Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

[BitUsher]

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...

No, miners advocating for segwit are advocating for larger blocks because segwit literally increases the blocksize.
Additionally, if you read the article, they are only signally EB1 as a temporary measure because because Bu lacks an activation mechanicm and they will increase this number around 75%.

My guess is Jihan is bluffing , still running core nodes, but false signalling BU to try and renegotiate(not going to happen).

Regardless , we should treat this threat seriously and prepare for the worst as this is essentially the start of a  51% attack because HF consensus without a doubt has not been reached.

[1713494337]

1713494337

[1713494337]

1713494337

[cellard]

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.

We all know Jihan is a cancer for bitcoin currently, but you convinced UASF proponents are all failing to explain what is the point of UASF at all when node count can easily be gamed.

Not to mention, it's yet to be seen what will happen if the hashrate is bigger in BUcoin than the original chain.

[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.

We all know Jihan is a cancer for bitcoin currently, but you convinced UASF proponents are all failing to explain what is the point of UASF at all when node count can easily be gamed.

Not to mention, it's yet to be seen what will happen if the hashrate is bigger in BUcoin than the original chain.

"Node count" is easily gamed.

"Economic node count" not so much.

You really believe shaolinfry, Cøbra, Adam Back, and I don't know the difference?  Hint: we do, but it seems you don't.

Your presumption that those of us who remember the NotXT and NotClassic and PseudoNode version signaling wars suddenly forgot about sybil attacks is so hideously stupid as to be laughable.  In this very thread, I already posted a *cough* joke *cough* about spinning up "a few proxies."   

SWUASF may or may not work.  The larger point is it signals a turn in the tide of the battle.  Core is going on the offensive and now Unlimite_ must defend.

Thanks to Ver and Jihan's assclowning, it's clear the future of Bitcoin requires the miners be demoted and letters of reprimand placed in their permanent records.  That will happen sooner with segwit or later with Low-Latency Delayed TXO Commitments.  Doesn't matter; either way the miners are going to be put back in their place, hopefully once and for all.

Finally, on signalling SW - it's not a vote, it's a process designed to allow you to signal your readiness for the upgrade. Miners are not supposed to be setting the rules of Bitcoin's protocol. Jihan's attempt to change that is guaranteed to fail - the only question is whether he takes the entire system down with him.

[HostFat]

@shaolinfry
You are a Litecoin dev, why don't you try this your "great" idea on Litecoin first?

[mezzomix]

As a first step against hostile pool operators blocking the evolution of the system, I would not start with dropping their blocks but I will not relay their new blocks anymore. If a large number of nodes do not relay those blocking blocks, there will be a chance that a good block with the same height is found. In this case the blocking block is dropped and the good block is the new head of the chain. If a good block is built on top of a blocking block the blocking block is accepted as well. If a lot of nodes use such a rule it will lead to bad luck for hostile pool operators.

[piotr_n]

Suddenly everyone is a bloody bitcoin expert who knows a way to control the protocol by other means than mining majority.

If Satoshi is still alive he must be having loads of fun watching you idiots trying to break his system. I know I am...

[BitUsher]

Suddenly everyone is a bloody bitcoin expert who knows a way to control the protocol by other means than mining majority.

It is the most worked Valid chain (not simply longest). Even if the miners fork BU with 75%, 90% of all bitcoin nodes will simply reject those blocks and ban all BU nodes relaying those blocks and treat the BUcoin as a hostile alt. This isn't a matter of opinion , but simply a fact of the way bitcoin was designed.

Any fork with a majority hashpower will be short lived as the minority chain has an advantage(in addition to being the economic majority) .A really neat aspect to this is the minority hash chain would have several advantages in this trading. First advantage is the original coin would have 25% or less hashpower therefore it will be easier to transfer the BUforkcoin to an exchange. BU supporters wanting to dump their original btc on exchanges will have to wait for seriously delayed confirmations while the original chain supporters will be able to get quicker confirmations to quickly devastate the price of BUforkcoin. BU miners will lose a lot of money here before running back to follow the profits and insure they don't go bankrupt.

[iCEBREAKER]

@shaolinfry
You are a Litecoin dev, why don't you try this your "great" idea on Litecoin first?

OK, sure.  But only if we test the "great" ideas from Unlimite_ on Dash first.   

[cr1776]

As a first step against hostile pool operators blocking the evolution of the system, I would not start with dropping their blocks but I will not relay their new blocks anymore. If a large number of nodes do not relay those blocking blocks, there will be a chance that a good block with the same height is found. In this case the blocking block is dropped and the good block is the new head of the chain. If a good block is built on top of a blocking block the blocking block is accepted as well. If a lot of nodes use such a rule it will lead to bad luck for hostile pool operators.

I am curious what method you are using to accomplish this.

Thanks

[cellard]

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.

We all know Jihan is a cancer for bitcoin currently, but you convinced UASF proponents are all failing to explain what is the point of UASF at all when node count can easily be gamed.

Not to mention, it's yet to be seen what will happen if the hashrate is bigger in BUcoin than the original chain.

"Node count" is easily gamed.

"Economic node count" not so much.

You really believe shaolinfry, Cøbra, Adam Back, and I don't know the difference?  Hint: we do, but it seems you don't.

Your presumption that those of us who remember the NotXT and NotClassic and PseudoNode version signaling wars suddenly forgot about sybil attacks is so hideously stupid as to be laughable.  In this very thread, I already posted a *cough* joke *cough* about spinning up "a few proxies."  

SWUASF may or may not work.  The larger point is it signals a turn in the tide of the battle.  Core is going on the offensive and now Unlimite_ must defend.

Thanks to Ver and Jihan's assclowning, it's clear the future of Bitcoin requires the miners be demoted and letters of reprimand placed in their permanent records.  That will happen sooner with segwit or later with Low-Latency Delayed TXO Commitments.  Doesn't matter; either way the miners are going to be put back in their place, hopefully once and for all.

Finally, on signalling SW - it's not a vote, it's a process designed to allow you to signal your readiness for the upgrade. Miners are not supposed to be setting the rules of Bitcoin's protocol. Jihan's attempt to change that is guaranteed to fail - the only question is whether he takes the entire system down with him.

Yes, I don't fully understand this, im trying to learn.

What do you mean with "Economic node count"?

What is difference between "regular node" count and "Economic node count"?

Also is this true?:

I`m pretty sure that most of the miners don`t care about bitcoin,they care only about their profits.
If they can make more profits with some shitty altcoin,i`m sure that they would leave bitcoin immediately.
The "divide and conquer" strategy won`t work against bitcoin.

Proof-of-work: miners' interests are not aligned with interests of users. They are two different groups of people.


Proof-of-stake: users hold tokens and secure the network with the staking power of tokens. They are the same people.

[pedrog]

Cutting out the miners and forcing features they don't want is a very bad policy, no one is more invested in bitcoin than the miners, you people keep bitching about having to spend a few more dollars in storage to run a full node, miners spent millions to build their operations and someone really thinks it is wise to simply cut them off?

[mezzomix]

As a first step against hostile pool operators blocking the evolution of the system, I would not start with dropping their blocks but I will not relay their new blocks anymore. If a large number of nodes do not relay those blocking blocks, there will be a chance that a good block with the same height is found. In this case the blocking block is dropped and the good block is the new head of the chain. If a good block is built on top of a blocking block the blocking block is accepted as well. If a lot of nodes use such a rule it will lead to bad luck for hostile pool operators.

I am curious what method you are using to accomplish this.

By patching my client to not relay any blocks without my preferred BIP9 flag(s) and by giving more weight to chains with a head block with these BIP9 flag(s) set.

It makes sense to make the feature configurable because if BU will follow the XT/Classic road, these guys will show up with the next "solution" and try to block further development of the system. Those guys will never stop bullying the Bitcoin community.

[piotr_n]

There was a man on this forum who once said:

The block size will be raised, that is the overwhelming consensus among the people who are actually writing code and using Bitcoin for products and services that it needs to happen.

And there is a tiny minority of people who will loudly proclaim that isn't true and that the core developer are going to destroy Bitcoin if the block size is raised.

Now there is apparently much more men who say:

The segwit will be activated, that is the overwhelming consensus among the people who are actually writing code and using Bitcoin for products and services that it needs to happen.

And there is a tiny minority of people who will loudly proclaim that isn't true and that the core developer are going to destroy Bitcoin if segwit is activated.

Isn't that funny?


FYI, I am not against segwit myself - personally, I'd like to see it activated..
But I want to point out that if you try to change protocol with this kind of arrogance, you will fail and end up in the same place as the man before you; at the bitcoin developers' junkyard. Because as ridiculously as it sounds, Bitcoin will simply get rid of you.

[mezzomix]

FYI, I'm fine with one blocksize increase up to a maximum of 8MB if segwit (or another linear transaction verification time method) is available and most of the community is supporting this change as well.

[piotr_n]

FYI, I'm fine with one blocksize increase up to a maximum of 8MB if segwit (or another linear transaction verification time method) is available and most of the community is supporting this change as well.

FYI, Bitcoin doesn't care about what most of the 'community' wants.
It's only what most of the miners want that matters.

[mezzomix]

FYI, I'm fine with one blocksize increase up to a maximum of 8MB if segwit (or another linear transaction verification time method) is available and most of the community is supporting this change as well.

FYI, Bitcoin doesn't care about what most of the 'community' wants.
It's only what most of the miners want that matters.

In this case the nodes would not need to verify the blocks against the consensus rules. In reality all nodes have to verify and accept the blocks. Even if a majority of the miners create invalid blocks the other nodes will not accept these invalid blocks. Every node has to decide what is valid and what is invalid.

[piotr_n]

FYI, I'm fine with one blocksize increase up to a maximum of 8MB if segwit (or another linear transaction verification time method) is available and most of the community is supporting this change as well.

FYI, Bitcoin doesn't care about what most of the 'community' wants.
It's only what most of the miners want that matters.

In this case the nodes would not need to verify the blocks against the consensus rules. In reality all nodes have to verify and accept the blocks. Even if a majority of the miners create invalid blocks the other nodes will not accept these invalid blocks. Every node has to decide what is valid and what is invalid.

Sure, that sound like a good idea...
But why don't you optimize it even further..?

Make the nodes not even needing to connect to the bitcoin p2p network!
Instead they'd just fetch the 'distributed ledger'  from a github repo controlled by 'the people who are actually writing code and using Bitcoin for products and services'

This solution would be much more resistant to 51% attacks and the nodes would be needing far less resources   

[mezzomix]

At the end, money is a social thing - there is no value without peers. Everybody using the same system provides the maximum value. If this is impossible the better approach is to split the system. I'm fine with BU splitting the chain and following it's own way - without myself.

[AgentofCoin]

...If this is impossible the better approach is to split the system. I'm fine with BU splitting the chain and following it's own way - without myself.

I agree.

A fork of the two communities may be the only answer now.
If you think we can continue to outmaneuver each other till one
side wins, then it may be you don't actually understand Bitcoin.

The ones shouting the loudest are actually not paying attention.
The fork is inevitable now and must be accepted and prepared for
as best we can. Shaolinfry's idea, though interesting and noteworthy,
is just a distraction.

Negotiation between the two groups has failed because we want separate
things that each contradict the others desires.

This is not a choice in the community now, it is a "fork" in the road.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

This solution would be much more resistant to 51% attacks and the nodes would be needing far less resources   

+1 And so, the future of bitcoin was written.