"Super UASF"

[jonald_fyookball]

http://www.coindesk.com/could-the-super-uasf-break-bitcoins-scaling-deadlock/

Interesting points found in the article:

-- Announced anonymously on Bitcoin mailing list (which Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell moderates)
-- UASF author pushes Segwit (which Blockstream/Core advocates)
-- ...and doesn't think miners should determine consensus (sounds exactly like Maxwell rhetoric)
-- Supporters want to create an end-run around miners ( "miners are rejecting something that appears to have substantial community support")
-- Right in line Blockstream's LN agenda ("Many companies have further upgraded their software to support the change, and several Lightning Network implementations, which are dependent on it, have cropped up...")

This doesn't look suspicious at all.

[Kakmakr]

http://www.coindesk.com/could-the-super-uasf-break-bitcoins-scaling-deadlock/

Interesting points found in the article:

-- Announced anonymously on Bitcoin mailing list (which Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell moderates)
-- UASF author pushes Segwit (which Blockstream/Core advocates)
-- ...and doesn't think miners should determine consensus (sounds exactly like Maxwell rhetoric)
-- Supporters want to create an end-run around miners ( "miners are rejecting something that appears to have substantial community support")
-- Right in line Blockstream's LN agenda ("Many companies have further upgraded their software to support the change, and several Lightning Network implementations, which are dependent on it, have cropped up...")

This doesn't look suspicious at all.

What looks suspicious is when a major bug is exposed in BU and then Blockstream developers are blamed for it. What looks suspicious is when say 6000 nodes with this bug, suddenly goes down at the same time and then get patched and brought up almost immediately. < How many of these nodes are run by 1 or 2 mining pools and how decentralized will this be, if almost all the nodes are from the same entity? >

How does it feel, when you pissing into the wind? BU dropped the ball and lost almost no nodes? Is this natural?

I wonder what will happen if they want to implement something controversial and this "group" decides to use that kind of power. ^hmmmmmm^

[franky1]

6000 nodes with this bug, suddenly goes down at the same time and then get patched and brought up almost immediately.

6000 nodes went offline?
LOL
im laughing

it was only a couple hundred and those couple hundred didnt all exactly go offline at same time.. some script kiddy made some code after reading peter todds twitter. that grabbed BU node ip list from bitnodes.io. and ran the code.

some nodes upgraded immediately, some not so immediately and some still havnt yet.

maybe worth you checking the many different node checking websites.

sorry gotta say it again.. you think 6000 nodes went off line.. LOL yo crack me up cheers for the laughs

[franky1]

soft for was a pool only vote.. and CORE decided to make their proposal soft. so core have only got themselves to blame of pools say no..
core should take the vote serious and just realise pools say no..

they could have gone hard consensus (node consent THEN pool consent).(whole community vote which would have given pools more confidence if they seen the nodes wanted it)

but guess what.. now core want to avoid hard consensus(node then pool) and go straight for HARD bilateral split..
just splitting the network no matter whats decided with their UASF- (facepalm)

also sheep stroke their flock to sleep with the false buzzwording by calling it USAF.. when reality is UASF is not even soft...

if only people look passed the buzzword games of the reddit scripters and party games of gmaxwell and actually run real scenarios and read real code, people will learn whats really happening.

[Viscount]

UASF is a brilliant idea by unknown with pseudonymous 'shaolinfry'. I wonder is it Satoshi come again to kick ver's and chinesse miners' asses?  

[Viscount]

"There has been a very dangerous myth circulating in some circles that miners can decide on the consensus rules," shaolinfry said, adding that the bitcoin white paper describes miners' role as limited to ordering valid transactions into blocks.

[Lauda]

UASF seems like the only way forward, which should teach these miners a lesson. Initially I was against it, but after reading though it a few times I'm also in support of. BU BTU could simply avoid this by adding SWSF and then advocating their 'emergent' whatever after it activates.
Update: I spoke too soon. Here it is: https://twitter.com/blocktracker/

[Kakmakr]

6000 nodes with this bug, suddenly goes down at the same time and then get patched and brought up almost immediately.

6000 nodes went offline?
LOL
im laughing

it was only a couple hundred and those couple hundred didnt all exactly go offline at same time.. some script kiddy made some code after reading peter todds twitter. that grabbed BU node ip list from bitnodes.io. and ran the code.

some nodes upgraded immediately, some not so immediately and some still havnt yet.

maybe worth you checking the many different node checking websites.

sorry gotta say it again.. you think 6000 nodes went off line.. LOL yo crack me up cheers for the laughs

Very creative "quoting" from your side franky1 by deliberately quoting only after the "say" word in my example, but yes I give that to you, I also deliberately inflated the number to make my point. I forget some time that we have people on here that deal in specific detail to win a argument.

I think I made my point and still think only a few small groups are behind BU and that is something that give me sleepless nights, more than the huge bugs that are discovered in their code. ^hmmmmm^

You won that round on a technicality ^smile^ but I still got my point across.  

[franky1]

UASF seems like the only way forward, which should teach these miners a lesson. Initially I was against it, but after reading though it a few times I'm also in support of. BU BTU could simply avoid this by adding SWSF and then advocating their 'emergent' whatever after it activates.

oh lauda..
CORE gave pools the vote
CORE now want to split the network if pools dont give core what core demands.
rather than core just acceting the vote and re  thinking if the promises/feature were actually good enough

and you want to blame pools and non-core..

how about get core to offer actual features that do the job they promise.
even you have admitted that cores features only work if users adopt the new keytypes and move funds across
you even admit it would require 100% key adoption to get 100% expectation.
even you admit that the activation event itself offers no instant feature ability.

this is why people are not running full steam into adopting it. because its not an actual fix. its a complete rewrite of code only offering half measures.
please take off your blockstream defender hat. and put on an unbiased logical hat.

[Lauda]

-snip-
this is why people are not running full steam into adopting it. because its not an actual fix. its a complete rewrite of code only offering half measures.
please take off your blockstream defender hat. and put on an unbiased logical hat.

Bullshit. If you truly think that mr. Jihan and his subpools give a damn whether it fixes something or not, you have no idea what is going on here. Stop living in Utopian fairy tales.

how about get core to offer actual features that do the job they promise.
even you have admitted that cores features only work if users adopt the new keytypes and move funds across
you even admit it would require 100% adoption to get 100% expectation.

Segwit is amazing even without any capacity increase.

[franky1]

how about get core to offer actual features that do the job they promise.
even you have admitted that cores features only work if users adopt the new keytypes and move funds across
you even admit it would require 100% adoption to get 100% expectation.

Segwit is amazing even without any capacity increase.

lol ? amazing?
you have not even ran any tests or read the code yourself.
stop reading the scripts. your getting obvious

-snip-
this is why people are not running full steam into adopting it. because its not an actual fix. its a complete rewrite of code only offering half measures.
please take off your blockstream defender hat. and put on an unbiased logical hat.

Bullshit. If you truly think that mr. Jihan and his subpools give a damn whether it fixes something or nothing, you have no idea what is going on here. You still keep living in your delusions.

jihan has far less than 15%.(not all of antpool is in the BU camp) chck your stats

can you explain the rest of the network that are undecided and/or against segwit

[Lauda]

lol ? amazing?
you have not even ran any tests or read the code yourself.
stop reading the scripts. your getting obvious

You think Segwit was created to be a capacity increase? Facepalm.

jihan has far less than 15%.(not all of antpool is in the BU camp) chck your stats

ViaBTC, BTC.TOP and possibly GBMiners are all Jihan or part of his cartel. Remember, he has a ASIC monopoly.

can you explain the rest of the network that are undecided and/or against segwit

I can't comment on individual pools that aren't signalling neither Segwit nor BTU.

[franky1]

I can't comment on individual pools that aren't signalling neither Segwit nor BTU.

you do realise that bitcoin unlimited are not gonna ban hammer the network into splitting. they will wait for the community to come to a majority consensus. and keep it open

thats why nothing has happened while bitcoin unlimited,xt, classic and other have all been running over the last 2+ years as their intention is community consensus. not ban hammer altcoin creation..

seems you keep skipping the point about bip9 and UASF being the ban hammer of core tools to force segwit to activate if core dont get a result.
and segwit has only been part of a vote for 6 months, and already getting desperate to not once but twice now desire bypassing community vote of keeping an open network. by instead, threatening to use block orphaning and banning mechanisms to get their way.

cant you see where the ACTUAL power struggle is actually coming from.

but seeing as you want to argue about the pools while trying to point the finger as if its just one guys fault. makes you really look like you dont understand how vast and open the bitcoin community is.
please get out of the blockstream cabin. it has given you cabin fever to beleive that bitcoin has to be owned by one man

bitcoins strength is better suited without any owner. without a single point of weakness by being decentralised (and i dont mean distributed centralised) i mean truly decentralised

stop supporting blockstream and bring your 3 paragraph attention span into supporting BITCOIN

[jonald_fyookball]

sounds like Core is getting so desperate that they are now floating the idea of intentionally forking.
Their first option was to use their bully pulpit to get 95% of the miners to go with segwit.

Now that its clearly not going that way, they are saying 'screw the miners', and implementing
their plan regardless.