Finally, Bitcoin Core = REKT

[siameze]

Segwit works around the blocksize limit, it doesn't *not* increase resource utilisation in a like for like comparison.

You said segwit 'buys time', implicit in that statement is an acknowledgement that something needs to be done. Hence I think you already know the answer to your own question "What's the Urgency?"

No. The current argument is Segwit vs 2 MB blocks where Segwit is far superior in any aspect (aside of the complexity). You could also argue between Core and Classic but it is obvious which the better implementation is.

I review this thread and reddit posts to make that decision. If reddit says to do something, it is usually a good sign you should do the exact opposite of that. 

[sgbett]

Segwit works around the blocksize limit, it doesn't *not* increase resource utilisation in a like for like comparison.

You said segwit 'buys time', implicit in that statement is an acknowledgement that something needs to be done. Hence I think you already know the answer to your own question "What's the Urgency?"

No. The current argument is Segwit vs 2 MB blocks where Segwit is far superior in any aspect (aside of the complexity). You could also argue between Core and Classic but it is obvious which the better implementation is.

"No, segwit is far superior in every way (expect a really important one), change subject to something emotive then state some undefined thing is obvious."

That's your best argument?

• Classic fixes full blocks by changing a parameter to allow for bigger blocks.
  

This change is simpler (various objective measures: LOC,amount of functionality added, amount of exiting functionality modified) and directly addresses full blocks. It works around the sighash problem with another temporary cap. It introduces a bunch of trigger code. It increases resource utilisation on nodes.

• Segwit works around full blocks by changing the way in which bitcoin blocks are built, and moving some of the data into a new data structure.
  

This change introduces more complexity than the blocksize update and fundamentally changes the way in which bitcoin works. It also affects some economic incentives around transaction size and miner fees, these directly benefit LN at the expense of miners and non mininig-nodes. It has several benefits with regards malleability, sighash and p2sh. In doing so it increases the effective block size without changing the blocksize limit itself. It too also increases resource utilisation on nodes.


There are pros and cons to both methods (the above is not exhaustive). It is not clear that one is objectively better than the other.

Yet you are stating that Segwit is far superior. How can you possibly know?

You draw a comparison to the "Core vs Classic" debate. The implication here is either that you think Core is far superior to classic, or that you think that its obvious that Segwit is better than a blocksize increase. Its one of those opinions presented as fact things. It also serves to further polarise opinion on the topic.

This is a fact:

• It's not obvious which solution is better.

This is, on balance, most likely:

• Core is not far superior to Classic.
• Classic is not far superior to Core.

(This is because they are largely the same code base, and the respective changes to each have their pros and cons.)

This is another fact:

• Segwit and Blocksize increase are not mutually exclusive.
  

[Preclus]

Let me explain one scenario. 75% of the miners change the consensus rules and create a new bitcoin fork...

Just to add some data to the discussion, this is a current chart of miners by percentage of blocks they are mining in the bitcoin network.



Almost any combination of 3 of the top 5 miners (any combination that does not include BW and BCCC together) would constitute a majority of the hash power.

The total mining power of every group outside of the top 5 miners is 11%.

[Preclus]

I'll add this, here is the breakdown of pool by country:



Entities in China control 70% of the hashing power in the network.

[blunderer]

Let me explain one scenario. 75% of the miners change the consensus rules and create a new bitcoin fork...

Just to add some data to the discussion, this is a current chart of miners by percentage of blocks they are mining in the bitcoin network.

[img ]http://oi67.tinypic.com/2mqor47.jpg[/img]

Almost any combination of 3 of the top 5 miners (any combination that does not include BW and BCCC together) would constitute a majority of the hash power.

The total mining power of every group outside of the top 5 miners is 11%.

Not sure what you're saying. Yeah, many combinations of 3 would net a majority, but the magic number we're looking for is 75% (3/4). So think combos of 4 or 5.
If you're suggesting that mining is highly centralized, it sure is.

[Preclus]

If you're suggesting that mining is highly centralized, it sure is.

The Chinese miners should collude to work on pre-mining next blocks so they can get rid of BitFury and the Other category and control 100% of the hashing network as a group.

[blunderer]

If you're suggesting that mining is highly centralized, it sure is.

The Chinese miners should collude to work on pre-mining next blocks so they can get rid of BitFury and the Other category and control 100% of the hashing network as a group.

Would [arguably] not be in their best interest (because would be obvious/would kill trust in BTC/they're suddenly mining 100% of worthless coins, instead of only 75% of coins worth money. 75% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Or something like that. Or nothing like that.).

[Preclus]

Would [arguably] not be in their best interest (because would be obvious/would kill trust in BTC/they're suddenly mining 100% of worthless coins, instead of only 75% of coins worth money. 75% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Or something like that. Or nothing like that.).

You would never know about the collusion, they could simply pre-mine 80% of the time. This only has relevance to the Core discussion because the miners controlling the hash power are likely the most powerful cohesive group in the bitcoin ecosystem since the development group appears fractured. Outside of general consensus, they will likely be the group that really decides which fork in the road everyone will travel.

[DeathAngel]

I think the OP is still yet to actually show or tell us how Core is REKT

[blunderer]

Would [arguably] not be in their best interest (because would be obvious/would kill trust in BTC/they're suddenly mining 100% of worthless coins, instead of only 75% of coins worth money. 75% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Or something like that. Or nothing like that.).

You would never know about the collusion, they could simply pre-mine 80% of the time. This only has relevance to the Core discussion because the miners controlling the hash power are likely the most powerful cohesive group in the bitcoin ecosystem since the development group appears fractured. Outside of general consensus, they will likely be the group that really decides which fork in the road everyone will travel.

Suggesting that Bitfury/KNC are chumps/wouldn't notice?
Sure, there's devious shit that may/probably does happen. At the end of the day, 'long as the implicit interests of BTC holders and BTC miners align, I (as a non-miner) couldn't care less.

If the interests don't align, we got a much bigger problem than a bunch of Chinese miners colluding to cheat non-Chinese miners

[Lauda]

-snip-

No matter how many walls of text you write, Segwit remains better than a 2 MB block size. Tell me exactly what problems get solved by the 2 MB block size? As always: none. Does it fix malleability, does it enable simpler script upgrades? Of course it doesn't. Again Segwit is more complex, but people are falling back on personal incredulity in this case.

I think the OP is still yet to actually show or tell us how Core is REKT

He can't, because it isn't.

[sgbett]

-snip-

No matter how many walls of text you write, Segwit remains better than a 2 MB block size. Tell me exactly what problems get solved by the 2 MB block size? As always: none. Does it fix malleability, does it enable simpler script upgrades? Of course it doesn't. Again Segwit is more complex, but people are falling back on personal incredulity in this case.

"Wall" of text. lol. The exact question you asked is addressed in the part you snipped!

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Core is hard forking in April when CT is ready. Big blocks for everyone. Please return to your homes and places of business.

Isn't it?

[Lauda]

"Wall" of text. lol. The exact question you asked is addressed in the part you snipped!

What I've read has unfortunately wasted my time. Again, aside of the increase in TPS 2 MB blocks bring nothing new to the table. HF's should be used to fix long overdue bugs, but people have stopped being objective and technical and have succumbed to the 'power grab' attempts and 'Bitcoin will die if blocks are full' nonsense.

Core is hard forking in April when CT is ready. Big blocks for everyone. Please return to your homes and places of business.
Isn't it?

No.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

"Wall" of text. lol. The exact question you asked is addressed in the part you snipped!

What I've read has unfortunately wasted my time. Again, aside of the increase in TPS 2 MB blocks bring nothing new to the table. HF's should be used to fix long overdue bugs, but people have stopped being objective and technical and have succumbed to the 'power grab' attempts and 'Bitcoin will die if blocks are full' nonsense.

Core is hard forking in April when CT is ready. Big blocks for everyone. Please return to your homes and places of business.
Isn't it?

No.

No as in no there will be no hard fork? No as in it won't happen in April? No as in you don't like my face? No Wat?

CT won't exist until a HF is completed which will indeed raise maxBlockSize or add flexcap for capacity. If you have been following Core's development you would be aware that they want to increase blocksize directly and need to with a HF. They just want it done safely, with consensus, and with more changes than simply kicking the can over and over every time we need more capacity.

[Amph]

Core is hard forking in April when CT is ready. Big blocks for everyone. Please return to your homes and places of business.

Isn't it?

they will hard fork in the end, segwit is not  afinal solution, so matter what they are thinking an d hard fork is needed, and i don't see the issue

there were in the past at elast two hard fork, and everything went right, so what's all the fuss now?

[Lauda]

No as in no there will be no hard fork? No as in it won't happen in April? No as in you don't like my face? No Wat?

No, as in no HF in April. That's not enough time to upgrade everything. If you've paying attention, Core would most likely present a 90/95% consensus threshold with a longer grace period.

[bargainbin]

... Core would most likely present a 90/95% consensus threshold with a longer grace period.

Only 90%? Too low! That ain't no consensus, that's a minority. Can only hope you'll staunchly oppose it, Citizen!

Sincerely,

The Violated 9.9% Majority.

[TKeenan]

I think the OP is still yet to actually show or tell us how Core is REKT

Core is REKT because Blockstream owns Maxwell and he has managed to create a kind of VETO power which prevents the masses from adopting large blocks.  Core is now controlled by a minority who want small blocks to enable their private company interests.  REKT!  Core is the alt.  SegWit is the alt. 

Satoshi anticipated blocks large than 1MB.  He didn't anticipate SegWit and side chain bullshit. 

[pawel7777]

I think the OP is still yet to actually show or tell us how Core is REKT

Core is REKT because Blockstream owns Maxwell and he has managed to create a kind of VETO power which prevents the masses from adopting large blocks.  Core is now controlled by a minority who want small blocks to enable their private company interests.  REKT!  Core is the alt.  SegWit is the alt. 

Satoshi anticipated blocks large than 1MB.  He didn't anticipate SegWit and side chain bullshit. 

Be careful lad, you don't want to be perma-limited to 'altcoin discussion', do you?