Bitcoin Forum
September 17, 2021, 11:32:02 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Moving towards user activated soft fork activation  (Read 24227 times)
AgentofCoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 07, 2017, 11:33:15 PM
 #101

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

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

 Cool

Was that a proposed solution that relies upon a centralized system, controlled by a handful
of people, who are subject to laws and agencies of the countries in which they reside?
Sounds like we get rid of one attack vector to take on an easier one.

I'm I missing something here?

I support a decentralized & unregulatable ledger first, with safe scaling over time.
Request a signed message if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1631878322
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631878322

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1631878322
Reply with quote  #2

1631878322
Report to moderator
coblee
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1635
Merit: 1205


Creator of Litecoin. Cryptocurrency enthusiast.


View Profile
March 07, 2017, 11:35:37 PM
 #102

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.

That's wrong. It's what users want that matters. Miners may want to keep mining 12.5 BTC blocks during the next block having, but if users are not OK with that, miners will just fork themselves off the "Bitcoin" network.

The point of UASF is that users collectively have more control than miners. But because there's no easy way to gouge user desires, it's much harder to pull off a UASF. BIP9 miner softfork is used because mining solved the Byzantine General's problem and we can use it to measure exact support.

I think it's good that this UASF got people thinking about who is actually in control. But it's not for sure that UASF can be pulled off safely.

piotr_n
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2054
Merit: 1158


aka tonikt


View Profile WWW
March 07, 2017, 11:38:14 PM
 #103

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

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

 Cool

Was that a proposed solution that relies upon a centralized system, controlled by a handful
of people, who are subject to laws and agencies of the countries in which they reside?
Sounds like we get rid of one attack vector to take on an easier one.

I'm I missing something here?

Obviously you don't even get it that we are taking a piss out of your ideas to "fix bitcoin" by removing miners out of the system.

Check out gocoin - my original project of full bitcoin node & cold wallet written in Go.
PGP fingerprint: AB9E A551 E262 A87A 13BB  9059 1BE7 B545 CDF3 FD0E
AgentofCoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 07, 2017, 11:46:51 PM
 #104

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

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

 Cool

Was that a proposed solution that relies upon a centralized system, controlled by a handful
of people, who are subject to laws and agencies of the countries in which they reside?
Sounds like we get rid of one attack vector to take on an easier one.

I'm I missing something here?

Obviously you don't even get it that we are taking a piss out of your ideas to "fix bitcoin" by removing miners out of the system.

I guess not. I'm used to sarcasm being more obvious.
Your statement fell in line with some BU supporters ideas.
So I thought it was genuine.

If you read my post above, you'll see I don't support UASF.

I support a decentralized & unregulatable ledger first, with safe scaling over time.
Request a signed message if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
piotr_n
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2054
Merit: 1158


aka tonikt


View Profile WWW
March 07, 2017, 11:49:56 PM
 #105


I guess not.
I'm used to sarcasm being more obvious.
Your statement fell in line with some BU supporters ideas.

If you read my post above, you'll see I don't support UASF.


Nobody who understands what bitcoin is and how it really works supports it.
It won't work.

Check out gocoin - my original project of full bitcoin node & cold wallet written in Go.
PGP fingerprint: AB9E A551 E262 A87A 13BB  9059 1BE7 B545 CDF3 FD0E
classicsucks
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 503


View Profile
March 08, 2017, 09:11:01 AM
 #106

Nobody who understands what bitcoin is and how it really works supports it.
It won't work.

We can only hope that it won't work... This proposal is by far the WORST I've heard in recent history. Absolutely throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out. After all of Core's FUD and screeching about hard forks, this proposal makes a hard fork look like Sunday brunch in the Hamptons. There are so many different ways this UASF could fail catastrophically... Not to mention, excluding miners from consensus is revolting, and completely against the founding principles of bitcoin. As others have said, they're the ones with the most skin in the game.

If Core actually tries this, their reign as the custodians of the bitcoin code and the de facto creators of the bitcoin roadmap will end. At least we will get some lulz if Core writes another ten thousand lines of code that nobody ever uses...

classicsucks
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 503


View Profile
March 08, 2017, 09:18:54 AM
Last edit: March 08, 2017, 09:35:05 AM by classicsucks
 #107

the strange to me is why three days after this proposal not a single bitcoin developer except from Jameson Lopp bitgo eng has not tell us his opinion about this.
It seems that all of them keep mysterious silent... Huh

Hmm, and the proposal is posted from a new forum account with no posting history... Seems Legit...

Perhaps they're floating the idea to see just how much rage they'll face.  Or possibly, they're trolling Ver. In this case, they want to appear adversial, but quietly they know full well that this proposal could never work.

EDIT: the troll theory makes sense given the double-whammy of Ver announcing 110% mining bounty for Unlimited clients and Antpool switching to BU.

Theymos has already weighed in.

inb4 GMaxwell urges caution and says Segwit is a "much better compromise".
mezzomix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2604
Merit: 1246


View Profile
March 08, 2017, 09:30:05 AM
 #108

There are so many different ways this UASF could fail catastrophically...

I'm waiting for the detailed analysis (minus the usual ad hominem) ...
classicsucks
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 503


View Profile
March 08, 2017, 09:37:03 AM
 #109

There are so many different ways this UASF could fail catastrophically...

I'm waiting for the detailed analysis (minus the usual ad hominem) ...


I don't think a detailed analysis is worth my time (and may be beyond my expertise)... it's a stupid idea and it won't get off the ground.

Not an ad hom guy - you must be thinking of someone else.
classicsucks
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 503


View Profile
March 08, 2017, 09:42:07 AM
 #110

There are so many different ways this UASF could fail catastrophically...

I'm waiting for the detailed analysis (minus the usual ad hominem) ...


You could've googled it yourself, but here you go:
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/antpool-now-mining-bitcoin-unlimited/

Quote
However, in a flag day soft-fork, the miner’s role becomes far more complicated. Assuming the entire network is mining with one client, non-upgraded miners are accepted by non-upgraded nodes, upgraded miners are accepted by upgraded nodes and non-upgraded nodes, upgraded nodes reject non-upgraded miners.

This is a mess in itself, but add other clients, such as Bitcoin Unlimited, and we have utter chaos. Alternatively, if non-upgraded miners are forced by easily sybilable upgraded nodes to upgrade, then we have a dangerous centralized point of failure as developers – who are just volunteers with no real stake – are given all the power.

mezzomix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2604
Merit: 1246


View Profile
March 08, 2017, 10:34:39 AM
 #111

There are so many different ways this UASF could fail catastrophically...
I'm waiting for the detailed analysis (minus the usual ad hominem) ...
I don't think a detailed analysis is worth my time (and may be beyond my expertise)... it's a stupid idea ...

I see, the "no one should ever have left the oceans" argument. q.e.d.
Manfred Macx
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 205
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2017, 01:12:05 PM
 #112

Here is a question. Suppose that something like BIP65 (CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY) never went through and that only 10 users wanted it an not the majority of the network. Could those 10 users still make the changes to their software necessary to get their clients to work with CLTV? The rest of the network would still verify those transactions since they redefine OP_NOP2 and find them valid (like old clients do for BIP65). Would this make any sense? Is it UASF?

chek2fire
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2828
Merit: 1134


Intergalactic Conciliator


View Profile
March 08, 2017, 01:15:30 PM
 #113

Here is a question. Suppose that something like BIP65 (CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY) never went through and that only 10 users wanted it an not the majority of the network. Could those 10 users still make the changes to their software necessary to get their clients to work with CLTV? The rest of the network would still verify those transactions since they redefine OP_NOP2 and find them valid (like old clients do for BIP65). Would this make any sense? Is it UASF?

you need and a miner to support it so it can add your segwit transactions to blockchain. of course if this miners has very low hashrate you will need very long until your segwit transaction to add to blockchain until this miner find a block.

http://www.bitcoin-gr.org
4411 804B 0181 F444 ADBD 01D4 0664 00E4 37E7 228E
mezzomix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2604
Merit: 1246


View Profile
March 08, 2017, 01:27:18 PM
 #114

In this case the hash rate will adapt within a short amount of time to usual hash rate target.
chek2fire
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2828
Merit: 1134


Intergalactic Conciliator


View Profile
March 08, 2017, 01:32:20 PM
 #115

In this case the hash rate will adapt within a short amount of time to usual hash rate target.

but we talk here for a soft fork and not a hard fork. nothing will happen. the not upgrade nodes or miners will still works as ti nothing happens to the network.

http://www.bitcoin-gr.org
4411 804B 0181 F444 ADBD 01D4 0664 00E4 37E7 228E
mezzomix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2604
Merit: 1246


View Profile
March 08, 2017, 03:48:52 PM
 #116

In this case the hash rate will adapt within a short amount of time to usual hash rate target.
but we talk here for a soft fork and not a hard fork. nothing will happen. the not upgrade nodes or miners will still works as ti nothing happens to the network.

When the non-mining nodes an some of the miner nodes accept a soft-fork block, the miner nodes blocking the change will stay in the current network and mine their own chain.
classicsucks
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 503


View Profile
March 08, 2017, 07:26:23 PM
 #117

There are so many different ways this UASF could fail catastrophically...
I'm waiting for the detailed analysis (minus the usual ad hominem) ...
I don't think a detailed analysis is worth my time (and may be beyond my expertise)... it's a stupid idea ...

I see, the "no one should ever have left the oceans" argument. q.e.d.


Well, first off I did post a copy/paste of some obvious major issues that could arise.

Secondly, when you want to do something, the onus is on YOU to do a detailed analysis and determine that it would be safe. It's not like you do it unless someone raises an objection, that's madness!
forzendiablo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526
Merit: 1000


the grandpa of cryptos


View Profile
March 09, 2017, 01:47:38 AM
 #118

this idea is awesome. is OP one of LTC devs ?

yolo
BTCLuke
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 526
Merit: 508


My other Avatar is also Scrooge McDuck


View Profile
March 09, 2017, 03:54:02 AM
Merited by DooMAD (5)
 #119

Alright, I've been giving this a ton of thought and and both for and against UASF.

No offense meant to the OP, but it absolutely is dogshit, conceptually. Devs on this thread could instantly see that. It took me -slightly- longer.

The worst part, I'm convinced, is what the BU community can do in response. Since UASF tells everyone to pick a side by X date or be left behind in a hostile manner, the BU team has NOTHING TO LOSE by Hard forking on that date. It would be extremely dumb of them not to.

So basically, UASF forces a hard fork, the most horrible outcome for bitcoin's price. Hopefully no one wants that here.

There is something to be gained by it's existence though.  Remember your Nuclear cold war tactics? Nuclear Proliferation and Mutually Assured Destruction? UASF can act as a threat to counter BU. I say it should be developed if for no other reason than if they're going to HF anyway, we can scare them back in line with UASF.


Like with the cold war, we really should be thinking about hiring a UN-certified Negotiator though. Is protecting $20 Billion not worth their price? 

Luke Parker
Bank Abolitionist
classicsucks
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 503


View Profile
March 09, 2017, 07:25:45 AM
Last edit: March 09, 2017, 07:45:01 AM by classicsucks
 #120

Alright, I've been giving this a ton of thought and and both for and against UASF.

No offense meant to the OP, but it absolutely is dogshit, conceptually. Devs on this thread could instantly see that. It took me -slightly- longer.

The worst part, I'm convinced, is what the BU community can do in response. Since UASF tells everyone to pick a side by X date or be left behind in a hostile manner, the BU team has NOTHING TO LOSE by Hard forking on that date. It would be extremely dumb of them not to.

So basically, UASF forces a hard fork, the most horrible outcome for bitcoin's price. Hopefully no one wants that here.

There is something to be gained by it's existence though.  Remember your Nuclear cold war tactics? Nuclear Proliferation and Mutually Assured Destruction? UASF can act as a threat to counter BU. I say it should be developed if for no other reason than if they're going to HF anyway, we can scare them back in line with UASF.


Like with the cold war, we really should be thinking about hiring a UN-certified Negotiator though. Is protecting $20 Billion not worth their price?  

Thank you for that sanity check - I was beginning to think I was alone in my horror about UASF. Everything I've read indicates it would be a disaster technically, and it's also a violation of fundamental bitcoin concepts and consensus. So bad that it's literally an anonymous proposal.

Funny, I was just wading through a thread about John Nash - game theory etc. I almost came to the conclusion that bitcoin is in a Nash Equilibrium. This could mean that bitcoin development is DONE. 0.12 from now to eternity! I guess I could live with it...

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!