Yet another reason to hate and reject SegWit altcoin

[DGulari]

Just before Hearn left he floated Bitcoin XT as a scaling solution.  While it got a significant showing of 'votes', it never really took off.  A major reason was due to all the DDOSing of XT nodes. 

This is pure and simple corruption.  If we are taking a vote, we have to let the vote be free and fair or we won't know the true result.  The Blockstream team is full of this kind of corruption and BS.

Same goes for this forum.  The heavy censorship here is totally corrupt.  They were trying to silence any opinion against SegWit. 

Even if I loved SegWit technically, even if it did provide some good advantage, I wouldn't go that direction.  The people behind that side of the story have repeatedly proven themselves untrustworthy.  SegWit/Blockstream/Core/Lightning are corrupt.  They will lie, cheat and steal to take over the network.  I don't want them in charge. 

We need to get Blockstream out of the Core influence.

[1714062767]

1714062767

[1714062767]

1714062767

[RealBitcoin]

At the moment the nodes are in charge, thank god, we dont have to have a political debate, regardless of which side is correct.

Can you imagine a philosophical political debate here before every single patch?

Like communism vs capitalism debate? It has been going on for at least 2000 years, and still it wasnt resolved. There are still people supporting both sides.


So you cant really have a debate between 2MB VS Segwit, because it would be just as pointless as the capitalism vs communism one. Of course I am a capitalist, I just say this as an example.



So to avoid this long bickering, we just have a pretty simple node consensus mechanism. If the majority of nodes want X, then X shall it be. No political shenanigan, nor any kind of manipulation can't influence the outcome.

Of course the losing side will always complain , and invent conspiracy theories about the winning side, but that is pointless once the decision has been made.


Nodes should inform themselves, hear out both sides, and then make a rational decision.

• If they do that, then the winning side is by default the correct side, with the most rational arguments behind it
• If they don't and will just act irrationally, then the whole concept of Bitcoin decentralization is flawed and proven to be not working, and it will prove that direct democracy can't work, and only centralized money is good

Either way, we will see what will happen.

[calkob]

Even if I loved SegWit technically, even if it did provide some good advantage, I wouldn't go that direction.  The people behind that side of the story have repeatedly proven themselves untrustworthy. 

So what you are going to cut of your nose to spite your face, to me the the most damaging thing happening to bitcoin right now is the bitter in fighting over the blocksize debate.  Bitcoin is thriving in-spite of that. 

[Viscount]

Same goes for this forum.  The heavy censorship here is totally corrupt.  They were trying to silence any opinion against SegWit.  

If that was true I wouldn't browse everyday multiple thread from Ver's stooges, telling us that SegWit's failed  
All of you would've been banned way back. So you are a liar, as every other, who pushes Unlimitedcoin  

[Viscount]

Why are you creating 3~5 threads per day dumb unlimited arses? Just to multiply and escalate the FUD to mislead people,
when you get fucked in one you create another ready at hand. 

[odolvlobo]

Tribalism, picking sides, starting wars are all paths to failure. Give up your pride and you precious ego, and do what is best for you and everyone else.

 If you aren't clear who this post is directed at, then it is directed at you.

[BitcoinBarrel]

Everybody acts like Bitcoin isn't working amazingly for 200,000+ transactions per day. My goodness... your coins took a few hours to be securely transferred to you, wow. If Satoshi wanted 1 minute blocks, he would have made it 1 minute instead of 10.... right?

And if Bitcoin is obsolete, then create a better Alt Coin and make billions.

[pooya87]

So to avoid this long bickering, we just have a pretty simple node consensus mechanism. If the majority of nodes want X, then X shall it be.

i like the idea of Nodes voting for consensus but i see some problems with this mechanism:
1) if there is 100 bitcoin users one out of them is running a full node which means the other 99 user aren't going to have a voice.
2) many who run a full node, just run it and possibly don't know much about consensus, they will upgrade to the latest version and unless it is explicitly asked, they are signalling what the latest version signals.
3) i believe it is not that hard to create fake nodes (a lot of them) and signal something. and i believe it happened with classic nodes.

[franky1]

3) i believe it is not that hard to create fake nodes (a lot of them) and signal something. and i believe it happened with classic nodes.

dont be biased.
remember 21.co said they (one entity) will launch 100+ core nodes
remember btcc said they (one entity) will launch 100 core nodes
Fibre having lots of nodes
Cornell having lots of nodes
and many other examples.

so yes there could be sybil attacks. but at the same argument... a sybil attack can be easy to spot.
EG strange jump in nodes for a short period.
we can ignore those that obviously launched temporarily.
especially if the new node count are using old code to hinder new features that the community actually want.

EG say core finally release a consensus utilising code that includes dynamic blocks.
and all other implementations had the same dynamic defaults

but then instead of seeing older versions drop and replaced with new nodes (same people simply upgrading naturally)
the node count of older nodes suddenly jumps, EG version core0.12 went from 300 to 1000. where 700 are running on amazon servers.. (but were not there last week)
obviously those 700 wont be counted

there are several ways to mitigate the risks.

we need to concentrate on nodes with user settings that can allow users to run as nodes. and not just use some stupid amazon free time trial temporary spike in node count. with silly settings set.

and we especially shouldnt leave it for devs to explicitly be the controller of the node settings. it needs to be a diverse open consensus based on realistic and acceptable levels, not some fake election double counting votes from same ip ranges

[Kakmakr]

Just before Hearn left he floated Bitcoin XT as a scaling solution.  While it got a significant showing of 'votes', it never really took off.  A major reason was due to all the DDOSing of XT nodes. 

This is pure and simple corruption.  If we are taking a vote, we have to let the vote be free and fair or we won't know the true result.  The Blockstream team is full of this kind of corruption and BS.

Same goes for this forum.  The heavy censorship here is totally corrupt.  They were trying to silence any opinion against SegWit. 

Even if I loved SegWit technically, even if it did provide some good advantage, I wouldn't go that direction.  The people behind that side of the story have repeatedly proven themselves untrustworthy.  SegWit/Blockstream/Core/Lightning are corrupt.  They will lie, cheat and steal to take over the network.  I don't want them in charge. 

We need to get Blockstream out of the Core influence.

Politics 101 - Everything goes, just ask Trump. ^smile^

First, Mike Hearn was not a victim, he tried a hostile takeover and even tried to slip some "backdoor" malicious code into XT and it failed. They even faked some nodes, to inflate their node count, and that failed too.

The goal of this forum is to discuss Bitcoin, hence it's name : Bitcointalk, not to promote Alt coins or to tolerate discussions that would harm the experiment. < They leave room for constructive criticism, up to a point >

If you feel strongly about Blockstream, then rally support for BU somewhere else and let consensus make the final decision.

[RealBitcoin]

So to avoid this long bickering, we just have a pretty simple node consensus mechanism. If the majority of nodes want X, then X shall it be.

i like the idea of Nodes voting for consensus but i see some problems with this mechanism:
1) if there is 100 bitcoin users one out of them is running a full node which means the other 99 user aren't going to have a voice.
2) many who run a full node, just run it and possibly don't know much about consensus, they will upgrade to the latest version and unless it is explicitly asked, they are signalling what the latest version signals.
3) i believe it is not that hard to create fake nodes (a lot of them) and signal something. and i believe it happened with classic nodes.

Well it's tough shit, but this puts the decentralization promised to the test.

I am not comfortable with the ASIC nature of mining, it should be something more decentralized.

So that either 1 miner = 1 node, or non mining nodes get rewards too.


I think satoshi has fucked it up, he was too optimistic about CPU mining and forgot about ASICS.

Well we shall seee, this is the big test for Bitcoin. If it can pass it, then it will survive. If not, then it will become a bank coin.

[Lauda]

Tl;dr: OP is trying to sell a story about how they "supported" Segwit et. al, and how they suddenly changed their mind.

Just before Hearn left he floated Bitcoin XT as a scaling solution.  While it got a significant showing of 'votes', it never really took off.  A major reason was due to all the DDOSing of XT nodes. 

You have no proof that any Core contributor did anything of this type, ergo argument invalid.

The Blockstream team is full of this kind of corruption and BS.

Nonsense again.

Same goes for this forum.  The heavy censorship here is totally corrupt.  They were trying to silence any opinion against SegWit. 

1) It's a private owned forum. If you don't like it -> leave.
2) Moderation =/= censorship.
3) Last sentence is false anyways.

Even if I loved SegWit technically, even if it did provide some good advantage, I wouldn't go that direction.  The people behind that side of the story have repeatedly proven themselves untrustworthy. 

Lies again.

[franky1]

Well we shall seee, this is the big test for Bitcoin. If it can pass it, then it will survive. If not, then it will become a bank coin.

every system has a loop hole.
imagine PoS
if address contains 10coin it is staked enough to sign a block
200 people pool their 0.5 coin into 10 addresses of 10coin and ensure the syndicate leader is ethical to act as the pool to pay out reward
because there are 10 addresses with stake ensures they get more chance more often then one person of 10btc.
and also leaving those others not syndicated/pools with 0.5coin not getting anything.

imagine PoN (proof of node)
someone runs 200 nodes ensuring they get the chance more often than someone with 1 node

[franky1]

Same goes for this forum.  The heavy censorship here is totally corrupt.  They were trying to silence any opinion against SegWit.  

1) It's a private owned forum. If you don't like it -> leave.

lauda. take this as advice..

"If you don't like it -> leave." = silencing opinion

your correct moderator response should have been, something like
"you are entitled to your opinion, no one will delete your post or ask you to leave because of it"

but you instead. proved him right by telling him to leave. and also making it sound like he is trespassing. by saying
"its privately owned." rather than "its a public forum" or even "its a free speech forum"

you kind of insinuated that open opinion is not applauded but instead shown the direction to the exit

[Lauda]

"If you don't like it -> leave." = silencing opinion

False.

your correct moderator response should have been, something like
"you are entitled to your opinion, no one will delete your post or ask you to leave because of it"

What are you talking about? I'm not a moderator.

but you instead. proved him right by telling him to leave. and also making it sound like he is trespassing. by saying
"its privately owned." rather than "its a public forum" or even "its a free speech forum"

It is a privately owned forum. That's a fact. If you want a "public forum" then go invent a decentralized one.

you kind of insinuated that open opinion is not applauded but instead shown the direction to the exit

The general community would benefit a lot if a certain amount of these users actually 'exited'.

[franky1]

What are you talking about? I'm not a moderator.

you lost your status. hmm

everything else you said i just laughed at, as you are not seeing rational thought.
i hope you get some back, because although i dont keep upto date on your life to know or care about your status..
i did recognise a little bit of open minded thought last year. and i truly hope you gt back to that point. even though it was a little short window

[RealBitcoin]

Same goes for this forum.  The heavy censorship here is totally corrupt.  They were trying to silence any opinion against SegWit. 

1) It's a private owned forum. If you don't like it -> leave.

lauda. take this as advice..

"If you don't like it -> leave." = silencing opinion

your correct moderator response should have been, something like
"you are entitled to your opinion, no one will delete your post or ask you to leave because of it"

but you instead. proved him right by telling him to leave. and also making it sound like he is trespassing. by saying
"its privately owned." rather than "its a public forum" or even "its a free speech forum"

you kind of insinuated that open opinion is not applauded but instead shown the direction to the exit

There are 2 ways to defend against sybil attack:


-Discourage people from running nodes (at which case those that still run multiple nodes, have an easier path to control the network)
-Encourage people to run nodes (at which case people will run multiple nodes, but so until everyone does that, it would be like 1 person running 1 , as the ratio would be the same)


Bitcoin works on method 1, but as the node count drops, the sybil attack becomes easier.

I would suggest to moving to method 2 (aka paying nodes too, not just miners), because in that case, at least the incentive is there, and as long as people want to make money, they can also help defend the network.

[franky1]

Bitcoin works on method 1, but as the node count drops, the sybil attack becomes easier.

I would suggest to moving to method 2 (aka paying nodes too, not just miners), because in that case, at least the incentive is there, and as long as people want to make money, they can also help defend the network.

every mthod has a loophole.

again to pay a node (bitcoin theory this time not LN) requires a tx paying each relay..

blockstream already set up FIBRE as the hub... oops they hate it when i dont use gmaxwells buzzwords

blockstream already set up FIBRE as the upstream filter of the network topology

[Lauda]

everything else you said i just laughed at, as you are not seeing rational thought.

No. You are the one who is wrong in this situation. Privately owned environments can set any rules that they want. This is not the "official Bitcoin forum". If it were, then we may be talking about maximizing free speech.

i hope you get some back, because although i dont keep upto date on your life to know or care about your status..

Then don't drag it in to the thread as part of a weak argument.

i did recognise a little bit of open minded thought last year. and i truly hope you gt back to that point. even though it was a little short window

I'm very open minded about a lot of things. The same can not be said about you though. You're seem to be arguing that 'a flag' is black even if almost all of the people with actual knowledge are saying that it's white.

I would suggest to moving to method 2 (aka paying nodes too, not just miners), because in that case, at least the incentive is there, and as long as people want to make money, they can also help defend the network.

That's obviously not going to happen. This isn't Dash.

[jbreher]

So to avoid this long bickering, we just have a pretty simple node consensus mechanism. If the majority of nodes want X, then X shall it be.

i like the idea of Nodes voting for consensus but i see some problems with this mechanism:
1) if there is 100 bitcoin users one out of them is running a full node which means the other 99 user aren't going to have a voice.
2) many who run a full node, just run it and possibly don't know much about consensus, they will upgrade to the latest version and unless it is explicitly asked, they are signalling what the latest version signals.
3) i believe it is not that hard to create fake nodes (a lot of them) and signal something. and i believe it happened with classic nodes.

1) Well, that's bitcoin's design. Nodeless users have no direct representation on the network. Buck up, buttercup.
2) While true, likely insignificant. Those willing to bear the hassle of running a node are more likely to invest some thought into the issues.
3) Irrelevant. In the end, the only way nodes have any power anyhow, is as a proxy for economic power or for mining power. Back in the day, when essentially every node was a mining node, nodes held some power. Today, ..., err... not so much.