Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

[cellard]

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.

How does that change anything?

You get rid of ASICs, and all you do is lower the overall network hashrate, but as I see it, the centralization % is the same. If someone can buy a farm of ASICs, that same entity can buy a farm of computers... at the end of the day, it's a single rich entity owning a ton of machines (for 1 ASIC machine, how many computers can you run?), centralization is still there. With enough money it's always possible to be a deciding entity in the network.. am i missing something?

[1714097657]

1714097657

[1714097657]

1714097657

[1714097657]

1714097657

[piotr_n]

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

Well, I have been reading that all his hashing power is signalling support for 2MB blocks...

But I only see 51 blocks (2.5%) with version 0x30000000 in the past 2016 block period.
And it's gone down to 15 (1.5%) inside the last 1000 blocks.

It teaches me to not believe anything that has been posted (and upvoted) on reddit - no mater the sub.

[BitUsher]

We should pursue a safe UASF process regardless of the miners activating segwit or not because using miners to activate upgrades has always been an indirect and rough means of determining consensus within bitcoin and it would be far better allowing the economic users directly determine upgrades to the network.

This being said, there are still many problems that need to be resolved first with UASF.

Additionally, we should also pursue a well tested and PoW HF as another backup option.

The mere threat of these may keep the miners honest but only if we are honest and prepared to use them. "Speak softly but carry a big stick"

[iCEBREAKER]

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 

Yes, we may(?) to some extent be using Jihan as shorthand for all miners blocking segwit due to Ver's bribes and bamboozling.

I'm correcting your twisted strawman "nonsense" version of what I actually said.

To wit, it makes no sense for me to claim

A. Jihan has no free will (or at minimum lacks agency), and
B. must follow "orders" (your word) from "white Americans" (your other two words), while
C. he is being bribed/bamboozled by Roger Ver (my actual claim).

Do you understand that Roger would not have to bribe/bamboozle (ie influence the free decisions of) Jihan if he could simply issue an anti-segwit order to him instead?

Can you comprehend that I implicitly acknowledged Jihans's free will/agency/"brain" when I accused his decision making process of being unduly/unwisely influenced by Ver's politics and/or $$$$?

That last line though...found the butthurt NeverTrumper!   

[piotr_n]

Yes, we may(?) to some extent be using Jihan as shorthand for all miners blocking segwit due to Ver's bribes and bamboozling.

Oh.. right... But what about the miners who are blocking segwit due to other reasons?

Are they free to keep doing their job the way they like, or are you also planing to find some dirt on them?

[BitUsher]

Oh.. right... But what about the miners who are blocking segwit due to other reasons?

Are they free to keep doing their job the way they like, or are you also planing to find some dirt on them?

Good for these miners. It is great they are inspiring us to develop a UASF and further test a POW HF backup because these are both long overdo.

If we can't survive Jihan and Ver attacking Bitcoin than we deserve to die. We will come out stronger in the end.

[piotr_n]

Oh.. right... But what about the miners who are blocking segwit due to other reasons?

Are they free to keep doing their job the way they like, or are you also planing to find some dirt on them?

Good for these miners. It is great they are inspiring us to develop a UASF and further test a POW HF backup because these are both long overdo.

If we can't survive Jihan and Ver attacking Bitcoin than we deserve to die. We will come out stronger in the end.

Man, this is some really heavy shit, next to which Jihan's recent threats sound like a sincere and friendly advise.

I just wonder who do you actually have in mind while saying "we" and taking such a crazy things.

Can you give me some names, or at least nicknames?

[cellard]

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

Well, I have been reading that all his hashing power is signalling support for 2MB blocks...

But I only see 51 blocks (2.5%) with version 0x30000000 in the past 2016 block period.
And it's gone down to 15 (1.5%) inside the last 1000 blocks.

It teaches me to not believe anything that has been posted (and upvoted) on reddit - no mater the sub.

From what i've read Jihan Wu controls several different pools to make it look as if he doesn't have that much of a control of the hashrate. He is also playing a double game... he wants BU, but he doesn't want to go all in... he will betray BUcoiners if that means he can save his ass. Delusional BUcoiners think Jihan Wu cares about bitcoin and wants the best for it (whatever concept you think bitcoin is the "real" and best bitcoin, in this case they think BU is the "real" bitcoin) and is on their side with the BU, but what they don't realize is, Jihan just wants profit, that's all.

[piotr_n]

Jihan just wants profit, that's all.

Who doesn't?

I have no fear of his business exactly because I know that he just wants profit.
As the owner of (allegedly) the biggest bitcoin mining infrastructure he has the biggest interest in keeping the BTC price high.
Bitcoin devs, Roger Ver, Winklevoss twins, you or me - we can just cash out our stash and move on with our life.
For the owners of the mining infrastructure a drop in the BTC price is a far bigger issue.

[BitUsher]

Oh.. right... But what about the miners who are blocking segwit due to other reasons?

Are they free to keep doing their job the way they like, or are you also planing to find some dirt on them?

Good for these miners. It is great they are inspiring us to develop a UASF and further test a POW HF backup because these are both long overdo.

If we can't survive Jihan and Ver attacking Bitcoin than we deserve to die. We will come out stronger in the end.

Man, this is some really heavy shit, next to which Jihan's recent threats sound like a sincere and friendly advise.

I just wonder who do you actually have in mind while saying "we" and taking such a crazy things.

Can you give me some names, or at least nicknames?

Bitcoin deserves to die if it can't survive these bozos , not humans.

Anyways , I'm getting my paperwallets ready to dump the split coins as Antpool just started mining BU blocks -

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/00000000000000000204cd2c9840023f1434f3dcdd7f471e4b8c8638d14d7006

[piotr_n]

Anyways , I'm getting my paperwallets ready to dump the split coins as Antpool just started mining BU blocks -

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/00000000000000000204cd2c9840023f1434f3dcdd7f471e4b8c8638d14d7006

Eeee... what is so "BU" about this specific block?

The only pool I know signalling BIP109 (2MB blocks) is Slush.
Which is also the first pool that started signalling segwit.

[BitUsher]

Anyways , I'm getting my paperwallets ready to dump the split coins as Antpool just started mining BU blocks -

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/00000000000000000204cd2c9840023f1434f3dcdd7f471e4b8c8638d14d7006

Eeee... what is so "BU" about this specific block?

The only pool I know signalling BIP109 (2MB blocks) is Slush.
Which is also the first pool that started signalling segwit.

It antpools first block signalling for BU - https://coin.dance/blocks/unlimited

0367f506234d696e656420627920416e74506f6f6c20626a352f4542312f4144362f022058bdab6 efabe6d6d3abbc4fd04647f22af1d514e7fba1c861fd335f4cb9ec0ce5b4a2c67fd8f3c6d040000 00000000006709000019440000
gõ#Mined by AntPool bj5/EB1/AD6/ X½«nú¾mm:»Äýd"¯QNº†Ó5ôËžÀÎ[J,gý�<m

[iCEBREAKER]

Oh.. right... But what about the miners who are blocking segwit due to other reasons?

Are they free to keep doing their job the way they like, or are you also planing to find some dirt on them?

Good for these miners. It is great they are inspiring us to develop a UASF and further test a POW HF backup because these are both long overdo.

If we can't survive Jihan and Ver attacking Bitcoin than we deserve to die. We will come out stronger in the end.

Exactly.  Honey Badger eats up cupcakes like those two and will be stronger after shitting them out.

If the Gavinistas didn't exist, we'd need to invent them!  

If Bitcoin dies from something as absurd as the Unlimite_ clown fiesta (it won't), we'll simply move on to new and improved versions of the experiment.

[piotr_n]

It antpools first block signalling for BU - https://coin.dance/blocks/unlimited

0367f506234d696e656420627920416e74506f6f6c20626a352f4542312f4144362f022058bdab6 efabe6d6d3abbc4fd04647f22af1d514e7fba1c861fd335f4cb9ec0ce5b4a2c67fd8f3c6d040000 00000000006709000019440000
gõ#Mined by AntPool bj5/EB1/AD6/ X½«nú¾mm:»Äýd"¯QNº†Ó5ôËžÀÎ[J,gý�<m

Sorry man.
Which part of the block says that it is "signalling for BU"?

[BitUsher]

It antpools first block signalling for BU - https://coin.dance/blocks/unlimited

0367f506234d696e656420627920416e74506f6f6c20626a352f4542312f4144362f022058bdab6 efabe6d6d3abbc4fd04647f22af1d514e7fba1c861fd335f4cb9ec0ce5b4a2c67fd8f3c6d040000 00000000006709000019440000
gõ#Mined by AntPool bj5/EB1/AD6/ X½«nú¾mm:»Äýd"¯QNº†Ó5ôËžÀÎ[J,gý�<m

Sorry man.
Which part of the block says that it is "signalling for BU"?

Its in HEx == g#Mined by AntPool bj5/EB1/AD6/ Xnmm:d"QN5˞[J,g<mg D

I gave you a link to coin.dance to help you ... no bother because Antpools third mined block was not supporting segwit so looks like another transparent and feeble bluff.

[piotr_n]

It antpools first block signalling for BU - https://coin.dance/blocks/unlimited

0367f506234d696e656420627920416e74506f6f6c20626a352f4542312f4144362f022058bdab6 efabe6d6d3abbc4fd04647f22af1d514e7fba1c861fd335f4cb9ec0ce5b4a2c67fd8f3c6d040000 00000000006709000019440000
gõ#Mined by AntPool bj5/EB1/AD6/ X½«nú¾mm:»Äýd"¯QNº†Ó5ôËžÀÎ[J,gý�<m

Sorry man.
Which part of the block says that it is "signalling for BU"?

Its in HEx == g#Mined by AntPool bj5/EB1/AD6/ Xnmm:d"QN5˞[J,g<mg D

I gave you a link to coin.dance to help you ... no bother because Antpools third mined block was not supporting segwit so looks like another transparent and feeble bluff.

Are you kidding me?
What kind of a technical reference some chart on some coin.dance flashy website is?

Please refer me to a spec, or a source code that defines the criteria upon which this specific block is "signalling for BU".

[BitUsher]

Are you kidding me?
What kind of a technical reference some chart on some coin.dance flashy website is?

Please refer me to a spec, or a source code that defines the criteria upon which this specific block is "signalling for BU".

Why do I need to hold your hand when the info is very clearly displayed ?

EB1/AD6

https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/miner-guide-how-to-safely-hard-fork-to-bitcoin-unlimited-8ac1570dc1a8#.q665ncaok

Are you even aware how BU works?

[piotr_n]

Are you kidding me?
What kind of a technical reference some chart on some coin.dance flashy website is?

Please refer me to a spec, or a source code that defines the criteria upon which this specific block is "signalling for BU".

Why do I need to hold your hand?

EB1/AD6

https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/miner-guide-how-to-safely-hard-fork-to-bitcoin-unlimited-8ac1570dc1a8#.q665ncaok

Sorry, you must speak English to me, if you want me to understand.

The article says that "EB1" actually means that the pool which made the block wants to use max block size of 1MB.
Or am I not getting something?

[BitUsher]

Are you kidding me?
What kind of a technical reference some chart on some coin.dance flashy website is?

Please refer me to a spec, or a source code that defines the criteria upon which this specific block is "signalling for BU".

Why do I need to hold your hand?

EB1/AD6

https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/miner-guide-how-to-safely-hard-fork-to-bitcoin-unlimited-8ac1570dc1a8#.q665ncaok

Sorry, you must speak English to me, if you want me to understand.

The article says that "EB1" actually means that the pool which made the block wants to use max block size of 1MB.
Or am I not getting something?

excessiveblocksize=1000000
excessiveacceptdepth=6

this has nothing to do with bitcoin and means they are signalling for BU because that is BU terminology. Since BU has no activation mechanism it by itself will activate at 51% thus the article I provided explaining how ViaBTC recommends EB1 to not cause havock at 51% than they can decide to fork at 75%

[piotr_n]

Sorry, I still don't know what "signalling for BU" means in practice.

Although I understand now that they use BU scheme to indicate that they want the max block size to stay at 1MB.

But what is the big deal about it?
Aren't almost all of the other miners also indicating that they want the max block size to stay at 1MB?
Except that they do it without adding "/EB1/" to the coinbase...