A call to arms: Everyone to run a Core node!

[Vesel]

Let's support the network and give voice to our opinion on how to scale Bitcoin by running a full Core node each. It is probably one of the best investments we can do in our BTC investments. Be sure to check that your node is reachable here. If it is not, then you have to open your 8333 port and try again.

If you can mine, then even better! Be sure to join a mining pool that is positive to SegWit.

I, for one, have done my part from this day.  

https://bitcoin.org/en/download

[1713552895]

1713552895

[1713552895]

1713552895

[franky1]

lol "call to arms"
against.. oh wait
against diversity, decentralisation. freedom and choice.

i see.
so only having core is..
giving power to a higher order of dominance. reducing diversity, choice, freedom. and decentralisation.. but selling the only thing left distribution as the fake meaning of the other features lost.

you do know other implementations have been running for years and set no deadline because they have no intention to just pull a trigger without majority consent. and even then the other implementations are ready for it...... apart from core.. which is adement about blocking any changes that are not king blockstream approved..

but hey consensus is what non core will use and they will not rage with a ban hammer either.
thats the beauty of bitcoins build in features. not needing to ban hammer anything.

however look at all the core dialog
"treat non core as altcoin"
"shout that they will kill bitcoin by forking to become an altcoin"
"beg them to fork to become an altcoin"
"core bip9 to ban opposition pools blocks.. and ban non core nodes from being upstream"
"core: we gave pools the vote intentionally so blame the pools"
"core: if pools dont follow our dictation we will ban them all so our nodes only see what we want"
"core: blockstream have to rule supreme"

it gets hilarious.

especially when you start reading the code
segwit blocks dont look like native blocks
segwit transactions dont look like native transactions
segwit features ar not promed
segwit fixes are not promised
segwit discounts wont get usrs back to a few cents a tx

core is losing grip of its old sales pitches because each 'selling point' has been scrutinised and seen as empty, exaggerated, temporary gesture or just a bait and switch.

kind of makes me laugh that segwit went soft to avoid a real community vote.. and then skipping straight to the altcoin making hard option again skipping a community consensus.

but hey. they have to pay the 70mill back somehow. shame they have to screw with bitcoin to do it

[Killerpotleaf]

Let's support the network and give voice to our opinion on how to scale Bitcoin by running a full Core node each. It is probably one of the best investments we can do in our BTC investments. Be sure to check that your node is reachable here. If it is not, then you have to open your 8333 port and try again.

If you can mine, then even better! Be sure to join a mining pool that is positive to SegWit.

I, for one, have done my part from this day.  

https://bitcoin.org/en/download

+1

everyone should do what they feel is best for the network, and there is no better way of participating in the debate , then what you describe.

altho i would call on all the BU supporters to run BU nodes.

[franky1]

everyone should do what they feel is best for the network, and there is no better way of participating in the debate , then what you describe.

altho i would call on all the BU supporters to run BU nodes.

and all the other node users to support other nodes
but in short dont read the reddit sales pitches. scrutinise things independently. and dont think about short term gains of going for X because it will cause double coins. as thats just temporary drama that ends 10 minutes after you spent them coins.

think about the long term ACTUAL real benefit that can actually be achieved. without reliance on dev handouts every few months

[U2]

Where can you find real unbiased information on both though? That's what I find impossible. Is there a blog that's dug through the bullshit and censorship to actually show what each side would like to do? I'm all for running a node but I'd like to choose the side I believe in.

[Vesel]

Where can you find real unbiased information on both though? That's what I find impossible. Is there a blog that's dug through the bullshit and censorship to actually show what each side would like to do? I'm all for running a node but I'd like to choose the side I believe in.

Did you read about the recent sudden sharp drop in BU nodes? If not, do that. It is all you really need to know to be sure you don't want to hand responsibility over a $20 Billion network to reckless amateurs that don't review the code they crappy code they write. We can just be glad that this bug was exposed before a hard fork, not after.

95% of Bitcoin developers work for Bitcoin Core. That's really all we non-technical people need to know to understand which side we should support. Trusting BU developers over Core developers is like trusting the 1% of climate scientists that claim that global warming isn't man-made. It's only on this forum that the two sides are "equal". Everyone unbiased by economic interests and with some insight seem to prefer SegWit over simply just increasing blocksize, as it's the technically superior solution to the scaling problem. SegWit should be completely uncontroversial for investors and users. Only the miners don't want it, because they'd rather squeeze us for transaction fees.

[Tigggger]

Where can you find real unbiased information on both though? That's what I find impossible. Is there a blog that's dug through the bullshit and censorship to actually show what each side would like to do? I'm all for running a node but I'd like to choose the side I believe in.

The only thing you can do is read both proposals, and weigh them up yourself.

Anything else you read is just someone else's opinion which may or may not be biased one way or the other.

I therefore offer no opinion 

[hardtime]

Don't think people are just going to run nodes out of the kindness of their hearts and to use a disgusting amount of resources on their part. It's tough to say, but people are going to need to be incentivesd in some sort of fashion to be able to do something like this.

People say that "why don't you just run a node" "it'll make everything better, blah blah blah"


People don't understand that without some sort of payment to be using my computers resources, power and so on, I highly doubt that I'd be wanting to join in. It's not like I don't belive in Bitcoin, I do.

I just don't see a reason and a reason (personal gain here) has to be made for it.

[Vesel]

Don't think people are just going to run nodes out of the kindness of their hearts and to use a disgusting amount of resources on their part. It's tough to say, but people are going to need to be incentivesd in some sort of fashion to be able to do something like this.

People say that "why don't you just run a node" "it'll make everything better, blah blah blah"


People don't understand that without some sort of payment to be using my computers resources, power and so on, I highly doubt that I'd be wanting to join in. It's not like I don't belive in Bitcoin, I do.

I just don't see a reason and a reason (personal gain here) has to be made for it.

I'm not running a node out of altruism alone. I do it because I'm heavily invested in bitcoin, and want it to succeed. There are a lot of other people here as well that are heavily invested in bitcoin. We have the same interest, and should join forces. Running nodes is how we can help protect the network and voice our opinions on how to move forward. Choosing which blocks and transactions to accept and relay by running a node is some of the only hard power that users have over the network.

[franky1]

Did you read about the recent sudden sharp drop in BU nodes? If not, do that. It is all you really need to know to be sure you don't want to hand responsibility over a $20 Billion network to reckless amateurs that don't review the code they crappy code they write. We can just be glad that this bug was exposed before a hard fork, not after.

BU nodes go offline. but the diversity of other nodes kept going..

however if everything was just core.. expect another 2013 event.
diversity and more then one codebase is GOOD for the network

relying on one team that has one king is no better than fiat. and that is bad.

BU, xt, classic, and many others (including some core tweaked version, will all run happily together if a dynamic event occured.
but blockstream(core) only want blockstream approved code running which if one goes down. they all go down.


oh and if there was a bug in dynamics requiring a downgrade. blocks just have to drop to below 1mb again and everything is back to as it is now.

if there was a bug in sgwit requiring a downgrade. anyone with funds on segwit keys cant spend them.. locked

[flora_digitalis]

BU nodes go offline. but the diversity of other nodes kept going..

however if everything was just core.. expect another 2013 event.
diversity and more then one codebase is GOOD for the network

relying on one team that has one king is no better than fiat. and that is bad.

BU, xt, classic, and many others (including some core tweaked version, will all run happily together.
but blockstream(core) only want blockstream approved code running which if one goes down. they all go down.

So far only BUCoin Nodes went down (for the 2nd time) due to amateurish coding skills. There's no benefit of multiple implementations that disagree on the protocol / roadmap.

The Core implementation process is democratic.

BU is an extremely dangerous hostile takeover attempt by a centralist minority group. It's the third one after XTCoin and ClassicCoin. BU taking over would mean the end of a decentralized Bitcoin network. BUCoin is Paypal 2.0.

Ver can pay as many shills he wants - it's not gonna happen.

[Vesel]

BU nodes go offline. but the diversity of other nodes kept going..

however if everything was just core.. expect another 2013 event.
diversity and more then one codebase is GOOD for the network

It's good for Bitcoin that it splits in to several different mutually incompatible coins? The combined price of the coins would plummet for sure. Noone wants to use multiple currencies that are hardly different, yet still unfungible.

relying on one team that has one king is no better than fiat. and that is bad.

To be fair, it's BU that wants a "president" and a "secretary" of Bitcoin. No joke. https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articles

if there was a bug in sgwit requiring a downgrade. anyone with funds on segwit keys cant spend them.. locked

Not true. SegWit requires only a soft fork, meaning that it has stricter rules, not incompatible rules, to the original protocol. That way SegWit transactions are compatible with non-SegWit nodes.

[FiendCoin]

Did you read about the recent sudden sharp drop in BU nodes? If not, do that. It is all you really need to know to be sure you don't want to hand responsibility over a $20 Billion network to reckless amateurs that don't review the code they crappy code they write. We can just be glad that this bug was exposed before a hard fork, not after.

BU nodes go offline. but the diversity of other nodes kept going..

however if everything was just core.. expect another 2013 event.
diversity and more then one codebase is GOOD for the network

relying on one team that has one king is no better than fiat. and that is bad.

BU, xt, classic, and many others (including some core tweaked version, will all run happily together.
but blockstream(core) only want blockstream approved code running which if one goes down. they all go down.


oh and if there was a bug in dynamics requiring a downgrade. blocks just have to drop to below 1mb again and everything is back to as it is now.

if there was a bug in sgwit requiring a downgrade. anyone with funds on segwit keys cant spend them.. locked

franky1 got his head so far up Jihan Wu's ass he can see the Great Wall of China through his mouth 

[ImHash]

Now look who is using buzzword such as "diversity" man did Satoshi diversified when presented bitcoin? of course it should only run on 1 software(Core) as it was intended from the start, open source right? means people first see/check the code and then decide to use it which everyone did and are doing, I agree that a backup generator(just in case of failure) is needed but only when you find a flaw in a software version you create another one with a fixed until the main(Core) fix their running software with the consensus mechanism and then go back to the main system discarding your temporary built version.

And then until the next bug/problem/flaw if found everyone should run one software version without worrying about whole system shut down because you know the backup old version nodes I mentioned? they can engage just as a backup until again the main version is fixed by consensus.

You shouldn't go and take that backup software version and change other things of your interest and try to take over with a hostile approach.


Some simple example; if the following is main version

Code:

if (!nverify_flags(flags)) {
        nreturn bitcoinconsensus_ERR_INVALID_FLAGS;
    }
    try {
        TxInputStream stream(SER_NETWORK, PROTOCOL_VERSION, txTo, txToLen);
        CTransaction tx(deserialize, stream);
        if (nIn >= tx.vin.size())
            return set_error(err, bitcoinconsensus_ERR_TX_INDEX);
        if (GetSerializeSize(tx, SER_NETWORK, PROTOCOL_VERSION) != txToLen)
            return set_(, bitcoinconsensus_TX_SIZE_MATCH);

back up should be fixed like this;

Code:

if (!verify_flags(flags)) {
        return bitcoinconsensus_ERR_INVALID_FLAGS;
    }
    try {
        TxInputStream stream(SER_NETWORK, PROTOCOL_VERSION, txTo, txToLen);
        CTransaction tx(deserialize, stream);
        if (nIn >= tx.vin.size())
            return set_error(err, bitcoinconsensus_ERR_TX_INDEX);
        if (GetSerializeSize(tx, SER_NETWORK, PROTOCOL_VERSION) != txToLen)
            return set_error(err, bitcoinconsensus_ERR_TX_SIZE_MISMATCH);

Not going rogue and change whatever you want. yes we only need 1 main version(Core).

[AngryDwarf]

Yes, better ban all SPV wallets since their GUI might allow a different minimum fee to be applied compared to the core spoon fed minimum. 

[Paashaas]

BU nodes go offline. but the diversity of other nodes kept going..

however if everything was just core.. expect another 2013 event.
diversity and more then one codebase is GOOD for the network

relying on one team that has one king is no better than fiat. and that is bad.

BU, xt, classic, and many others (including some core tweaked version, will all run happily together.
but blockstream(core) only want blockstream approved code running which if one goes down. they all go down.


oh and if there was a bug in dynamics requiring a downgrade. blocks just have to drop to below 1mb again and everything is back to as it is now.

if there was a bug in sgwit requiring a downgrade. anyone with funds on segwit keys cant spend them.. locked

Thats a lie, that rebound from BU nodes comming online again happend in a very short time, thats not diversity   those nodes are in control by a few people! Claiming Core nodes comming down when 1 goes bust is another major lie. Core nodes are more wide-spread over the globe. You are frustrated because you know that BU is in deep shit.

[Sadlife]

Everybody is losing their minds whether what nodes to be chose.
Others are still deciding what software/codebase to be use, core devs or BU ?
Why not both since the community is half BU supporters and the others is core supporters.
If all else fails we just start a new and use segwit.

[jonald_fyookball]

The Core implementation process is democratic.
 

That's a good one! lol.

If by democratic you mean send your proposal to the dev mailing list which king Maxwell moderates,
probably get ignored, or maybe you can try to bring up your issue at a stalling scaling conference,
or maybe get them to subscribe to your idea at a roundtable agreement which will later be swept under the rug. 
If your plan doesn't fall in line with Blockstream corporate interests, expect the status quo to continue
because gosh we can't do anything without 'consensus'... If you persist in your efforts then undoubtedly, you're just
blocking consensus.  Just accept the roadmap of king Gregory since he knows more about Bitcoin than you do.

Yes, its extremely democratic.

[franky1]

BU nodes go offline. but the diversity of other nodes kept going..

however if everything was just core.. expect another 2013 event.
diversity and more then one codebase is GOOD for the network

It's good for Bitcoin that it splits in to several different mutually incompatible coins? The combined price of the coins would plummet for sure. Noone wants to use multiple currencies that are hardly different, yet still unfungible.

bu, xt classic, and even some independant core nodes have tweaks to all work together using the same native keys and will not throw out the ban hammer...

there wont be "multiple coins" if dynamics went forward.
core on the other hand are ban hammer heavy and will be the ones causing a split by banning nodes/pools/blocks they dont like.
even bip9 and UASF and even gmaxwell himself have admitted such

where as the other implementations have said they want consensus and wont throw the ban hammer.

wake up and research beyond the reddit scripts.

relying on one team that has one king is no better than fiat. and that is bad.

To be fair, it's BU that wants a "president" and a "secretary" of Bitcoin. No joke. https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articles

but bu want consensus (all differing node brands working together on the same network.)
also core that already has the CEO adam back, CTO gmaxwell etc.
but to add to that they dont want diverse distributed decentralisation. the want just distributed centralisation.

if there was a bug in sgwit requiring a downgrade. anyone with funds on segwit keys cant spend them.. locked

Not true. SegWit requires only a soft fork, meaning that it has stricter rules, not incompatible rules, to the original protocol. That way SegWit transactions are compatible with non-SegWit nodes.

lol. learn segwit atleast realise the soft fork is just the activation... but to actually see any segwit features, users need to move funds to segwit keys.
EG if no one moves funds out of native keys to segwit keys.. no tx count boost, no malleation of sigop disarming.
atleast learn segwit.. or are you only on this forum to defend blockstream CEO and not so much any code that could run..

BU nodes go offline. but the diversity of other nodes kept going..

however if everything was just core.. expect another 2013 event.
diversity and more then one codebase is GOOD for the network

relying on one team that has one king is no better than fiat. and that is bad.

BU, xt, classic, and many others (including some core tweaked version, will all run happily together.
but blockstream(core) only want blockstream approved code running which if one goes down. they all go down.


oh and if there was a bug in dynamics requiring a downgrade. blocks just have to drop to below 1mb again and everything is back to as it is now.

if there was a bug in sgwit requiring a downgrade. anyone with funds on segwit keys cant spend them.. locked

Thats a lie, that rebound from BU nodes comming online again happend in a very short time, thats not diversity   those nodes are in control by a few people! Claiming Core nodes comming down when 1 goes bust is another major lie.

Core nodes are more wide-spread over the globe.

why are you even mentioning geolocation (wide spread over the globe)

im talking about.. implementation diversity .. not distribution
imagine core had the assert(0) bug.. if everyone was all running the same exact codebase. all nodes go offline due to exploit.
no protection from classic. no protection from xt. no protection from knots no protection from a dozen differing implementations that would run while core sort out a release without the assert(0) bug..