Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

[piotr_n]

It's actually quite funny for me to see all this spectacle on how the miners allegedly stop bitcoin from moving forward.

I consider myself an experienced bitcoin developer.
I understand that the miners don't want the lighting networks and I understand why - because it goes against their interests.
But how is it different for the major core devs preventing the ultimate block chain compression feature from being implemented?
Most people don't realize that their full bitcoin node can be quite functional needing only 3gb of disk and can bootstrap within one hour... And the core devs don't want you to know that. At least not yet...
So how is it different?
For me it isn't at all - they obviously  also have their own self interest in this and they don't have to explain themselves to anyone.
Just like the miners that you hate here so much.


The bottom line is: the miners are obviously  not going to help you in deploying your existing business solution by activating segwit.
Therefore better start rewriting your shit so it could work without it.
C'est la vie - welcome to the fucking club

[1714116456]

1714116456

[1714116456]

1714116456

[1714116456]

1714116456

[1714116456]

1714116456

[1714116456]

1714116456

[1714116456]

1714116456

[tromp]

I understand that the miners don't want the lighting networks and I understand why - because it goes against their interests.

They perceive it as going against their interests. But this perception appears flawed.

Bitcoin needs scaling improvements like lightning in order to thrive in the long term.
A non-scalable bitcoin will ultimately be overtaken by a better-scalable competitor.

[hdbuck]

I understand that the miners don't want the lighting networks and I understand why - because it goes against their interests.

They perceive it as going against their interests. But this perception appears flawed.

Bitcoin needs scaling improvements like lightning in order to thrive in the long term.
A non-scalable bitcoin will ultimately be overtaken by a better-scalable competitor.

cut the crap, Bitcoin doesnt "need" anything.

c'est la vie indeed.

[Uberse]

This sounds like a great idea, but doesn't it require that lots of otherwise-disinterested parties be financially incentivized to start and maintain nodes?

[cellard]

At the end of the day, a bad actor with a bunch of money, can buy a huge building and fill it with thousands of computers and run whatever software node they want.

This

The only way to take power back from the miners, is to take away the actual source of their power: mining ASIC processors.

i.e. change the proof of work to something that is too difficult/expensive to make ASIC processors for

How does that solve the fact that rich people can buy a big building and run a million computers running any software they want and that would count as nodes (votes)? It has nothing to do with mining/ASICS/PoW. We are talking about the NODES.

There's no way to solve this. Rich people can always corner nodes/hashing power/whatever.

[Carlton Banks]

The only way to take power back from the miners, is to take away the actual source of their power: mining ASIC processors.

i.e. change the proof of work to something that is too difficult/expensive to make ASIC processors for

How does that solve the fact that rich people can buy a big building and run a million computers running any software they want and that would count as nodes (votes)?

It doesn't.

It solves the problem of ASIC manufacturers taking advantage of the market. The development and production of ASIC chips is highly privileged endeavor; engineering talent available to design the chip is very scarce as well as expensive, and access to chip fabrication plants is also scarce and expensive. Not to mention, the number of chips produced in a minimum sized batch would need that big building to house the miners; a significant barrier to entry.

My proposal (really Meni Rosenfeld's broad proposal) would let people mine with CPU's or GPU/FPGA's again. It wouldn't prevent mining warehouses, but it would change the balance of opportunity so that small miners can participate with a similar barrier to entry as big miners.

[piotr_n]

cut the crap, Bitcoin doesnt "need" anything.

When I remember all the things bitcoin "needed", but has failed to get, it makes me smile.

I remember when bitcoin needed more merchants, although less drug dealers because it was a bad press.

Then bitcoin needed to be much more user friendly - so much that even Gavin's granny could use it.

Then the client needed to be compatible with external hardware wallets, because they were the future.

Then it needed to have a bigger blocks, so it could "scale - or segwit for the same reason.

Then it needed to have tx malleability removed, so some people could deploy their existing side-chain solution.

(that's just from the top of my head, from the past 5+ years)

Today bitcoin needs to get rid of the miners, because... they are endangering its future by doing their job of securing the protocol
Plus nobody is going to admit, but it would not have been such a big issue if the miners had been Americans, or at least white.
Which brings us to: bitcoin needs to be in control of a white people!

Fuck knows what bitcoin is going to need tomorrow, in order to "succeed".
When I think about this, it's actually quite shocking that it has succeeded that far.

[Yogafan00000]

When I remember all the things bitcoin "needed", but has failed to get, it makes me smile.

I remember when bitcoin needed more merchants, although less drug dealers because it was a bad press.

Then bitcoin needed to be much more user friendly - so much that even Gavin's granny could use it.

Then the client needed to be compatible with external hardware wallets, because they were the future.

Then it needed to have a bigger blocks, so it could "scale - or segwit for the same reason.

Then it needed to have tx malleability removed, so some people could deploy their existing side-chain solution.

(that's just from the top of my head, from the past 5+ years)

Today bitcoin needs to get rid of the miners, because... they are endangering its future by doing their job of securing the protocol
Plus nobody is going to say, but it's also noting that it would not have been such a big issue, if the miners were Americans... or at least white

Fuck knows what bitcoin is going to need tomorrow, in order to "succeed".
When I think about this, it's actually quite shocking that it has succeeded that far.

+1  great point

We will invariably move towards systems which successfully interface with Bitcoin as it works now.

[chek2fire]

cut the crap, Bitcoin doesnt "need" anything.

When I remember all the things bitcoin "needed", but has failed to get, it makes me smile.

I remember when bitcoin needed more merchants, although less drug dealers because it was a bad press.

Then bitcoin needed to be much more user friendly - so much that even Gavin's granny could use it.

Then the client needed to be compatible with external hardware wallets, because they were the future.

Then it needed to have a bigger blocks, so it could "scale - or segwit for the same reason.

Then it needed to have tx malleability removed, so some people could deploy their existing side-chain solution.

(that's just from the top of my head, from the past 5+ years)

Today bitcoin needs to get rid of the miners, because... they are endangering its future by doing their job of securing the protocol
Plus nobody is going to admit, but it would not have been such a big issue if the miners had been Americans, or at least white.
Which brings us to: bitcoin needs to be in control of a white people!

Fuck knows what bitcoin is going to need tomorrow, in order to "succeed".
When I think about this, it's actually quite shocking that it has succeeded that far.

i dont agree with this racist view that the problem is miners because they are Chinese and  i really fell more secure with mining to China or any other country than USA with shadow organisation like NSA,CIA etc
The real problem is that miners has not the right to do political games with bitcoin. They are the only part of bitcoin network that get payed for what they done. For that reason they must activated every upgrade developers propose without any questions.

[piotr_n]

i dont agree with this racist view that the problem is miners because they are Chinese and  i really fell more secure with mining to China or any other country than USA with shadow organisation like NSA,CIA etc
The real problem is that miners has not the right to do political games with bitcoin. They are the only part of bitcoin network that get payed for what they done. For that reason they must activated every upgrade developers propose without any questions.

but why without any questions?

what if the developers get corrupted by shadow organisation like NSA,CIA etc?

[chek2fire]

i dont agree with this racist view that the problem is miners because they are Chinese and  i really fell more secure with mining to China or any other country than USA with shadow organisation like NSA,CIA etc
The real problem is that miners has not the right to do political games with bitcoin. They are the only part of bitcoin network that get payed for what they done. For that reason they must activated every upgrade developers propose without any questions.

but why without any questions?

what if the developers get corrupted by shadow organisation like NSA,CIA etc?

because they are not them that set the rules how bitcoin network works. is very simple. In the other hand to be fair consensus means everyone must agree for changes among them and miners. But in the segwit case we dont have a critical change that need to be blocked by a part of bitcoin ecosystem. A hard fork yes but not a software upgrade that anyone can ignore easy if dont want to use it.

[piotr_n]

i dont agree with this racist view that the problem is miners because they are Chinese and  i really fell more secure with mining to China or any other country than USA with shadow organisation like NSA,CIA etc
The real problem is that miners has not the right to do political games with bitcoin. They are the only part of bitcoin network that get payed for what they done. For that reason they must activated every upgrade developers propose without any questions.

but why without any questions?

what if the developers get corrupted by shadow organisation like NSA,CIA etc?

because they are not them that set the rules how bitcoin network works. is very simple. In the other hand to be fair consensus means everyone must agree for changes among them and miners. But in the segwit case we dont have a critical change that need to be blocked by a part of bitcoin ecosystem. A hard fork yes but not a software upgrade that anyone can ignore easy if dont want to use it.

Well. You see, the funny thing is that they are them that set the rules how bitcoin network works.
You just don't get it, just like so many other people.

[chek2fire]

i dont agree with this racist view that the problem is miners because they are Chinese and  i really fell more secure with mining to China or any other country than USA with shadow organisation like NSA,CIA etc
The real problem is that miners has not the right to do political games with bitcoin. They are the only part of bitcoin network that get payed for what they done. For that reason they must activated every upgrade developers propose without any questions.

but why without any questions?

what if the developers get corrupted by shadow organisation like NSA,CIA etc?

because they are not them that set the rules how bitcoin network works. is very simple. In the other hand to be fair consensus means everyone must agree for changes among them and miners. But in the segwit case we dont have a critical change that need to be blocked by a part of bitcoin ecosystem. A hard fork yes but not a software upgrade that anyone can ignore easy if dont want to use it.

Well. You see, the funny thing is that they are them that set the rules how bitcoin network works.
You just don't get it, just like so many other people.

and what you suggest. Everyone in bitcoin ecosystem to be fatalist and accept the situation with Jihan Wu as the defacto dictatorship?

[piotr_n]

How is he a dictatorship?
Even if he's the only ruler of his corporation, which i doubt,  he has like 20% of the hashing power - today. It's surely going to change tomorrow.
With this he can't change a shit as well.
Which is a good thing - nobody can change it, so nobody can break it.

Just stop whining and start adjusting yourself to the system.
It's working just fine and exactly as had been designed.

[iCEBREAKER]

When I remember all the things bitcoin "needed", but has failed to get, it makes me smile.

I remember when bitcoin needed more merchants, although less drug dealers because it was a bad press.

Then bitcoin needed to be much more user friendly - so much that even Gavin's granny could use it.

Then the client needed to be compatible with external hardware wallets, because they were the future.

Then it needed to have a bigger blocks, so it could "scale - or segwit for the same reason.

Then it needed to have tx malleability removed, so some people could deploy their existing side-chain solution.

(that's just from the top of my head, from the past 5+ years)

Today bitcoin needs to get rid of the miners, because... they are endangering its future by doing their job of securing the protocol
Plus nobody is going to say, but it's also noting that it would not have been such a big issue, if the miners were Americans... or at least white

Fuck knows what bitcoin is going to need tomorrow, in order to "succeed".
When I think about this, it's actually quite shocking that it has succeeded that far.

+1  great point

We will invariably move towards systems which successfully interface with Bitcoin as it works now.

It's not a "great point" it's a smug, cherry-picked, self-referential list topped with a red herring about "Americans."

If the original Satoshi client never needed anything we wouldn't now be at 0.14.x, dozens of BIPs and thousands of LOCs later.

Nationality and race have nothing to do with it, other than the fact the guy (Jihan) bamboozled and/or bribed by the felonious, very white, and formerly American Roger into blocking segwit happens to be from China.

[piotr_n]

Don't be ridiculous. Miners have their own brains and make their own independent decisions. They don't have to and do not follow orders from any 'Americans'.

And it's funny how you see a great development of the small piece of the bitcoin software, but you fail to notice a huge development of the worldwide mining infrastructure.
If you think that what gave bitcoins the value was the core software advancing to version 0.14.x, and not the gigawatts of power burned inside the mining hardware, then you sir obviously know nothing about what the bitcoin phenomenon is, and you are the last who should have a vote on deciding about it's future.
And conveniently, you are the last...

[hv_]

Don't be ridiculous. Miners have their own brains and make their own independent decisions. They don't have to and do not follow orders from any 'Americans'.

... and we watch: They are using their brains due to their mega investments. Hacking in 1000s of SW code that mostly give them some 2 MB (1 line) and the real fear losing fees to 2nd layers on top of SW - than for ever  (who really believes in a HF LATER ?) - bad incentive...

And it's funny how you see a great development of the small piece of the bitcoin software, but you fail to notice a huge development of the mining infrastructure.
If you think that what gave bitcoins the value was the core software advancing to version 0.14.x, and not the gigawatts of power burned inside the mining hardware, then you sir obviously know nothing about what the bitcoin phenomenon is, and you are the last who should have a vote on deciding about it's future.
And conveniently, you are the last...

You are rare here - but brain is.

[iCEBREAKER]

Don't be ridiculous. Miners have their own brains and make their own independent decisions. They don't have to and do not follow orders from any 'Americans'.

And it's funny how you see a great development of the small piece of the bitcoin software, but you fail to notice a huge development of the worldwide mining infrastructure.
If you think that what gave bitcoins the value was the core software advancing to version 0.14.x, and not the gigawatts of power burned inside the mining hardware, then you sir obviously know nothing about what the bitcoin phenomenon is, and you are the last who should have a vote on deciding about it's future.
And conveniently, you are the last...

The PoW and the code that uses it are two sides of the same coin.  I know that because I've been mining BTC since 2011.

I said Jihan was "bamboozled and/or bribed by the felonious, very white, and formerly American Roger into blocking segwit."

I didn't say Jihan can't make "independent decisions."  I didn't say Jihan has to "follow orders."

If you don't understand the difference between an order and a bamboozle/bribe, GET A FUCKING DICTIONARY AND LEARN IT.

Don't twist and misrepresent what I said ever again.

[piotr_n]

You're talking nonsense, man (check "nonsense" in a dictionary).

Segwit has currently 25% of support among the miners and your symbol of evil Jihan doesn't seem to control more than 20% of the current network's hashing power. It's probably closer to 10%

So enlighten us, please: who and how is "bamboozing and/or bribing" the remaining 55+% of the miners into blocking segwit?
These are mostly people who don't even care to introduce or explain themselves to you, or anyone else.

You're putting a single face behind 75% of the network's miners and then you make up some crazy stories about their evil motives.
What for? In which way doesn't it look like some populist propaganda crap, straight from the books used by your freshly elected president?

[thejaytiesto]

From what i've read here, Jihan Wu controls 70% of the hashrate

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5wuxxc/jihan_wu_cofounder_of_bitmain_who_supply_70_of/

Before r/btc/ trolls claim that is just r/bitcoin conspiracy, the same thread is discussed in r/btc and nobody is doubting that

If he controls anything over 50% of the network then it is an obvious problem. But again, I don't see how UASF could help us, eventually centralization would happen again at node levels.