Who moderates bitcoin-dev mailing list?

[belcher]

The money is on the economy's side. The economic majority is what gives value to the bits and bytes that the miners create. If the miners can't sell their bitcoins they are screwed. If they give up then new miners will arrive because bitcoin mining is a competitive market.

First of all, there is no such thing as "economic majority" - you're just making this up.

Second, the money (bitcoin) is made by the miners - they have it in the first place.
What you are saying is that either bitcoin will become like you want, or you are not going to buy it anymore.
But just how is it different from you (or your "economic majority") not buying it in the first place?
Seriously, bitcoin doesn't care - it will always find buyers, just like it has before.

And the third, I would love to live the time when you are activating your "UASF".
Honestly, I cannot wait. Just to see your faces...

I'm not making anything up, the phrase "economic majority" has been used at least since 2012, and the concept much earlier. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

Bitcoin miners do not make money, they make bitcoins. Unless bitcoins have a network of users willing to trade them for real goods and services then those coins are just worthless bytes on some hard drive. There's plenty of copies of bitcoin made into altcoins that also have miners, but something is obviously missing because they are worthless compared to bitcoin. Remember those miners who continued mining 50btc after the first halvening? They found out the hard way that it's the economic majority that makes the rules.

[gmaxwell]

BIP16 had a full support from the miners.

No it didn't it had support from maybe about ~55%  from what I recall and was opposed by the largest pool of the day (deepbit).

If it'd have at least a support of 51% of the miners

That is just simply untrue. Damn man your dogmatic ignorance is making me want to go read up on the proposal just so I can support it.

The users of Bitcoin define what mining is, if you cross them you are not a miner.  In that sense, it is impossible for 100% of miners to not support anything that the user base has decided on...

[piotr_n]

BIP16 had a full support from the miners.

No it didn't it had support from maybe about ~55%  from what I recall and was opposed by the largest pool of the day (deepbit).

Strange, because I already was in bitcoin back then and I don't remember any mined blocks rejected because a miner did not support P2SH.
I was actually using deepbit back then - haven't lost a penny.

If it'd have at least a support of 51% of the miners

That is just simply untrue. Damn man your dogmatic ignorance is making me want to go read up on the proposal just so I can support it.

It surely sounds like a threat.
You can support any crazy idea you want. Why would I care?

You probably think that you are so important that when you start supporting UASF, then its suddenly going to turn into a reality.
You're funny
And I'd rather be dogmatic, than naive.

The users of Bitcoin define what mining is, if you cross them you are not a miner.  In that sense, it is impossible for 100% of miners to not support anything that the user base has decided on...

What you are saying is simply not true.
"The users of bitcoin" is a term that the protocol can't rely upon, as it cannot be objectively measured.
That's why the protocol is guarded by the miners of bitcoin.
It is the very purpose of the mining in this system, to guard the protocol against evil actors.

And I am very surprised that you don't understand it.

[piotr_n]

The money is on the economy's side. The economic majority is what gives value to the bits and bytes that the miners create. If the miners can't sell their bitcoins they are screwed. If they give up then new miners will arrive because bitcoin mining is a competitive market.

First of all, there is no such thing as "economic majority" - you're just making this up.

Second, the money (bitcoin) is made by the miners - they have it in the first place.
What you are saying is that either bitcoin will become like you want, or you are not going to buy it anymore.
But just how is it different from you (or your "economic majority") not buying it in the first place?
Seriously, bitcoin doesn't care - it will always find buyers, just like it has before.

And the third, I would love to live the time when you are activating your "UASF".
Honestly, I cannot wait. Just to see your faces...

I'm not making anything up, the phrase "economic majority" has been used at least since 2012, and the concept much earlier. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

Yes, it's an abstract construct. A theoretical entity that is allegedly capable of controlling the bitcoin protocol, but in reality its existence has not even been proven.

I might just as well say that bitcoin protocol is controled by God. The phrase "God" has been used since like forever. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
And therefore if you want to have segwit activated, you just need to pray...  

Wouldn't that be a crazy thing to say?
And that's exactly how crazy I see your idea: 0% science, 100% faith.

Bitcoin miners do not make money, they make bitcoins. Unless bitcoins have a network of users willing to trade them for real goods and services then those coins are just worthless bytes on some hard drive. There's plenty of copies of bitcoin made into altcoins that also have miners, but something is obviously missing because they are worthless compared to bitcoin. Remember those miners who continued mining 50btc after the first halvening? They found out the hard way that it's the economic majority that makes the rules.

But bitcoin is money - it will stay being money, even after all the other money disappears.
And this money has value because since it was born there has been a demand for it.
Demand to buy the mined bitcoins, to buy bitcoins from the miners defined as mining majority.

Now you are saying that you can kill the demand for the bitcoins mined by the mining majority, and replace it with a demand for bitcoins created in a different way.
Are you sure you can do this?
Because I am pretty sure that you'd only create another "copy of bitcoin made into altcoin", while the old fashion bitcoins would go on and be just fine.

[classicsucks]

So now the censorship is hitting the dev mailing list?

And Maxwell is doing public interviews again, hyping up UASF? And Samson Mao is the new mouthpiece of Blockstream/Core?

This is getting crazy...

[piotr_n]

Yes, but to be fair, from my own experience, gmaxwell has always been an active defender of a freedom of speech - on any forum I've seen.

Although, it makes me wonder why he publishes such kind of (controversial) material on a forum that uses excuses of "In the name of Wu, this post shall not pass." to censor posts which are menat to provide feedback on the proposed solutions.

[jonald_fyookball]

BIP16 had a full support from the miners.

No it didn't it had support from maybe about ~55%  from what I recall and was opposed by the largest pool of the day (deepbit).

If it'd have at least a support of 51% of the miners

That is just simply untrue. Damn man your dogmatic ignorance is making me want to go read up on the proposal just so I can support it.

The users of Bitcoin define what mining is, if you cross them you are not a miner.  In that sense, it is impossible for 100% of miners to not support anything that the user base has decided on...

1. Are you really telling us you haven't "read up" on UASF?   I assume that's what you mean by "the proposal" here, since you just quoted Piotr
who was talking about that.  

2.  If you claim a UASF doesn't have to have 51% miner support, well then sure it doesn't "have to have" it...if you accept that (in the case of segwit)  a network split would be the result
unless/until one side capitulates.

Greg, you seem to be doing a bit of doublespeak here:  On the one hand, giving a thinly veiled nod of approval to the UASF, telling people: don't worry, it doesn't even need miner approval,
but on the other hand, trying to claim you haven't read up on it, presumably so you can say later you never officially supported it or ever advocated for something that
can cause a network split.

 

[stdset]

If miners had to 'find something else profitable to mine', they'd just start mining
double spends depositing BTC to the exchanges that are trying to fuck them up.

They won't, because in this case miners will get fired either through PoW change or by users switching to other cryptos or leaving cryptos altogether. Miners have strong economic incentive to obey and they will, provided that economic majority is indeed a super-majority.

[piotr_n]

If miners had to 'find something else profitable to mine', they'd just start mining
double spends depositing BTC to the exchanges that are trying to fuck them up.

They won't, because in this case miners will get fired either through PoW change or by users switching to other cryptos or leaving cryptos altogether. Miners have strong economic incentive to obey and they will, provided that economic majority is indeed a super-majority.

No. The reason they won't is that they aren't going to waste precious mining resources for attacking a worthless UASF altcoin, while they can still use them for mining the good old bitcoins.

You guys really don't get it.

Bitcoin protocol has been designed to resist governments and the financial oligarchy. I'm talking about institutions that wage wars killing millions, just to benefit from it.  
And it has resisted...

If you think that a bunch of users or some developers can achieve what the world's biggest money makers haven't, then you are obviously delusional.

[stdset]

Bitcoin protocol has been designed to resist governments and the financial oligarchy.

Yes, and this is one of possible ways to resist.

[classicsucks]

If miners had to 'find something else profitable to mine', they'd just start mining
double spends depositing BTC to the exchanges that are trying to fuck them up.

They won't, because in this case miners will get fired either through PoW change or by users switching to other cryptos or leaving cryptos altogether. Miners have strong economic incentive to obey and they will, provided that economic majority is indeed a super-majority.

So now we're going to change the block structure, the network protocol, the consensus mechanism, miners' role in the process, AND the proof of work?  And you still think this unrecognizable Frankenmonster will be "the real bitcoin"? Dream on.

Every time reality strikes, there is another proposal to change things. Core can write all the code they want, it still won't change the facts on the ground:

People aren't drinking the Koolaid.

[stdset]

So now we're going to change the block structure, the network protocol, the consensus mechanism, miners' role in the process, AND the proof of work?  And you still think this unrecognizable Frankenmonster will be "the real bitcoin"? Dream on.

Every time reality strikes, there is another proposal to change things. Core can write all the code they want, it still won't change the facts on the ground:

People aren't drinking the Koolaid.

Nobody is going to change miners role. Their role is to provide consensus on the state of the ledger, on order of transactions.
Nobody is going to change the consensus mechanism. Chain with most accumulated PoW wins, provided that it's a valid chain.
PoW change is the last resort option, hopefully it won't be needed.
It's up to users to choose validity rules for blocks and transactions. It's that simple.