SegWit losing Bitcoin Unlimited winning -> Moon soon

[iamnotback]

@iamnotback
what is the current max block size BU miners are willing to accept

I have no idea. Wasn't there originally a compromise offered at 8MB by some group? I haven't been following the ongoing wranglings.

But unbounded block size was a proposal that killed my trust in their competence. And having Roger Ver as their spokesman making incorrect statements about for example 0-confirmations security makes me not trust BU's competence.

Currency is about confidence. I don't have sufficient confidence in their competence (nor do I trust that their intentions are totally sincere and good because unbounded size blocks is a weapon against smaller and non-cartel affiliated miners).

[ridery99]

But Bu is just an altcoin. does it mean that bitcoin will become just like any other altcoin?

[Hyena]

But Bu is just an altcoin. does it mean that bitcoin will become just like any other altcoin?

BU is not an altcoin, it is a proposal to solve the Bitcoin's block size issue. Bitcoin's consensus is working as originally intended by Satoshi Nakamoto (miners vote with their hashing power). Right now miners increasingly prefer Bitcoin Unlimited. BU does not actually mean unlimited block size. It means unlimited potential.  Doing nothing hurts Bitcoin more than increasing the block size a little.

@iamnotblack

Long text = shit text. If you can't deliver your arguments reasonably briefly then your arguments might not be worth reading. Conventional rhetoric does not work in the Internet whether you like it or not. And believe me, you wouldn't want to raise your annoying voice in the jungle either. Those who need long paragraphs to explain a simple idea are basically executing a Denial of Service attack on the readers. My response to your DOS is simply to ignore it.

You have this unreasonable paranoia of potentially unlimited blocks and then you have this wild fantasy of how you imagine market equilibrium playing out. You refer to "smart people" and you think you have nailed it. Don't make me laugh. If you're so smart then why aren't you rich yet? Because everyone else is too stupid to believe your ideas and see the light? Let me tell you something about online debates. You can't win them. So if you are writing long texts and I am refusing to read them then you are the jackass DOSing yourself while writing stuff that no one bothers to read. At the end of the day I believe even more in the Bitcoin Unlimited project and you will probably believe even more in this new altcoin called SegWitCoin that innovates by introducing Proof-of-BlockStream where consensus is dictated by the best interests of the BlockStream company.

[iamnotback]

Bitcoin's consensus is working as originally intended by Satoshi Nakamoto (miners vote with their hashing power).

Consistency of blockchain state within the protocol is an orthogonal concept to decisions to change the protocol, which only the token users have the power to decide. The miners are just the paid workers for the former activity. They have absolutely no power to change the protocol. For example, a 51% attack is not a change in the protocol.

BU does not actually mean unlimited block size. It means unlimited potential.  Doing nothing hurts Bitcoin more than increasing the block size a little.

Afaik, there is nothing in BU's protocol which insures that the block size can only increase "a little". Your third quoted sentence above is not even wrong.

You can't win them.

Well those who make the wrong decisions end up bankrupt. So let's hope we all get a chance to decide whether to hold BTU or BTC. Because I understand BTU is incompetent and its supporters don't understand blockchain technology.

[Killerpotleaf]

Bitcoin's consensus is working as originally intended by Satoshi Nakamoto (miners vote with their hashing power).

Consistency of blockchain state within the protocol is an orthogonal concept to decisions to change the protocol, which only the token users have the power to decide. The miners are just the paid workers for the former activity. They have absolutely no power to change the protocol.

thats what core wants us to think!

devs provide options, nodes(users + miners) pick and choose the best options.
thankfully the devs do things like signaling so we can see who's willing to accept what so we can work toward consensus.

believe it or not devs to not get to force consensus.

we are all kind of nessary to the consensus process.

we need devs to provide the code
miners must be willing to run it
nodes must also be willing to run it
and most importantly ( but the easiest to sway ) , the economic majority must be willing to go along with it.

[iamnotback]

Sometimes a key developer is not fungible and not replaceable.

But miners are fungible and when the token has a value, then the miners come. Miners are just paid fungible slaves. They better accept their role and STFU, unless they want to 51% attack BTC but I am hoping they don't start that war (and I think they know it wouldn't make much sense to do it).

[Hyena]

Afaik, there is nothing in BU's protocol which insures that the block size can only increase "a little". Your third quoted sentence above is not even wrong.

As a full node operator I have a power to reject blocks larger than my threshold of confidence. Core does not even provide the users with such an option which is incredibly selfish of them. It puzzles me how you are quite reasonable with constructing the arguments backing up your own philosophy but when trying to undermine the opposing philosophy you suddenly lose the way of reason and give in to emotion. As a market equilibrium expert you should know that miners are definitely not going to increase block size to infinity. Even if they wanted to it would be physically impossible due to orphan rate.

Well those who make the wrong decisions end up bankrupt. So let's hope we all get a chance to decide whether to hold BTU or BTC. Because I understand BTU is incompetent and its supporters don't understand blockchain technology.

That's right. You cast your vote and I'm casting mine. But those who have so far been neutral in this debate will most likely choose the side that does not censor opposing arguments (which by the way is a big red sign of weakness).

[mining1]

Depending on miners is probabil bitcoin's biggest flaw. But people think satoshi is modern jesus so they will fight you for saying otherwise. He who left us the 10 commandments cannot be wrong. It is said.

[spiderbrain]

Sometimes a key developer is not fungible and not replaceable.

Then that open source project has failed, whatever it is.

[Killerpotleaf]

Depending on miners is probabil bitcoin's biggest flaw. But people think satoshi is modern jesus so they will fight you for saying otherwise. He who left us the 10 commandments cannot be wrong. It is said.

IMO miners are working perfectly

there is a large % of the community that wants bigger blocks, and now we see that being reflected in hashing power.

make no mistake, poeple aren't looking at BU "because miners", miners are looking at BU "because people!"

[mining1]

How so ? In bitcoin miners can have all the power and they can do whatever they like. And probably not even 1 out of 100 miners can further develop the protocol. And what iamnotback meant by that is generally true in crypto space because there aren't really too many alternatives in a programming niche at it's inception. Imagine replacing vitalik. Who better to understand what he created if not him ?

[ArdiPrabowo]

when consesus abot segwit and bitcoin unlimited is end
or now consensus is end, and bitcoin can use block size bitcoin unlimited

[iamnotback]

As a full node operator I have a power to reject blocks larger than my threshold of confidence. Core does not even provide the users with such an option which is incredibly selfish of them.

A miner can always reject a block and continue mining on the current block or next block in Satoshi's PoW. That doesn't necessary stop unbounded sized blocks in BU from being the winning block. Read on for why...

As a market equilibrium expert you should know that miners are definitely not going to increase block size to infinity. Even if they wanted to it would be physically impossible due to orphan rate.

The very large blocks are a weapon that the mining cartel can use to bankrupt those who aren't in the cartel. If you had read my upthread explanations, then I wouldn't need to repeat myself.

The orphan rate rate doesn't impact the cartel that wins 51% of the blocks, because they see the winning blocks instantly (whereas the non-cartel miners have to eat the propagation time of those slow blocks and thus the high orphan rate).

Your extreme ignorance of blockchain technology is on display.

But those who have so far been neutral in this debate will most likely choose the side that does not censor opposing arguments (which by the way is a big red sign of weakness).

Gmaxwell was very condescending to me in the past as well and censored my posts numerous times. Core has some arrogance, but they are collectively very darn smart about the technological details. Hey I'd love to kick Core's ass in the market place (and I am actually hoping to do it!). So don't think I am in love with Core.

I am not condoning all the political fighting that has been going on. But personality issues are not a justification to switch to an extremely flawed protocol of unbounded block size.

If you would just realize that I support everything you want in terms of we need a solution to the block size problem. I just don't want you to destroy Bitcoin because you don't know what you are doing. Blockchain technology is complex.

[Killerpotleaf]

The orphan rate rate doesn't impact the cartel that wins 51% of the blocks, because they see the winning blocks instantly (whereas the non-cartel miners have to eat the propagation time of those slow blocks and thus the high orphan rate).

Your extreme ignorance of blockchain technology is on display.

please tell us more about how BU is vulnerable to 51% attack.

[iamnotback]

please tell us more about how BU is vulnerable to 51% attack.

I didn't write that. You don't even understand what I am writing. Even with only 33% of the hashrate, I had written the cartel has a 0 orphan rate on the blocks they produce which gives them a disproportionate advantage (c.f. the famous selfish mining paper). I understand why Core blocked you guys. It is impossible to have technical discussion with those who can't comprehend it. It becomes noise.

We conclude by noting that the analysis presented in this paper breaks down when the
block reward falls to zero. It suggests that the cost of block space is zero; however, this would
suggest zero hash power, which in turn would suggest that transactions would never be mined
and, paradoxically, that no block space would be produced. Happily, questions about the
post-block reward future can be explored at a leisurely pace, as we have a quarter-century
before it begins to become a reality. Into the distant future then, a healthy transaction fee
market is expected to exist without a block size limit.

It makes perfect sense that averaged across all miners cost per byte ~ inflation rate (e^t) where t is propagation time and ~ means proportional to. Because difficulty adjusts, thus hashing cost rises to match the block reward (i.e. inflation rate) multiplied by wasted hashrate losses due to orphan rate.

It is independent of the amount data in the block (meaning there is no cost constraining amount of data to put in a block). That is because the equation he chose is modeling everyone having the same orphan rate, thus it models that no miner attempts to use a smaller block size than the other one.

But miners will strategically employ this block size choice and it turns out that it is a power vacuum with winner-take-all property that forces a cartel to use large blocks as a weapon against those not in the cartel.

So IMO he hasn't entirely acknowledged his error. He noticed there were problems in his analysis, but he didn't entirely home in on the holistic conclusion. His model is meaningless. It makes no sense to model average orphan rate as a limiting factor providing an equilibrium, because miners have incentive to do whatever it takes to reduce the waste of their individualized orphan rate and they can do so at their advantage by not including the minority in their cartel, so that the non-cartel minority has a very high orphan rate and the cartel has an ultra low orphan rate. The only equilibrium is due to centralization of control.

[Killerpotleaf]

please tell us more about how BU is vulnerable to 51% attack.

I didn't write that. You don't even understand what I am writing. I understand why Core blocked you guys. It is impossible to have technical discussion with those who can't comprehend it. It becomes noise.

oh ic
" if miners have 51% they can be rendered immune to block propagation time. "

I didnt realize that!
i'm going to run a core node now

thanks!

[iamnotback]

oh ic
" if miners have 51% they can be rendered immune to block propagation time. "

You have entirely not paid attention where I wrote upthread that the cartel can sign their blocks and propagate the block headers and begin mining immediately on the next block with very low propagation times. But for the non-cartel members the cartel can propagate the entire block. That applies no matter what % of the hashrate the cartel has, even as low as 33% (or even lower).

Just because you can't assimilate all that I've written, doesn't mean I have the time to convince you about your forthcoming errors and noise.

You Bitcoin Unlimited people are not competent about blockchain technology and game theory.

Core probably got tired of repeating the same explanations and seeing your inane replies that evidenced to them that you had 0% reading comprehension.

[Killerpotleaf]

oh ic
" if miners have 51% they can be rendered immune to block propagation time. "

You have entirely not paid attention where I wrote upthread that the cartel can sign their blocks and propagate the block headers and begin mining immediately with very low propagation times. But for the non-cartel members they can propagate the entire block. That applies no matter what % of the hashrate the cartel has, even as low as 33% (or even lower).

Just because you can't assimilate all that I've written, doesn't mean I have the time to convince you about your forthcoming errors and noise.

You Bitcoin Unlimited people are not competent about blockchain technology and game theory.

Core probably got tired of repeating the same explanations and seeing your inane replies that evidenced to them that you had 0% reading comprehension.

will you stop with the superiority complex.

how about to start thinking about what you're going to say when the miners dont create huge blocks, and incress blocksize little bits at a time such that fee pressure is low-ish and relatively constant, in order to maximize fee, and ehhhhhhhh NOT destroy bitcoin.

[jbreher]

However presuming some transactions pay less per byte than others (and higher valued transactions can afford to pay more per byte), the economic converse effect occurs wherein the miner has the incentive to make the smallest block possible or below the size where propagation latency is linearly proportional to block size (i.e. the latency that is a constant factor independent of data transferred), which is again not a free market limit on block size and not a fee market.

So if I understand you correctly, you assert that the fact that not everyone is willing to pay the same transaction fee rate in BTC/B, this is somehow demonstrative of a failure of free markets? Cause that's what it looks like you are claiming.

You seem to have successfully demonstrated the central argument that each miner is incentivized to include as many high-BTC/B transactions up to the point where transaction fee = marginal orphanage cost. So what is the problem? Why do you consider this as 'not free market'?

I see nothing in this that suggests BU is worse than core in this regard. Help me understand.

You've entirely missed the point, which that so called equilibrium point doesn't exist as explained below...

That was an important insight. Thanks. And it is exacerbated by the fact that the network hashrate and propagation is not equally distributed, thus it gets much worse for everyone but the winner-take-all cartel, ...

Folks Satoshi's PoW is broken and it can't be fixed. You are hereby forewarned that something new will be required. But no one has yet shown what can scale up decentralized. None of the other altcoins shit does either, and I have analyzed it all in very great detail.

So if I read this correctly, your insight is that a collusion of parties can force their will upon the network? Yes - we've known this since 2009.

[jbreher]

If you wanted to upend Core, then you should have more competent people who would have advised you that unbounded block size doesn't have an equilibrium.

If you have successfully demonstrated  that unbounded block size cannot reach an equilibrium outside a majority-collusion environment, I have missed it. If your argument is that there is no equilibrium in a majority-collusion environment, then your fear is as valid for today's Bitcoin than it is under unbounded blocksize. Nakamoto consensus is -- as far as we know -- dependent upon 'a majority of honest [miners]'.

And as a practical matter, Bitcoin operated just fine for multiple halvings with no practical bound on blocksize. This may be partially explained by a relatively amount of mining centralization, but such does not seem monotonically increasing. Certainly, we've had actually naked over half hashpower in a single entity before.