner made the same blockheight X, but of a 0.95mb block, 2 seconds later... 5% would initially accept it the 1.025 as it arrived first, and 95% would reject it as it doesnt meet their rules, but accept the 0.95mb block 2 seconds later..

then when the next blockheightX+1 happens 10 minutes later the system would recognise that the longest chain is <1mb.. making the 5% >1mb eventually throw out and orphan that 1.025 block because the merkle chain of previous blocks wont match, and thus backtrack to resync to the longest chain of <1mb blocks that do match consensus

[sgbett]

What is frightening? That you misunderstand? Lets give you the benefit of the doubt, and blame me for not explaining well enough.

For miners to build on top of a block then nodes would have to have propagated it to them, i'm sorry that I didn't explain this. I should not have assumed implicit knowledge.

So to be doubly clear, if the majority hash rate is ming >1MB blocks and the nodes are propagating >1MB blocks then that is the longest chain and by definition it is valid. So I say again 'valid' is redundant.

it doesnt matter if the majority of hashrate is mining > 1mb.. the important part is.... if nodes are in the majority to accept >1mb.

and in the case that IF nodes are in the majority(deemed as being 95% consensus) able to accept blocks >1mb.. then it doesnt matter if the block is 0.2mb, 0.9mb, 1.01mb 1.5mb.. its all the same.. and all that matters is who solves a block fastest.
miners wont be creating 1.9mb blocks instantly.. at first it will be a safer plan to create 1.025mb blocks and slowing grow when comfortable

then the 5% of nodes who dont accept >1mb will orphan off those 1.025mb blocks making the non >1mb nodes slightly lagging behind, because they only accept certain blocks.. and thus be a few blocks behind and no longer in sync with 95% of consensus. making them no longer part of the chain. and required to change the blocksize limit to be part of consensus again..

and the reverse.. if 95% of consensus is to stick with <1mb then the 5% >1mb.. all nodes will still accept all <1mb blocks.. and the problem would only occur if a miner sent out a blockheight X of 1.025 faster then another miner made the same blockheight X, but of a 0.95mb block, 2 seconds later... 5% would initially accept it the 1.025 as it arrived first, and 95% would reject it as it doesnt meet their rules, but accept the 0.95mb block 2 seconds later..

then when the next blockheightX+1 happens 10 minutes later the system would recognise that the longest chain is <1mb.. making the 5% >1mb eventually throw out and orphan that 1.025 block because the merkle chain of previous blocks wont match, and thus backtrack to resync to the longest chain of <1mb blocks that do match consensus

To clarify my post the reason i focused on miners before was that I got told off once for talking only about nodes! What I mean is all the nodes might be happy with bigger blocks but if the majority of miners refuse to build on them then they will just get orphaned off, so although the nodes have the power of veto, its the miners that instigate the change in consensus.

I think we are saying the same thing though essentially! That the network decides what consensus is by *being* that consensus, in the form of the longest chain.

[BitUsher]

What is frightening? That you misunderstand? Lets give you the benefit of the doubt, and blame me for not explaining well enough.

For miners to build on top of a block then nodes would have to have propagated it to them, i'm sorry that I didn't explain this. I should not have assumed implicit knowledge.

So to be doubly clear, if the majority hash rate is ming >1MB blocks and the nodes are propagating >1MB blocks then that is the longest chain and by definition it is valid. So I say again 'valid' is redundant.

I am sorry if I am coming accross as anal retentive but unless you clearly state the differences unfamiliar users will be dangerously misled. This doesn't involve having to write a 500 page lecture and you can simply state something like - "ultimately the economic majority of nodes define what is valid"

We have to be clear with our language as not to confuse others unfamiliar with how consensus is formed. This isn't being nitpicky, but a very important principle which needs to be stressed as new users will be confused and mislead into believing that the miners control the network and define what is valid when this isn't necessarily true. We need to be clear with our language that it is the nodes and more specifically the economic majority of nodes that define what is valid and what is not.

Not understanding this distinction can lead to some very large errors in judging the security of the network and understanding how consensus is formed.

This means that -
1) Not all nodes are created equal. Nodes without economic actors on the other side can slightly degrade the network security. Spinning up 1k nodes on amazon ec2 will not create a successful coup. This is why it is important to stress that the economic majority of nodes decides on valid transactions.

2) In a hardfork scenario implementations will typically use an indirect means of approximating the will of the economic majority
of nodes by either using 750 of the last 1k mined blocks or 950 of the last 1k blocks. It is important to reflect that this doesn't necessarily indicate that the majority of the economic consensus aligns themselves with the miners and there could be a disastrous(or wonderful - depending on perspective) split where the economic majority of nodes(merchants/wallets/processors/large bagholders/exchanges) fall on the otherside of the miners. This is why many individuals stress that we need a much higher threshhold of 95% to approximate general consensus.

3) While the majority of nodes have an incentive to follow the most hashing power on the longest chain during a hardfork it can become very unclear as to which implementation will have the most hashing power or economic majority. For this reason individuals should safeguard their bitcoins in cold storage(remove from banks and exchanges) under contentious hardforks(and any fork that needs such a low threshold as 75% mined blocks to activate certainly is contentious )

During a hardfork scenario there are several different options the chain with the perceived less hashing power can do -

• 1) Quickly move over to the longest chain with the most hashing power out of security fears
• 2) Stay on their chain with less hashing power and hope the other chain doesn't become hostile and conduct a 51% attack. Notice there are now two chains , each with equal length , and each following the same principle of the logest valid PoW chain. One simply has more hashing power over the other, which can quickly and dynamically adjust as miners move back and forth between chains or one group ramps up ASICs that use their consensus code.
• 3) Nodes can choose to give up the PoW algo altogether and fork off with one of many PoS / or hybrid algos.
• 4) Nodes can choose another PoW algo and make the existing miners irrelevant to themselves.(There is already code in place ready for this if needed).

What I mean is all the nodes might be happy with bigger blocks but if the majority of miners refuse to build on them then they will just get orphaned off, so although the nodes have the power of veto, its the miners that instigate the change in consensus.

More specifically it is the developers of the implementation who instigate the change that allow the miners to chose.... and this is only for  technical limitations of the difficulty in approximating the economic consensus of nodes vote. This may change in the future and it is important to stress that allowing the miners to vote is a clumsy and rough approximation that doesn't necessarily reflect the will of the economic majority.

[valiz]

What is your definition of valid chain?

The one that everyone agrees is valid or the one where a small minority refuse to accept things have moved on.

The longest chain, will invariably be the longest 'valid' chain by definition. The longest chain (discounting for luck/variance) is the one with most hashing power. The longest *defines* valid.

So the word valid is redundant, and using it doesn't make any sense.

If a >1MB block gets mined and that chain stays longest (because the majority build on top of it) then sorry dear, it was tonight.

Until it does we watch and wait, and people continue to post drama on the internets.

The longest valid chain is the longest one that follows the network rules of the current Bitcoin currency, the one that is accepted by people, the one that has a lot of liquidity behind it (can be exchanged for other currencies). After a potential blockchain fork, which you support, you will have 2 longest valid chains (and 2 sets of consensus rules). One will be considered valid by many, it's currency will be accepted by many people, will have a lot of liquidity behind it. Hashing power does not matter much, it is the means to provide security.

In the scenario of your dreams, hardfork, 99% of hashpower with the Classic chain, Classic still won't win if it's currency will not be accepted by people. The 1% miners would be mining $10.000 valued coins, while the 99% Classic miners would be mining $0.01 valued coins. Eventually, those stupid Classic miners will switch back to the more valued coin.

I am not worried. Bitcoin Classic is #REKT. People accept Bitcoin, not forked altcoins.

[valiz]

I don't understand what is with this phantom concept of 'economic majority'. As far as I can tell, it has been created by the big blocks shills in order to help their propaganda efforts.

It doesn't even make sense. Majority of what? Are we talking about economics or elections here?

[BitUsher]

I don't understand what is with this phantom concept of 'economic majority'. As far as I can tell, it has been created by the big blocks shills in order to help their propaganda efforts.

It doesn't even make sense. Majority of what? Are we talking about economics or elections here?

No reason to create unneeded conspiracies as I support cores scaling plan.
Are you aware that not all 2 nodes are equal?

When discussing the economic majority of nodes we are simply pointing out the differences in quality and influence of certain nodes over others. I.E.... 1 node controlled by an exchange has far more of a vote than 1k amazon ec2 nodes spun up without economic actors behind them.

This may sound undemocratic but is very important for the security of the network (preventing a sybil attack of nodes creating a coup) and there are many aspects of the bitcoin consensus system which isn't democratic at all (anarchistic consensus through meritocracy) and this is a good thing.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

I don't understand what is with this phantom concept of 'economic majority'. As far as I can tell, it has been created by the big blocks shills in order to help their propaganda efforts.

It doesn't even make sense. Majority of what? Are we talking about economics or elections here?

Are you aware that not all 2 nodes are equal?

When discussing the economic majority of nodes we are simply pointing out the differences in quality and influence of certain nodes over others. I.E.... 1 node controlled by an exchange has far more of a vote than 1k amazon ec2 nodes spun up without economic actors behind them.

How is economic majority status identified?  How is economic minority status identified?

How is economic majority measured and quantified?

Until it is quantified, "economic majority" is not a number that can be applied to any discussion of vote or preference.  Until it is quantified, "economic majority" is just a vague unmeasured mass, a word thrown around in philosophical discussions or policy discussions.  While the discussions may be educational, the use of "economic majority" is not going to contribute to the resolution of anything as long as it remains unquantified.

[BitUsher]

How is economic majority status identified?  How is economic minority status identified?

How is economic majority measured and quantified?

Until it is quantified, "economic majority" is not a number that can be applied to any discussion of vote or preference.  Until it is quantified, "economic majority" is just a vague unmeasured mass, a word thrown around in philosophical discussions or policy discussions.  While the discussions may be educational, the use of "economic majority" is not going to contribute to the resolution of anything as long as it remains unquantified.

Which is exactly why developers use a rough approximation of finding consensus by an indirect means of 75-95% of the last 1k mined blocks. Just because the number is difficult to quantify doesn't mean the concept is invalid or that a rough idea of the economic consensus cannot be gathered.

Why do you think bitcoin Classic (correctly) lists both large bagholders and merchants and exchanges on their homepage that support their implementation? The reality is those companies and bagholders are more important than the miners when determining the valid chain. While it is impossible to accurately know the exact vote of large investors due to bitcoins pseudonymous nature we can still approximate the will of a large part of the economic majority by watching them actually start switching over to the new implementations.

[valiz]

What is frightening? That you misunderstand? Lets give you the benefit of the doubt, and blame me for not explaining well enough.

For miners to build on top of a block then nodes would have to have propagated it to them, i'm sorry that I didn't explain this. I should not have assumed implicit knowledge.

So to be doubly clear, if the majority hash rate is ming >1MB blocks and the nodes are propagating >1MB blocks then that is the longest chain and by definition it is valid. So I say again 'valid' is redundant.

it doesnt matter if the majority of hashrate is mining > 1mb.. the important part is.... if nodes are in the majority to accept >1mb.

and in the case that IF nodes are in the majority(deemed as being 95% consensus) able to accept blocks >1mb.. then it doesnt matter if the block is 0.2mb, 0.9mb, 1.01mb 1.5mb.. its all the same.. and all that matters is who solves a block fastest.
miners wont be creating 1.9mb blocks instantly.. at first it will be a safer plan to create 1.025mb blocks and slowing grow when comfortable

then the 5% of nodes who dont accept >1mb will orphan off those 1.025mb blocks making the non >1mb nodes slightly lagging behind, because they only accept certain blocks.. and thus be a few blocks behind and no longer in sync with 95% of consensus. making them no longer part of the chain. and required to change the blocksize limit to be part of consensus again..

and the reverse.. if 95% of consensus is to stick with <1mb then the 5% >1mb.. all nodes will still accept all <1mb blocks.. and the problem would only occur if a miner sent out a blockheight X of 1.025 faster then another miner made the same blockheight X, but of a 0.95mb block, 2 seconds later... 5% would initially accept it the 1.025 as it arrived first, and 95% would reject it as it doesnt meet their rules, but accept the 0.95mb block 2 seconds later..

then when the next blockheightX+1 happens 10 minutes later the system would recognise that the longest chain is <1mb.. making the 5% >1mb eventually throw out and orphan that 1.025 block because the merkle chain of previous blocks wont match, and thus backtrack to resync to the longest chain of <1mb blocks that do match consensus

To clarify my post the reason i focused on miners before was that I got told off once for talking only about nodes! What I mean is all the nodes might be happy with bigger blocks but if the majority of miners refuse to build on them then they will just get orphaned off, so although the nodes have the power of veto, its the miners that instigate the change in consensus.

I think we are saying the same thing though essentially! That the network decides what consensus is by *being* that consensus, in the form of the longest chain.

Not nodes, not miners, but people.

If a new type of gold was discovered, blue gold, who would decide which is the real gold? Is it the old yellow gold or the shinier blue gold? You are saying that the miners would decide this... or that the smelters would decide... or the merchants... No. The average Joe will decide. There will be a market for old yellow gold and a market for shiny blue gold. I think average Joe will think blue gold is a scam and won't accept it.

The same for Bitcoin. Most people don't know what a block is. They will accept the Bitcoins as they are now.

[jonald_fyookball]

I am not worried. Bitcoin Classic is #REKT. People accept Bitcoin, not forked altcoins.

If you're "not worried", I wonder why you feel the need to refer to a forked
version of Bitcoin as altcoin, assuming that the fork wouldn't happen
with at least 51% consensus, probably 75%.    If 75% of the miners voted
on new consensus rules, which version is really the "altcoin"?

The fact you feel the need to label a contending change an altcoin
feels like rhetoric and defensive.

[valiz]

How is economic majority status identified?  How is economic minority status identified?

How is economic majority measured and quantified?

Until it is quantified, "economic majority" is not a number that can be applied to any discussion of vote or preference.  Until it is quantified, "economic majority" is just a vague unmeasured mass, a word thrown around in philosophical discussions or policy discussions.  While the discussions may be educational, the use of "economic majority" is not going to contribute to the resolution of anything as long as it remains unquantified.

Which is exactly why developers use a rough approximation of finding consensus by an indirect means of 75-95% of the last 1k mined blocks. Just because the number is difficult to quantify doesn't mean the concept is invalid or that a rough idea of the economic consensus cannot be gathered.

Why do you think bitcoin Classic (correctly) lists both large bagholders and merchants and exchanges on their homepage that support their implementation? The reality is those companies and bagholders are more important than the miners when determining the valid chain. While it is impossible to accurately know the exact vote of large investors due to bitcoins pseudonymous nature we can still approximate the will of a large part of the economic majority by watching them actually start switching over to the new implementations.

What vote?

'Economic majority' is a phantom concept.

After a hard fork, there will be 2 competing currencies. Each one with it's longest valid chain, each one with it's group of users.

If the biggest nodes and the biggest miners start to use only one of the competing currencies, it doesn't mean that currency will be more valuable.

I am not worried. Bitcoin Classic is #REKT. People accept Bitcoin, not forked altcoins.

If you're "not worried", I wonder why you feel the need to refer to a forked
version of Bitcoin as altcoin, assuming that the fork wouldn't happen
with at least 51% consensus, probably 75%.    If 75% of the miners voted
on new consensus rules, which version is really the "altcoin"?

The fact you feel the need to label a contending change an altcoin
feels like rhetoric and defensive.

The altcoin is the one that diverges from the current network rules of the Bitcoin currency. Is this hard to understand?

Which one came first? The altcoin or the Bitcoin?