BU + segwit

[jonald_fyookball]

Segwit is risky bloatware from a group of profiteering developers whose vision I don't agree with.

[1715168740]

1715168740

[1715168740]

1715168740

[1715168740]

1715168740

[1715168740]

1715168740

[1715168740]

1715168740

[jbreher]

You state that Validator nodes have no power and it is a myth that they have any impact on the network.

Sorry. dinofelis is correct. Non-mining nodes have essentially zero power of enforcement.

When faced with a block, a node has two possibilities. It can accept that block and forward it, or it can consider it an invalid block and not forward it. That is all. What it cannot do is prevent that block from getting to another miner that is perfectly happy to create another block on top of it. If miners are extending the chain, demonstrably accepting those blocks by building other blocks atop them, there is doodly-squat that non-mining nodes can do about it.

Can SegWit's transaction malleability fix be grafted onto BU?

Yes. BU plans a malleability fix. Later, after more pressing problems (e.g., the hard cap on the transaction throughput production quota) are fixed. Whether or not that fix ends up being SegWit is still a matter to be discussed. At this point in time, the other leading proposal would seem to be FlexTrans. But there is nothing endemic to SegWit that prevents it from being ported to BU.

BU just more or less ignores the fix.

Not ignore, exactly. Just that it is better development practice to not introduce several new major features at the same release.

[franky1]

You state that Validator nodes have no power and it is a myth that they have any impact on the network.

Sorry. dinofelis is correct. Non-mining nodes have essentially zero power of enforcement.

When faced with a block, a node has two possibilities. It can accept that block and forward it, or it can consider it an invalid block and not forward it. That is all. What it cannot do is prevent that block from getting to another miner that is perfectly happy to create another block on top of it. If miners are extending the chain, demonstrably accepting those blocks by building other blocks atop them, there is doodly-squat that non-mining nodes can do about it.

apart from consider it an invalid block and not forward it.

EG 2 pools right now could play hot-potato agreeing to make blocks that are segwit capable.. but try pushing those out to non-segwit nodes.. and the nodes reject them (hence why core needs the upstream filters inplace to then strip the blocks to make it non-core compatible)

EG 2 pools right now could play hot-potato agreeing to make blocks that are dynamic over 1mb.. try pushing those out to non-dynamic nodes.. and the nodes reject them(hence why node(hard) consensus needs to be achieved where the majority can accept them)

dinofelis's notion is of a centralised network. he doesnt understand the deeper aspects.
EG pools are competing. they will find any rule breaking reason to avoid accepting another pools block for own greed and assurance of healthy data/network

also merchants can be/are nodes. meaning pools become dependant on nodes if they ever want to spend their coins.
..
yes pools can just be 2 pools happily playing hot potato together.. but then thats just a crap coin of 2 users filling their hard drive. they might aswell go to a bank and open a joint bank account if they are only playing with each other. why even use blockchain tech at all if 2 pools are the entire network automatically accepting eachother.

but with thousands of nodes where some are services some are merchants the onus on who self governs what, switches. where by the acceptability of a blocks reward becomes the choice of the nodes. because the nodes are the merchants and services the pools wish to spend the funds with.

merchants could for instance see the 2 pools playing hot potato. and instead the nodes decide to let them play hot potato between themselves and orphan and ban them..  the nodes then start solo mining or using their own asics and leaving the 2 hot-potato pools on their own minority network, ignored by all the nodes whereby the pools cant spend funds with those merchants/nodes

[dinofelis]

You state that Validator nodes have no power and it is a myth that they have any impact on the network.

Sorry. dinofelis is correct. Non-mining nodes have essentially zero power of enforcement.

When faced with a block, a node has two possibilities. It can accept that block and forward it, or it can consider it an invalid block and not forward it. That is all. What it cannot do is prevent that block from getting to another miner that is perfectly happy to create another block on top of it. If miners are extending the chain, demonstrably accepting those blocks by building other blocks atop them, there is doodly-squat that non-mining nodes can do about it.

apart from consider it an invalid block and not forward it.

And nobody NEEDS that node to forward it.  You can get it directly from one of the miners.

Of course, if nobody is needing the bloc all together, the coin is worthless.  But there is no alternative chain where the coin isn't worthless.   So a USER can decide that he doesn't want this bloc chain, that he doesn't want these coins (and lose everything he has on it).  Or he can decide that he will use the only chain in existence.  But no non-mining node can stop a USER from having that block chain, use his wallet and send out transactions: directly to a miner node if necessary.   A crypto currency is a relationship between miners, making block chain and selling it to users, paying for it in the market.  What non mining nodes may say about this block chain, doesn't really matter.  Of course, what users are wanting to pay for it, does, but they can only use the chain or the chains made by the miners, or decide not to use the coin at all. 

If no user values the coins in the market, the miners are making a worthless chain.  But they make this one and no other one in any case.  And if users want to value coins in the market, they don't need your node forwarding the blocs, they get them directly from the factory (the miners).

So what is your non-forwarding node going to do about that ?

[franky1]

And nobody NEEDS that node to forward it.  You can get it directly from one of the miners.

then theres no need to use blockchain tech.. if your just API calling a central server..
your really missing the point of bitcoin.. like completely missing the point

Of course, if nobody is needing the bloc all together, the coin is worthless.  But there is no alternative chain where the coin isn't worthless.   So a USER can decide that he doesn't want this bloc chain,

if no one wants the block then the pool is ignored. nodes then solo mine with each other or start asic pool mining themselves or even using a new algo and start building their own blocks between the nodes.

that he doesn't want these coins (and lose everything he has on it).  But no non-mining node can stop a USER from having that block chain, use his wallet and send out transactions: directly to a miner node if necessary.

part from the user deciding he doesnt like the centralised bank of needing to API data from an only source.. and thus creates his own network..
HMM
not liking a centralised database of value, so goes out and creates his own decentralised network.. that reminds me of someone that in 2008 released a white paper with such a revolutionary concept. and release the first version of his software in january 2009... oh yea.. satoshi

hmm some other guy later on didnt like the idea sha hashing blocks. so in 2011 he made his own.. oh yea coblee.

then there were other altcoins that originated because some people decided they didnt like the original..

If no user values the coins in the market, the miners are making a worthless chain.  

agreed. so usually miners start making something the markets will want

But they make this one and no other one in any case.  And if users want to value coins in the market, they don't need your node forwarding the blocs, they get them directly from the factory (the miners).

but as you say if the market and users dont value it. they just wont use it.
people will just make something else that can be of value.
satoshi did it..

[dinofelis]

merchants could for instance see the 2 pools playing hot potato. and instead the nodes decide to let them play hot potato between themselves and orphan and ban them..  the nodes then start solo mining or using their own asics and leaving the 2 hot-potato pools on their own minority network, ignored by all the nodes whereby the pools cant spend funds with those merchants/nodes

So they are miners then.  Not non-mining nodes.  You start to get it.  And BTW, they just introduced an altcoin with a hard fork.

[franky1]

merchants could for instance see the 2 pools playing hot potato. and instead the nodes decide to let them play hot potato between themselves and orphan and ban them..  the nodes then start solo mining or using their own asics and leaving the 2 hot-potato pools on their own minority network, ignored by all the nodes whereby the pools cant spend funds with those merchants/nodes

So they are miners then.  Not non-mining nodes.  You start to get it.  And BTW, they just introduced an altcoin with a hard fork.

your thinking very 2 dimensional still. please look outside of the box

[dinofelis]

And nobody NEEDS that node to forward it.  You can get it directly from one of the miners.

then theres no need to use blockchain tech.. if your just API calling a central server..
your really missing the point of bitcoin.. like completely missing the point

I think you are blind to what bitcoin really is or became, and still live in the dream of many, many small mining nodes.

Right now, bitcoin is an affair of 5 majority miners, and 10 miners if you want very large majority.  There are 5 "facebook servers" on bitcoin, essentially.

The number of proxy servers for these 5 facebook servers doesn't matter for the content they put at disposal, that's my point.

[dinofelis]

merchants could for instance see the 2 pools playing hot potato. and instead the nodes decide to let them play hot potato between themselves and orphan and ban them..  the nodes then start solo mining or using their own asics and leaving the 2 hot-potato pools on their own minority network, ignored by all the nodes whereby the pools cant spend funds with those merchants/nodes

So they are miners then.  Not non-mining nodes.  You start to get it.  And BTW, they just introduced an altcoin with a hard fork.

your thinking very 2 dimensional still. please look outside of the box

These empty arguments don't bring in anything.  Whether I think 2 dimensional, fractal, super-real or on a differential manifold doesn't matter I would think

[dinofelis]

but as you say if the market and users dont value it. they just wont use it.
people will just make something else that can be of value.
satoshi did it..

Look, the users will value it if it is called bitcoin.  You see, if you ABSOLUTELY want to ride a Toyota, and the ONLY car Toyota is making, is one with a digital speedometer, while you really want an analogue speedometer, you have the choice between not buying a Toyota, or buying their car with a digital speedometer.  But as long as there is no competition, Toyota will force the digital speedometer onto you.  There's no way you can force them to make cars with analogue speedometers, if digital speedometers are much more lucrative to Toyota.

[franky1]

but as you say if the market and users dont value it. they just wont use it.
people will just make something else that can be of value.
satoshi did it..

Look, the users will value it if it is called bitcoin.  You see, if you ABSOLUTELY want to ride a Toyota, and the ONLY car Toyota is making, is one with a digital speedometer, while you really want an analogue speedometer, you have the choice between not buying a Toyota, or buying their car with a digital speedometer.  But as long as there is no competition, Toyota will force the digital speedometer onto you.  There's no way you can force them to make cars with analogue speedometers, if digital speedometers are much more lucrative to Toyota.

but then you just dont buy it. and suddenly toyota lose customers.

you need to grasp why toyota became popular in the first place.
for instance if toyota never made a car with an analog speedometer, that user would never have wanted a toyota.

oh. and if you think there is no alternative there is.
satoshi made the alternative to the centralised banks.
coblee made a alternative to bitcoin
vatalik made a altrnative to both.. and so on..

get out of the 2 dimensional thinking that bitcoin as a centralised bank will be the only choice and still hold value if it turned into a 2pool 0 node network. your not thinking of the whole ecosystem or even the reason / need / ethos of bitcoin.

if bitcoin starts turning into a centralised bank.. people will drop bitcoin and find something else.
yep anyone can take the data and say as of tonight the blockchain is blocked off from the hotpotato 2 pools. and instead new blocks will be made ontop of block X. if people want they can run a node on this new network and use their privkeys to make tx's on a new network.

thus leaving the hot-potato pools making blocks that they cant spend..
much like toyota making cars that people wont buy.

[dinofelis]

but as you say if the market and users dont value it. they just wont use it.
people will just make something else that can be of value.
satoshi did it..

Look, the users will value it if it is called bitcoin.  You see, if you ABSOLUTELY want to ride a Toyota, and the ONLY car Toyota is making, is one with a digital speedometer, while you really want an analogue speedometer, you have the choice between not buying a Toyota, or buying their car with a digital speedometer.  But as long as there is no competition, Toyota will force the digital speedometer onto you.  There's no way you can force them to make cars with analogue speedometers, if digital speedometers are much more lucrative to Toyota.

but then you just dont buy it. and suddenly toyota lose customers.

Yes.  But if the only brand you care about is Toyota, you'll buy the car with the digital speedometer.  

If tomorrow, segwit is activated, do you really think that people are going to dump all their bitcoin in the market because they preferred BU, and run to the nearest altcoin ?  Nope.  They'll cope with it, because there's nothing else that's called "bitcoin".

So if miners, and miners only, decide to switch to segwit, and they do this with 60% of hash rate, then segwit will be.  And all BU nodes will upgrade to segwit, or they will be useless.  And people will continue using "bitcoin" as it is now.

Because there's no other bitcoin.

Even if 80% of non-mining nodes is running BU.  They'll switch quickly.  Or have disfunctional wallets.

[franky1]

lol dinofelis. your still not seeing the bigger picture.

give yourself some time to research abit more.think outside the fiat centralised bubble of servers and truly learn bitcoin.

your grasping one nugget and trying to rub it hard to make it shine. but your not seeing the whole wall of precious things that held that nugget inplace for so long

bitcoin is revolutionary compared to the fiat central servers that you seem so intensely obsessed with comparing bitcoin to, that your not actually seeing the bigger concept

[dinofelis]

lol dinofelis. your still not seeing the bigger picture.

give yourself some time to research abit more.think outside the fiat centralised bubble of servers and truly learn bitcoin.

Still no reasoned arguments, right

bitcoin is revolutionary compared to the fiat central servers that you seem so intensely obsessed with comparing bitcoin to, that your not actually seeing the bigger concept

Religious zealot blah blah.  Believe !  Believe !  See the Light !  But no hard logical arguments, no gedanken experiments (and if you do, they talked against your stance each time), no rigorous analysis.