More than 50% of SegWit support comes from one miner

[TKeenan]

Bitfury. 

Somehow this does feel like 'decentralized' to me. 

[1715186418]

1715186418

[1715186418]

1715186418

[1715186418]

1715186418

[1715186418]

1715186418

[1715186418]

1715186418

[hardtime]

Mining isn't decentralized anymore and it sucks as the vision of bitcoin was to have a fully decentralized currency without one majority party ruling / having a considerable amount of power when it came to bitcoin.

Though I dont think Segwit is close to activation yet (correct me if im wrong) and I would highly doubt BitFury would profit from the activation in the least. They may just support the cause.

[DannyHamilton]

Mining isn't decentralized anymore and it sucks as the vision of bitcoin was to have a fully decentralized currency without one majority party ruling / having a considerable amount of power when it came to bitcoin.

The vision?

Whose vision?  Yours?

Certainly not the vision of the person that created it:

- snip -
If the network becomes very large, like over 100,000 nodes, SPV is what we'll use to allow common users to do transactions without being full blown nodes.  At that stage, most users should start running client-only software and only the specialist server farms keep running full network nodes, kind of like how the usenet network has consolidated.
- snip -

- snip -
I anticipate there will never be more than 100K nodes, probably less.  It will reach an equilibrium where it's not worth it for more nodes to join in.  The rest will be lightweight clients, which could be millions.

At equilibrium size, many nodes will be server farms with one or two network nodes that feed the rest of the farm over a LAN.

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.
- snip -
The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
- snip -

Emphasis added by me.

[franky1]

Bitfury.  

Somehow this does feel like 'decentralized' to me.  

start digging into BTCC aswell .. the other segwit supporter
and see all the ties of the knot to blockstream, coinbase, coindesk, litecoin,

[calkob]

Mining isn't decentralized anymore and it sucks as the vision of bitcoin was to have a fully decentralized currency without one majority party ruling / having a considerable amount of power when it came to bitcoin.

The vision?

Whose vision?  Yours?

Certainly not the vision of the person that created it:

- snip -
If the network becomes very large, like over 100,000 nodes, SPV is what we'll use to allow common users to do transactions without being full blown nodes.  At that stage, most users should start running client-only software and only the specialist server farms keep running full network nodes, kind of like how the usenet network has consolidated.
- snip -

- snip -
I anticipate there will never be more than 100K nodes, probably less.  It will reach an equilibrium where it's not worth it for more nodes to join in.  The rest will be lightweight clients, which could be millions.

At equilibrium size, many nodes will be server farms with one or two network nodes that feed the rest of the farm over a LAN.

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.
- snip -
The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
- snip -

Emphasis added by me.

You just got Rekt.......... BOOM !!!!!!!

[franky1]

but non of satoshis 'vision' was mentioned just 100 server nodes all using one brand of software.
so dont assume satoshi wants centralisation.. of one brand of software and low amount of full nodes.

non of satoshi's vision of server farms should be of concern for decades if ever. so halting growth now pretending that just rational node capable growth leads to server farms by midnight. is also twisting his words.

i prefer there to be a dozen brands and many thousands of nodes..
yet core are happy to just want Fibre to be the gate keepers filtering data downstream and just have other nodes as simple relayers. where its Fibre that do the real validating and filtering.

node consensus allows natural growth which nodes can handle, while not hindering growth or node count. thus the natural balance of growth can happen without being 'servers' anytime soon.

but ofcourse devs want to be the king decision makers
we need to start thinking that nodes should decide and devs are just the employee's/workers.. not the other way round

[RawDog]

Bitfury. 

Somehow this does feel like 'decentralized' to me. 

start digging into BTCC aswell .. the other segwit supporter
and see all the ties of the knot to blockstream, coinbase, litecoin,

Crazy.  How did it come to be that just two miners: BitFury and BTCC basically are holding up the entire network progress for more than 2 years now? 

The experiment has failed.  You cannot keep decentralization.  It evaporates no matter how clever of principles you try to put in place. 

Fuck.

[Viscount]

Telling lie won't give you any advantages. Many miners support segwit not only Bitfury.
Now 100% of unlimitedcoin support comes from 3 person: Roger Ver, Gavin Andressen, Mike Hearn. That is not decentralization at all. Besides only altcoins shills support unlimited because they feel like failure of Bitcoin helps rise their shitforks.

[RawDog]

Telling lie won't give you any advantages. Many miners support segwit not only Bitfury.
Now 100% of unlimitedcoin support comes from 3 person: Roger Ver, Gavin Andressen, Mike Hearn. That is not decentralization at all. Besides only altcoins shills support unlimited because they feel like failure of Bitcoin helps rise their shitforks.

These are the morons that stand behind Core.  Holy fuck.  'Majority rules' means get a lot of very stupid people to stand behind your dumb ideas.  

SegWit is not Bitcoin.  SegWit is the alt.  Lightning is not Bitcoin.  Lightning is the alt.  

[franky1]

Telling lie won't give you any advantages. Many miners support segwit not only Bitfury.
Now 100% of unlimitedcoin support comes from 3 person: Roger Ver, Gavin Andressen, Mike Hearn. That is not decentralization at all. Besides only altcoins shills support unlimited because they feel like failure of Bitcoin helps rise their shitforks.

funny thing.
its only core that want altcoins.
they love their monero, they love their elements, they love their litecoin, they love thier future sidechains.
they even love asking other teams to not stay as one network

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

but non-core teams refused to split off and make an altcoin. they prefer to keep the network in one piece

.. mic drop. boom

[jbreher]

Telling lie won't give you any advantages.
Now 100% of unlimitedcoin support comes from 3 person: Roger Ver, Gavin Andressen, Mike Hearn.

What is this 'unlimitedcoin' of which you speak?
Where is the public support for this 'unlimitedcoin' by Roger Ver?
Where is the public support for this 'unlimitedcoin' by Gavin Andressen?
Where is the public support for this 'unlimitedcoin' by Mike Hearn?

protip: Telling lie won't give you any advantages.

[Kakmakr]

Mining isn't decentralized anymore and it sucks as the vision of bitcoin was to have a fully decentralized currency without one majority party ruling / having a considerable amount of power when it came to bitcoin.

The vision?

Whose vision?  Yours?

Certainly not the vision of the person that created it:

- snip -
If the network becomes very large, like over 100,000 nodes, SPV is what we'll use to allow common users to do transactions without being full blown nodes.  At that stage, most users should start running client-only software and only the specialist server farms keep running full network nodes, kind of like how the usenet network has consolidated.
- snip -

- snip -
I anticipate there will never be more than 100K nodes, probably less.  It will reach an equilibrium where it's not worth it for more nodes to join in.  The rest will be lightweight clients, which could be millions.

At equilibrium size, many nodes will be server farms with one or two network nodes that feed the rest of the farm over a LAN.

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.
- snip -
The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
- snip -

Emphasis added by me.

You know, the more I read about Satoshi, the more admiration I have for his vision. He saw the future, before it happened and he was spot on. We have huge server farms and client nodes, just like he predicted. I wonder what he would have done with the Blockstream guys, if they submitted SegWit and the Lightning Network, when he/she was still around. < Blockstream might not even be around, if Satoshi was here >

I hate the direction where this is going, but Satoshi has built in consensus as part of his design to prevent hostile takeovers, so we should just ride this out. ^hmmmmmm^

[RawDog]

Bitfury.  

Somehow this does feel like 'decentralized' to me.  

Decentralization died with asic, especially when one group can make them cheaper and more efficient.

This is the problem with the fucking Chinese, or your slightly more polite term 'one group'

[Wind_FURY]

Bitfury. 

Somehow this does feel like 'decentralized' to me. 

Bitcoin Unlimited support is not "decentralized" too. Most of the miner support comes from Jihan Wu of Bitmain. So do not act as if you are in the right side. We are all in this together for better or for worse. I have a stake in the network. All my savings are in there, I hope yours are all in there too.

[Wind_FURY]

It is in our nature to want it all. The Chinese Bitcoin mining industry not only wants control in minting coins and what is included in a block they now are making moves to control development to get what they want. Bigger blocks.

To gain back leverage there must be the ability to do transactions off the chain.

[franky1]

It is in our nature to want it all. The Chinese Bitcoin mining industry not only wants control in minting coins and what is included in a block they now are making moves to control development to get what they want. Bigger blocks.

To gain back leverage there must be the ability to do transactions off the chain.

lol wake up. your sleeping.
im guessing blockstream tucked you into bed and read you a fairy tale.
telling you to count the miner until you fall asleep instead of thinking of the boogey men under your blockstream bed.

care to try reading before bed. and not jump into bed with anyone that only wants to grab your wallet.

here is some tips for your research
1. if segwit activates. segwit nodes will BAN non segwit pools AUTOMATICALLY. thus causing a soft bilateral split.
2. even if segwit activates. all of them "fixes" wont be used by the malicious users that are causing the issues. malleation, quadratic spam etc will still occur.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/28/segwit-costs/

Miners could simply use software that does not recognise segwit rules (such as earlier versions of Bitcoin Core) to mine blocks on top of a chain that has activated segwit. This would be a hard-fork as far as segwit-aware software is concerned, and those blocks would consequently be ignored by Bitcoin users using segwit-aware validating nodes. If there are sufficiently many users using segwit nodes, such a hard-fork would be no more effective than introducing a new alt coin.

yep segwit nodes will bilateral split the network and prefer to talk to only thier own kind.. (native bitcoincoin nodes and pools are thrown aside)

Significant work has gone into ensuring that segwit enabled peers will form a strongly connected subgraph of the Bitcoin P2P network. This includes providing a dedicated service bit for witness enabled nodes and preferentially connecting to such nodes.

BIP9 changed to a new quorum sensing approach that is MUCH less vulnerable to false triggering, so 95% under it is more like 99.9% under the old approach.  But we saw no reason to lower the criteria:  basically when it activates the 95% will have to be willing to potentially orphan the blocks of the 5% that remain if they happen to mine invalid blocks.   If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90%  (e.g. lets just imagine some altcoin publicly raised money to block an important improvement to Bitcoin) then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

3. the transaction boost is not automatic. its dependant on how many use segwit keys. dont expect 100% utility

[Xester]

Bitfury. 

Somehow this does feel like 'decentralized' to me. 

start digging into BTCC aswell .. the other segwit supporter
and see all the ties of the knot to blockstream, coinbase, litecoin,

Crazy.  How did it come to be that just two miners: BitFury and BTCC basically are holding up the entire network progress for more than 2 years now? 

The experiment has failed.  You cannot keep decentralization.  It evaporates no matter how clever of principles you try to put in place. 

Fuck.

If bitcoin is now turning into a centralized currency then what happened to bitcoin as a decentralized currency. If only two miners are holding the entire network progress then there is some kind of monopoly that is happening behind of bitcoin. If this continues then soon bitcoin will no longer be decentralized. If those two giant miners will still control the network progress for another year then we should expect an intense increase on the miner fees.

[vnvizow]

Bitfury. 

Somehow this does feel like 'decentralized' to me. 

start digging into BTCC aswell .. the other segwit supporter
and see all the ties of the knot to blockstream, coinbase, litecoin,

Crazy.  How did it come to be that just two miners: BitFury and BTCC basically are holding up the entire network progress for more than 2 years now? 

The experiment has failed.  You cannot keep decentralization.  It evaporates no matter how clever of principles you try to put in place. 

Fuck.

If bitcoin is now turning into a centralized currency then what happened to bitcoin as a decentralized currency. If only two miners are holding the entire network progress then there is some kind of monopoly that is happening behind of bitcoin. If this continues then soon bitcoin will no longer be decentralized. If those two giant miners will still control the network progress for another year then we should expect an intense increase on the miner fees.

*looks at current backlogs*
*looks at mining fees recommended for fast processing*
*shudders*

[megynacuna]

Bitfury. 

Somehow this does feel like 'decentralized' to me. 

Yeah they might have something up their sleeves and we can't tell from a distance. We need to fight against centralization and companies who want to have that veto power over the Bitcoin network. If bitfury is indeed up to something fishy then we all need to fight against it.

[Wind_FURY]

It is in our nature to want it all. The Chinese Bitcoin mining industry not only wants control in minting coins and what is included in a block they now are making moves to control development to get what they want. Bigger blocks.

To gain back leverage there must be the ability to do transactions off the chain.

lol wake up. your sleeping.
im guessing blockstream tucked you into bed and read you a fairy tale.
telling you to count the miner until you fall asleep instead of thinking of the boogey men under your blockstream bed.

care to try reading before bed. and not jump into bed with anyone that only wants to grab your wallet.

here is some tips for your research
1. if segwit activates. segwit nodes will BAN non segwit pools AUTOMATICALLY. thus causing a soft bilateral split.
2. even if segwit activates. all of them "fixes" wont be used by the malicious users that are causing the issues. malleation, quadratic spam etc will still occur.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/28/segwit-costs/

Miners could simply use software that does not recognise segwit rules (such as earlier versions of Bitcoin Core) to mine blocks on top of a chain that has activated segwit. This would be a hard-fork as far as segwit-aware software is concerned, and those blocks would consequently be ignored by Bitcoin users using segwit-aware validating nodes. If there are sufficiently many users using segwit nodes, such a hard-fork would be no more effective than introducing a new alt coin.

yep segwit nodes will bilateral split the network and prefer to talk to only thier own kind.. (native bitcoincoin nodes and pools are thrown aside)

Significant work has gone into ensuring that segwit enabled peers will form a strongly connected subgraph of the Bitcoin P2P network. This includes providing a dedicated service bit for witness enabled nodes and preferentially connecting to such nodes.

3. the transaction boost is not automatic. its dependant on how many use segwit keys. dont expect 100% utility

Let us set aside all the technical details and try to analyze the situation. Both sides argue technically with "this or that" and the majority of the people in the community are like me. We have no full idea what they are talking about. But it does not mean we are stupid and do not want to learn. We do.

All in all this all goes down to politics and the need for control. Power and influence is the name of the game here. The big blockers are no different from the blockstream boogeymen you keep talking about.