So who the hell is still supporting BU?

[IadixDev]

Common sense is 20% of bitcoin users :p it's always like this, 20% is still good

It's why good dev must be like dark vador, pushing what is good for their user on them with an iron hand, otherwise they never understand anything. . It's end less debate, lack of consensus, and it never go anywhere  

[1714160855]

1714160855

[franky1]

Maybe an indicator of the total estimated processing time for a block could be added in the block headers, and limiting the efffective processing time to this.


or advertising the number of sig op in the block more explicitly from start, and limiting the number of sigop processed to this,as mining nodes are already supposed to know this, if a way can be found not using too much extra bandwidth.

Maybe we could activate segwit, implement Schnorr sigs, stop worrying about O(n^2) attacks, and enjoy the other benefits like Lightning, tree multisignature, fungibility, etc.

/common sense

even activating segwit does not stop worrying about O(n^2) attacks!!
people wanting to cause O(n^2) attacks will still do O(n^2) attacks

wake up to reality.
O(n^2) attacks are only allievated by those using segwit keys.. the thing you need to understand is attackers wont use those keys even after activation. so the problem is not solved.

its like not wanting gun crimes. so you make a law that creates a new voluntary gun shop to open whichs sells plastic guns that fire paintballs.
hoping everyone will buy these guns.
the thing you need to understand is you have not closed the normal gun shops or put rules to force the normal gun shops to close. all segwit has done is effectively say the plastic paintball guns are x% cheaper to use..... thats it

[kiklo]

Maybe an indicator of the total estimated processing time for a block could be added in the block headers, and limiting the efffective processing time to this.


or advertising the number of sig op in the block more explicitly from start, and limiting the number of sigop processed to this,as mining nodes are already supposed to know this, if a way can be found not using too much extra bandwidth.

Maybe we could activate segwit, implement Schnorr sigs, stop worrying about O(n^2) attacks, and enjoy the other benefits like Lightning, tree multisignature, fungibility, etc.

/common sense

You keep missing the point where ~70% of the miners are refusing segwit.  
Segwit is dead in the water. Time to move on.  


 

[iCEBREAKER]

Maybe we could activate segwit, implement Schnorr sigs, stop worrying about O(n^2) attacks, and enjoy the other benefits like Lightning, tree multisignature, fungibility, etc.

/common sense

You keep missing the point where ~70% of the miners are refusing segwit.  
Segwit Centralized sha256 is dead in the water. Time to move on.  

Fixed your broken point to make it more reasonable and actionable. 

[kiklo]

Maybe we could activate segwit, implement Schnorr sigs, stop worrying about O(n^2) attacks, and enjoy the other benefits like Lightning, tree multisignature, fungibility, etc.

/common sense

You keep missing the point where ~70% of the miners are refusing segwit.  
Segwit Centralized sha256 is dead in the water. Time to move on.  

Fixed your broken point to make it more reasonable and actionable.  

LOL, the only thing broken is your reasoning skills.  

BU needs to happen soon, BTC is jammed up again :
88112 Unconfirmed Transactions
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1799541.new#new

 

[iCEBREAKER]

BU needs to happen soon, BTC is jammed up again :
88112 Unconfirmed Transactions

Bitcoin's market-based priority schema is working fine.

In fact, it's working better than ever because now you can bump up a fee that's too low.

If you don't want to do that, broadcast your cosmic background spam on a less valuable blockchain.

[kiklo]

BU needs to happen soon, BTC is jammed up again :
88112 Unconfirmed Transactions

Bitcoin's market-based priority schema is working fine.

In fact, it's working better than ever because now you can bump up a fee that's too low.

If you don't want to do that, broadcast your cosmic background spam on a less valuable blockchain.

Way ahead of you. 

Anytime BTC unconfirmed transactions are more 10,000 ,
I use LTC or Eth or Doge until it drops back down.


 

[franky1]

If you don't want to do that, broadcast your cosmic background spam on a less valuable blockchain.

let me guess your gonna kiss gmaxwells ass like last year and start advertising monero as the replacement for bitcoin.

real funny thing about blockstream scripters
complain that only the chinese are making bitcoins but reprogram the fee estimator to give miners more coin(pools dont care about the fee's. its a bonus, not needed income)

pretend to complain about miner control but only give miners the vote (but fail because miners are more ethical and are willing to wait and see what nodes choose)

pretend to care about the community but only implement code changes for benefit of commercial services(only benefits companies wishing to set themselves up as hubs)

pretend to care about the community. yet stunt real growth of bitcoin and then have the arrogance to say bitcoin cant cope.

[C0RE]

BU needs to happen soon, BTC is jammed up again :
88112 Unconfirmed Transactions
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1799541.new#new

 

it seems like bitcoin is once again having a spam attack, unlimited is useless here or even harmful, be patient and wait for miners to signal segwit support

[IadixDev]

If you want to go with an unlimited dragster, at least make in sort it has some kind of brakes, otherwise there can be some accidents :p

[Lauda]

even activating segwit does not stop worrying about O(n^2) attacks!!
people wanting to cause O(n^2) attacks will still do O(n^2) attacks

wake up to reality.
O(n^2) attacks are only allievated by those using segwit keys.. the thing you need to understand is attackers wont use those keys even after activation. so the problem is not solved.

You are thinking about this completely wrong. Let's revisit:
We know that at 1 MB that quadratic hashing problem is *okay* (to put in this way) and that it opens a DOS attack vector at higher block sizes. I think we can agree on this statement. If people create Segwit TXs, they can create blocks that are bigger than 1 MB. However, in this case the O(n^2) is reduced to O(n) which levitates the problem.
So what does happen if someone chooses to not use Segwit 'keys' and decides to create extremely expensive transactions? Nothing, they still can't create a TX/block that it significantly (or adequately) bigger in order for the 'attack' to work.

[sgbett]

even activating segwit does not stop worrying about O(n^2) attacks!!
people wanting to cause O(n^2) attacks will still do O(n^2) attacks

wake up to reality.
O(n^2) attacks are only allievated by those using segwit keys.. the thing you need to understand is attackers wont use those keys even after activation. so the problem is not solved.

You are thinking about this completely wrong. Let's revisit:
We know that at 1 MB that quadratic hashing problem is *okay* (to put in this way) and that it opens a DOS attack vector at higher block sizes. I think we can agree on this statement. If people create Segwit TXs, they can create blocks that are bigger than 1 MB. However, in this case the O(n^2) is reduced to O(n) which levitates the problem.
So what does happen if someone chooses to not use Segwit 'keys' and decides to create extremely expensive transactions? Nothing, they still can't create a TX/block that it significantly (or adequately) bigger in order for the 'attack' to work.

Until core does that hard fork to increase 'blocksize'  they said they were going to do

[franky1]

So what does happen if someone chooses to not use Segwit 'keys' and decides to create extremely expensive transactions? Nothing, they still can't create a TX/block that it significantly (or adequately) bigger in order for the 'attack' to work.

if an attacker makes a 1mb bloated non-segwit tx. then the block is filled. again.. the block is filled(repeated for emphasis) and no one else can get their transactions into the block.
doesnt matter what size the block could have been or is.. its filled. end of

thus even if you have X thousand users using segwit.. their transactions are still held up in mempools, unconfirmed.

= segwit is not a remedy. its just taking the guns away from the innocent and dumbly thinking that will solve malicious gun crimes. yet malicious gun crimes are still happening because malicious people still have a gun to hold people up.

segwit doesnt magically make the block 2mb.. its all dependant on what type of transactions are in a block that offsets posible expansion of block capacity of that specific block at that specific time.

if all transactions are native block is at 1mb..
if 50% transactions are native that specific block might be 1.5mb
if 0% transactions are native that specifit block might be 2.1mb

but if a spammer fills a block with native transactions.. segwit users cant do crap

[Lauda]

So what does happen if someone chooses to not use Segwit 'keys' and decides to create extremely expensive transactions? Nothing, they still can't create a TX/block that it significantly (or adequately) bigger in order for the 'attack' to work.

if an attacker makes a 1mb bloated non-segwit tx. then the block is filled. again.. the block is filled and no one else can get their transactions into the block.
doesnt matter what size the block could have been or is.. its filled. end of

You are diverting attention to what I was taking about. Read your post, and read what I was talking about. I was not talking about throughput, but solely about quadratic hashing.

[-ck]

Lauda your tolerance and persistence is commendable. However your effort is wasted. Selectively ignoring about 4 bitcointalk trolls in this argument will make your life much more enjoyable and any discussions regarding scaling much more useful as it increases the signal to noise ratio to about 100x higher.
EDIT: Of course people who respond by taking offence means they know they're trolls themselves, otherwise why would they get offended and think I was talking about them?

[franky1]

You are diverting attention to what I was taking about. Read your post, and read what I was talking about. I was not talking about throughput, but solely about quadratic hashing.

what your failing to understand is that segwit wont stop anything.
you can pretend it solves things and is 100% utopian fix. but its not

quadratic hashing still will occur after segwit is activated.

[franky1]

Lauda your tolerance and persistence is commendable. However your effort is wasted. Selectively ignoring about 4 bitcointalk trolls in this argument will make your life much more enjoyable and any discussions regarding scaling much more useful as it increases the signal to noise ratio to about 100x higher.

sticking head in sand and pretending the dream is a reality will make your life more enjoyable.. but you have to wake up someday. and your dream fades away once the real reality takes over your life.

[hv_]

Lauda your tolerance and persistence is commendable. However your effort is wasted. Selectively ignoring about 4 bitcointalk trolls in this argument will make your life much more enjoyable and any discussions regarding scaling much more useful as it increases the signal to noise ratio to about 100x higher.

sticking head in sand and pretending the dream is a reality will make your life more enjoyable.. but you have to wake up someday. and your dream fades away once the real reality takes over your life.

You re so mean wiping away others

Sweet Wishes


 


Tomorrow I ll anounce a new coin called

FeeAssCoin (FEASCO) using a new proof of mempool (POM) running by segregated users with limited brain.

[franky1]

sticking head in sand and pretending the dream is a reality will make your life more enjoyable.. but you have to wake up someday. and your dream fades away once the real reality takes over your life.

You re so mean wiping away others

Sweet Wishes

im frank (meaning: get straight to the point)

if i wanted to kiss ass and dream utopian dreams of over promises and sales pitches of features that dont do as intended, id call myself something else.
if something has a problem you dont solve it by sticking head in the sand
if something has a problem you dont pretend the devs are not to blame
if something has a problem you dont continue to treat the devs as gods.

as soon as people wake up and realise that, the sooner devs realise the community have been lied to and are actually not happy. and the devs hopefully change their ways.

at the moment devs are soo busy trying to stroke their sheep to sleep that they are spending less time fixing problems and more time thinking there is not a problem and leaving them free to do what crap they like.

everyone needs to realise that there should be no gods of bitcoin, devs come and go. kissing their ass wont help... it just makes them feel empowered to mess up and get away with it.
the devs should be treated as employee's of bitcoin. not managers
the nodes are what control bitcoin not the devs.

[artows21]

No I don't think BU is dead, this is not a war !!! BU is still go to bitcoins and people who wants still using BU can, it's like if you want to use an iPhone and others prefer using SAMSUNG.