f2pool not supporting roundtable was Re: 「魚池」BTC:270 Phash/s - LTC:500 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com

[windpath]

Announcement: We will withdraw support from February 21’s roundtable consensus, unless Adam Back gives us a reasonable explanation why he quietly changed his title from Blockstream President to Individual at the very last moment — without anybody noticed. We feel we’ve been cheated. I don’t know how we can trust Blockstream anymore in the future.

Hmm, couldn't all the pools just go with 2MB and tell the devs who think they control everything to stop trying to make themselves feel important?

Bitcoin is by design controlled by the consensus of the miners, not by centralised control.
It would seem that there are all sorts of parties trying to control bitcoin and I guess they all simply fail to understand the design.

Doesn't really matter how important devs think they are, if they want to be a relevant part of the blockchain decisions then they need to be miners.

...

BlockStream/Sidechains/SegWit all sounds a lot like trying pointlessly to control altcoins and make something like a partial SPV ... to me.

Kano, I'm happy to say, we've found something we can agree on

Blockstream (BS) is trying it's hardest to force an artificial fee market before it's time so that developers will be motivated to work on off-chain solutions and users will be incentivized to use them.

While Lightning sounds cool in theory its not ready yet and BS has successfully captured Core development to steer it towards those things it needs to release LN (RBF, SegWit, CLTV, etc...).

Now they are trying to capture large miners to expedite adoption of RBF of and SegWit by making promises they know they can not keep.

BS has become so entrenched in protecting their position by limiting Bitcoin's capacity that they can not see the forest through the trees.

[1715309597]

1715309597

[1715309597]

1715309597

[1715309597]

1715309597

[1715309597]

1715309597

[BitUsher]

Announcement: We will withdraw support from February 21’s roundtable consensus, unless Adam Back gives us a reasonable explanation why he quietly changed his title from Blockstream President to Individual at the very last moment — without anybody noticed. We feel we’ve been cheated. I don’t know how we can trust Blockstream anymore in the future.

Hmm, couldn't all the pools just go with 2MB and tell the devs who think they control everything to stop trying to make themselves feel important?

Bitcoin is by design controlled by the consensus of the miners, not by centralised control.
It would seem that there are all sorts of parties trying to control bitcoin and I guess they all simply fail to understand the design.

Doesn't really matter how important devs think they are, if they want to be a relevant part of the blockchain decisions then they need to be miners.

...

BlockStream/Sidechains/SegWit all sounds a lot like trying pointlessly to control altcoins and make something like a partial SPV ... to me.

Kano, I'm happy to say, we've found something we can agree on

Blockstream (BS) is trying it's hardest to force an artificial fee market before it's time so that developers will be motivated to work on off-chain solutions and users will be incentivized to use them.

While Lightning sounds cool in theory its not ready yet and BS has successfully captured Core development to steer it towards those things it needs to release LN (RBF, SegWit, CLTV, etc...).

Now they are trying to capture large miners to expedite adoption of RBF of and SegWit by making promises they know they can not keep.

BS has become so entrenched in protecting their position by limiting Bitcoin's capacity that they can not see the forest through the trees.

I applaud Blockstream and LN developers working independent of Blockstream like Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja who recognize that Bitcoin cannot scale to compete by simply kicking the can over and over and increasing the blocksize. It isn't an appeal to authority but simply a recognition of the facts and data that we would be much better off focusing on building multiple payment channels that resolve and support the bitcoin blockchain. It sets a dangerous precedence to not follow the evidence and best recommendations and instead be swept up with politics or fear that a fee market event will cause tremendous damage to Bitcoin's ecosystem in itself. No one has any solid evidence that this will occur instead of simply pushing some spam off chain.

Your explanations aren't a secret and I and many others are quite direct that bitcoin cannot possibly resolve all tx's on the chain and be efficient and scale. It has to become a settlement network to compete and serve at its intended purpose.

It would be good advice going forward if not only developers, but everyone was more involved in mining and we strive to incentivize a more diverse group of miners. It would also be wise if large mining pools contributed more to development so they have an influence in the direction of bitcoin and at minimum understand the process to a greater degree. More implementations that don't break consensus rules are also wise but encouraging a contentious hard fork with such a low threshold is akin to attacking the ecosystem.

P.S... I look forward to reading Bitcoin Classic's Scaling roadmap and am open to any evidence or proposals they suggest, but without a proposal even available to discuss Classic should not even be up for consideration until a plan is proposed and reviewed.

[johnyj]

Current network already can handle traffic at 16MB, if the volume doubles each year, that's no problem for another 4 years. And there is no point to forecast anything beyond 4 years (Government might ban bitcoin at that time, or bitcoin out-competed by a world coin setup by world largest banks using blockchain, too many uncertainties)

Currently fastest fiber network can do 255Tbps
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/192929-255tbps-worlds-fastest-network-could-carry-all-the-internet-traffic-single-fiber

And if you can successfully do a hard fork, it is very beneficial for bitcoin, means in future, many changes and optimization can be done on the current architecture cleanly without using deceptive soft-fork hack

[BitUsher]

Current network already can handle traffic at 16MB,..

There are many of us who don't have the bandwidth to run a full node at home right now and are going to be forced to only run hosted nodes at 15 dollars a month and up because of the capacity increase in April. You are citing theoretical best performance networks when what we should be focused on is finding a balance where we don't have progressively more nodes dropping off and higher costs to run a full node. Advocating for extreme blocksizes ostracizing many people and places a dangerous precedence that we can simply scale bitcoin in a really sloppy manner by increasing the blocksize.

It is also extremely inconsiderate to not acknowledge many of the other concerns with TOR , and the firewall in china when considering the impact that a large block size will have upon the users.

[Fatman3001]

https://twitter.com/onemorepeter/status/702807258003017728

[Gyrsur]

^^THIS!!

[johnyj]

Current network already can handle traffic at 16MB,..

There are many of us who don't have the bandwidth to run a full node at home right now and are going to be forced to only run hosted nodes at 15 dollars a month and up because of the capacity increase in April. You are citing theoretical best performance networks when what we should be focused on is finding a balance where we don't have progressively more nodes dropping off and higher costs to run a full node. Advocating for extreme blocksizes ostracizing many people and places a dangerous precedence that we can simply scale bitcoin in a really sloppy manner by increasing the blocksize.

It is also extremely inconsiderate to not acknowledge many of the other concerns with TOR , and the firewall in china when considering the impact that a large block size will have upon the users.

Yes, there are some difficulties for individual home users, but similar to settlement and clearing based design, I prefer a settlement and clearing design for data traffic instead of financial transactions: The settlement layer is enterprise level bitcoin mining hubs and full nodes around the world run by bitcoin companies (there are thousands of them today, should be enough to reach the same level of decentralization today - 6000+ full nodes, and they have motivation to run them due to their own business requirement), and the layer two is home users running SPV client or pruned nodes, webwallet, exchanges etc... The settlement layer can afford magnitudes higher bandwidth, also the processing power is much higher. And layer two can use a variety of different off-chain transactions to reduce the traffic on-chain and get instant confirmation and zero fee /refund benefits

Regarding the TOR, if you have specific reason to use this kind of service, then you should use an alt-coin, which is much less regulated. Indeed, china's firewall is the biggest question now, but if there is a bandwidth bottleneck, I think in that case sidechain/LN does not help either, since they just moved the transaction out of bitcoin data traffic to some other type of data traffic, the total bandwidth requirement do not get less. Suppose you are sending 1 bitcoin from china to US, they would have to send exactly the same amount of transaction data no matter what technology they use (maybe even more data need to be sent)

[macbook-air]

We are currently under DDoS attack.

[Fatman3001]

We are currently under DDoS attack.

That's the Bitcoin community for ya. A three year old with a bot net.

[iCEBREAKER]

We are currently under DDoS counterattack.

Fixed it for you.

Mess with the honey badger and you get the claws.  Plus the teeth.

[KCBitcoin]

We are currently under DDoS attack.

Well, time to forget about the whole HK agreement, and break free from their tyranny.

[Andre#]

We are currently under DDoS counterattack.

Fixed it for you.

Mess with the honey badger and you get the claws.  Plus the teeth.

Fatman, are you sure he's three already?

[canth]

We are currently under DDoS counterattack.

Fixed it for you.

Mess with the honey badger and you get the claws.  Plus the teeth.

Really? DDoS attack is not what makes bitcoin consensus strong and it can be easily countered by the most well capitalized businesses getting larger and more centralized.

[clone4501]

We are currently under DDoS attack.

Were you running Classic?

[Fatman3001]

We are currently under DDoS counterattack.

Fixed it for you.

Mess with the honey badger and you get the claws.  Plus the teeth.

[img]http://i.m.a/ret.ard[/ img]

Fatman, are you sure he's three already?

Idk. He reminds me of a character in Alien 3 called 85. Except he would probably be closer to 64.

[iCEBREAKER]

We are currently under DDoS counterattack.

Fixed it for you.

Mess with the honey badger and you get the claws.  Plus the teeth.

Really? DDoS attack is not what makes bitcoin consensus strong and it can be easily countered by the most well capitalized businesses getting larger and more centralized.

Honey badger's characteristic ferocity creates disincentives to attack him.

As for your happy talk and gross generalizations about the broad category of DDoS attacks, whether or they they are "countered easily" depends on their scale.

By now you should know the Core Defense Network and small block militia have demonstrated capacity sufficient to take down entire ISPs and data centers for hours or days.

The fact macbook is here disclosing the attack indicates it is not trivial.  I forget, did they ever get stratum working through Cloudflare?

Let's see how breezily you gloss over 500Gbps of energized particle beam when La Serenissima's orbiting battle stations have you in their crosshairs.   

[Fatman3001]

       ^   
Make that 47

[Cconvert2G36]

... "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse."

We are currently under DDoS counterattack.

Fixed it for you.

Mess with the honey badger and you get the claws.  Plus the teeth.

Scumbag tactics from the "economic majority".   Color me unsurprised.

[iCEBREAKER]

... "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse."

We are currently under DDoS counterattack.

Fixed it for you.

Mess with the honey badger and you get the claws.  Plus the teeth.

Scumbag tactics from the "economic majority".   Color me unsurprised.

Scumbag tactics?  You mean like attempting to force a contentious hard fork at a 75/25 split with only 28 days warning, while using FUD as a thin wedge to insert a governance coup?

Don't cry to me when you poke the Honey Badger and he rips your face off.  You knew that was bound to happen.  Remember XT?  LAAAWL!

[canth]

... "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse."

We are currently under DDoS counterattack.

Fixed it for you.

Mess with the honey badger and you get the claws.  Plus the teeth.

Scumbag tactics from the "economic majority".   Color me unsurprised.

Scumbag tactics?  You mean like attempting to force a contentious hard fork at a 75/25 split with only 28 days warning, while using FUD as a thin wedge to insert a governance coup?

Don't cry to me when you poke the Honey Badger and he rips your face off.  You knew that was bound to happen.  Remember XT?  LAAAWL!

The HK meeting was far more effective at getting agreement than a few bits sent at mining pools or nodes. The day when Bitcoin needs individuals to perform DDoS attacks to survive is a day when the Honey Badger is on life support.