The BUcoin chinese-funded trojan horse exposed

[jonald_fyookball]

This is no longer a software/blocksize/scaling debate: this is war between conflicting interests.

I think it's more of a conflict of visions. The CoI ("Trojan Horse" for malicious actors) thing is, in my opinion, not really founded on facts but mostly on emotions. Neither is Blockstream the Antichrist that's trying to capture Bitcoin to profit from it exclusively, neither the miners are the bad guys that want to control everything. There may be some interests that could be touched by one of the solutions (e.g. miners worrying about lesser transaction fees in the future) but these fears are mostly based on speculation.

Bitcoin's problem is that as blockchain space and bandwidth for block propagation are both scarce resources (if you have the ambition to become a global payment system) you must make tradeoffs in centralization if you want to scale. Perhaps AnonyMint is right that a degree of centralization is unavoidable with Bitcoin's design.

The Core proposal is: Let the "node network" be decentralized, but allow centralization at the "payment system" level.

The BU proposal is: Let the "payment system" be decentralized, but allow centralization at the "node network" level.

I think both visions are valid, but I consider the decentralization of the node network a bit more important, as it's a basic condition for bitcoin to work. That's why a blocksize increase, if necessary, should be conservative and not only decided by miners, like in the BU proposal, but based on actual network speed/computation requirement tests.

Good summary, and I wish more fanatics would realize the trade off here instead of freaking out "CENTRALIZATION" like a zombie.  I happen to think the payment system centralization is more sinister but we can certainly agree to have different opinions. 

[1714123779]

1714123779

[1714123779]

1714123779

[1714123779]

1714123779

[DooMAD]

The Core proposal is: Let the "node network" be decentralized, but allow centralization at the "payment system" level.

The BU proposal is: Let the "payment system" be decentralized, but allow centralization at the "node network" level.

I think both visions are valid, but I consider the decentralization of the node network a bit more important, as it's a basic condition for bitcoin to work. That's why a blocksize increase, if necessary, should be conservative and not only decided by miners, like in the BU proposal, but based on actual network speed/computation requirement tests.

Good summary, and I wish more fanatics would realize the trade off here instead of freaking out "CENTRALIZATION" like a zombie.  I happen to think the payment system centralization is more sinister but we can certainly agree to have different opinions. 

But the issue remains that users only have a binary choice between those two proposals.  Those of us looking for a moderate compromise somewhere between the two need to get our act together and get something coded so there's an alternative.  SegWit plus small, cautious and preferably algorithmic blocksize adjustments (not just increases).

[Lauda]

Bitcoin is defined by its users.

What happened to the BTU rhetoric that 51 hashrate = Bitcoin?

The Core proposal is: Let the "node network" be decentralized, but allow centralization at the "payment system" level.

The BU proposal is: Let the "payment system" be decentralized, but allow centralization at the "node network" level.

Do enlighten me how Core plans to centralize the 'payment system level' vs. how BU plans on decentralizing it.

[franky1]

The Core proposal is: Let the "node network" be centralization, but allow centralization at the "payment system" level.

The BU proposal is: Let the "payment system" be decentralized, but allow decentralization at the "node network" level.

FTFY

CORE want core to own bitcoin and be the upper controlling tier of upstream filters and all code requiring core(blockstream) approval.. and have the better ln hubs, and controlling the base block to FORCE people to use LN

non-core want diverse nodes of many brands on one single PEER network. and LN being voluntary side services that anyone can make

[jonald_fyookball]

Bitcoin is defined by its users.

What happened to the BTU rhetoric that 51 hashrate = Bitcoin?
 

Are you trolling , looking for an argument, or you really want a lesson in consensus?

Let me know.

[Rahar02]

But we have the nuclear button that they didn't see coming, and this can be implemented without changing any fundamental protocol rules as opposed to the vapid idea of the "Emergent consensus". So Jihan, if you keep fucking around, all of your ASIC machines will be worth nothing soon. Your choice.

What do you mean?  If you stop following chain with most proof of work as defined in first Satoshi client, you wont use Bitcoin anymore.

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime. Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of.  

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me.  It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in.  If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.

I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.

"Emergent Consensus" is obviously a drastic change in the way the protocol works. Looks like satoshi wouldn't have liked this hardfork scenario we are seeing.

Block size should be increased since last few years but this problem become not endless, too many speculation whether it maybe right or not. I don't know for sure which one of those options will be the best way for bitcoin in the future, I don't like if bitcoin should be divide into two chains, but if it may happen we will see how it works whether will be be great or bad.

[andron8383]

BU China coin ^^ since most miners are from China and one manufacturer if BTC is from China and have 75% chips produced i don't really think that is good.
Bitcoin gave to much power to centralization of mining as same of developer side.
If we will have fork at least we will see growth one chain will be abandoned.
If mining would be truly decentralized but is not right now i would believe in miners decide what have to live which chain. Today we have HEAVILY centralized mining 2 companies making asics Bitfury even not sell them. So voting by mining is just to votes at end miners are connected to those companies.
And this is true shit because we don't have 100 000 who decide but up to 5 biggest.
With LTC up to 1 biggest - fuck such decentralization.

[d5000]

The Core proposal is: Let the "node network" be decentralized, but allow centralization at the "payment system" level.

The BU proposal is: Let the "payment system" be decentralized, but allow centralization at the "node network" level.

Do enlighten me how Core plans to centralize the 'payment system level' vs. how BU plans on decentralizing it.

I don't think there are "plans". But the traditional blockchain transaction is the most decentralized and trustless way to pay within the BTC network. If we rely on second-layer solutions the most probable outcome is a higher degree of centralization. I doubt a LN-like off-chain solution will be possible without at least some centralized hubs. I have some hope on two-way-pegged sidechains though, but I know there are many challenges for them to work.

Where I think you're right is that the BU proposal, if it leads to a higher node-level centralization, would also put into question the "decentralized nature" of on-chain payments. But at least some idealists in the BU fraction seem to think there is a possibility BU won't centralize the node structure because of technological evolution (like the LN enthusiasts that believe in a decentralized LN). It's possible that both hopes are only wishful thinking, but we would need to test it to find it out.

@franky1: No. It's not that easy

But the issue remains that users only have a binary choice between those two proposals.  Those of us looking for a moderate compromise somewhere between the two need to get our act together and get something coded so there's an alternative.  SegWit plus small, cautious and preferably algorithmic blocksize adjustments (not just increases).

Exactly. That's the way I would prefer, too; although I consider the BU mechanism a no-go because it's probably too dangerous (I would really like to see a real altcoin testing it, though). AnonyMint (iamnotback) has analyzed BU here and his analysis confirm my fears about a failure of the mechanism. I also support his proposal to the BU team to seek compromise with a more moderate version, if Core fails to do that.

I repeat, BIP-100-based solutions are for me the way to go, but including a security limit.

On the other hand, Ethereum may do us the favour and tests LN (Raiden) for us. Or even Groestlcoin

[Wind_FURY]

Can Bitfury sue the Core developers if a POW upgrade occurs? Do they have a legal basis for it?

Not really, no.

Well then it would appear that Bitfury George was not only threatened but he is also trying to bluff his way to make Peter Todd stop playing with the idea of a POW upgrade. The developers should be thinking about it more and get the code ready just in case they need to do it as soon as possible. The greedy miners need to be leveraged so that they would be reasonable to deal with. The same to those who are conspiring with them.

Lauda, do you think the Core developers are seriously thinking about a POW upgrade? Is it on the table?

[Lauda]

What happened to the BTU rhetoric that 51 hashrate = Bitcoin?

Are you trolling , looking for an argument, or you really want a lesson in consensus?

Argument. That was what was being preached by BTU folk, and you were most certainly not eager to correct them.

I don't think there are "plans". But the traditional blockchain transaction is the most decentralized and trustless way to pay within the BTC network. If we rely on second-layer solutions the most probable outcome is a higher degree of centralization. I doubt a LN-like off-chain solution will be possible without at least some centralized hubs. I have some hope on two-way-pegged sidechains though, but I know there are many challenges for them to work.

Where I think you're right is that the BU proposal, if it leads to a higher node-level centralization, would also put into question the "decentralized nature" of on-chain payments. But at least some idealists in the BU fraction seem to think there is a possibility BU won't centralize the node structure because of technological evolution (like the LN enthusiasts that believe in a decentralized LN). It's possible that both hopes are only wishful thinking, but we would need to test it to find it out.

You have no real argument that proves your assertion that Core would centralized the second layer, and BU would not. In both case, if we were to follow your own statements, LN would be somewhat centralized regardless of Core or BU. The fix to your statement would be (only where the outcome of the second layer is the same for both implementations):
Core: decentralized 1st layer, centralized/decentralized second layer
BU: centralized 1st layer, centralized/decentralized second layer

Lauda, do you think the Core developers are seriously thinking about a POW upgrade? Is it on the table?

Depends. People wrongly think that if luke-jr (for example) or Todd think about doing something == Core considering something == likely to be added into Bitcoin Core. This is wrong. They are Core contributors, yes, but what they independently think about or consider is far from having a chance of being added to the repository.
Speaking of 'trojan horses':
Another major BU bug, now with a special bonus: a closed source patch.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60s6r5/peter_todd_unlimited_responds_to_the_latest_dos/

[jonald_fyookball]

What happened to the BTU rhetoric that 51 hashrate = Bitcoin?

Are you trolling , looking for an argument, or you really want a lesson in consensus?

Argument. That was what was being preached by BTU folk, and you were most certainly not eager to correct them.
 

In a PoW system, the hashpower majority controls the longest chain.  Supply and demand of the token determines its value.  (simple facts, right?)

Miners could theoretically create a contentious hard fork with 51% and then everyone would see what the demand is
for the new token, but it is probably wiser to wait for a larger consensus and that does appear to be what miners intend to do with BU.

 

[franky1]

In a PoW system, the hashpower majority controls the longest chain.  Supply and demand of the token determines its value.  (simple facts, right?)

nope

the hashpower majority just has more chance of having a block solution faster.. it doesnt mean that the block they produce seconds faster is any bettr or worse.

no one cares about hash power primarily. its about whats an acceptable block first. and then if there happen to be 2 acceptable blocks, the one which was produced using most chain work gets the edge, as a secondary thought.

EG
if you can make a cake because you have 4 arms and you forget to add the flour, thus making gooy soup.. and someone else makes a perfect cake but took longer. the perfect cake still wins. and the gooy 5 second soup gets orphaned even if it took 4 hands to make it instead of 2, even though it made it in 5 seconds.

bitcoin is not just 2 dimensional of needing pools to decide based purely on height, whereby the nodes are just database storage houses.

the nodes are part of the symbiotic relationship to keep pools inline.
bitcoin has atleast 10 different mechanisms.

for instance if nodes did not matter, core wouldnt have needed to go soft... obviously..
but nodes do matter, core just knew they may not get the community vote and so intentionally bypassed the node vote and intentionally handed the vote to pools.
now core is angry that the pools are not kissing core ass. so now core again want to avoid re evaluating and trying something more acceptable. and instead start blaming pools, start making out the pools bypassed node votes. and now threaten the community with UASF and also the pools with PoW algo changes. all to get CORES way, not the communities way

oh and if you think that nodes have no power at all (because you mis-understand core bypassing node power).. then how will core implement a PoW change if nodes have no power....

[Lauda]

In a PoW system, the hashpower majority controls the longest chain.  Supply and demand of the token determines its value.  (simple facts, right?)

No. Even franky1 gets it and sheds some light on it:

nope

the hashpower majority just has more chance of having a block solution faster.. it doesnt mean that the block they produce seconds faster is any bettr or worse.

no one cares about hash power primarily. its about whats an acceptable block first. and then if there happen to be 2 acceptable blocks, the one which was produced using most chain work gets the edge, as a secondary thought.
-snip-

Miners could theoretically create a contentious hard fork with 51% and then everyone would see what the demand is
for the new token, but it is probably wiser to wait for a larger consensus and that does appear to be what miners intend to do with BU.

It doesn't even matter if there is *some* demand (or a fair amount of demand for it), that is effectively an altcoin. Hashrate does not dictate rules in a consensus based system. Stop living in a dystopian fantasy where the miners are 'supreme emperors' of Bitcoin.

[jonald_fyookball]

In a PoW system, the hashpower majority controls the longest chain.  Supply and demand of the token determines its value.  (simple facts, right?)

nope

the hashpower majority just has more chance of having a block solution faster.. it doesnt mean that the block they produce seconds faster is any bettr or worse.
 

Huh?

You know a lot about bitcoin so i'm baffled why i have to explain what I mean here.

To quote the white paper

The race between the honest chain and an attacker chain can be characterized as a Binomial
Random Walk

 

[jonald_fyookball]

It doesn't even matter if there is *some* demand (or a fair amount of demand for it), that is effectively an altcoin. Hashrate does not dictate rules in a consensus based system. Stop living in a dystopian fantasy where the miners are 'supreme emperors' of Bitcoin.

You can label things however you want and define consensus however you want.
Hashing Power and Economic Power are the prime movers here.

[jbreher]

AnonyMint (iamnotback) has analyzed BU here and his analysis confirm ...

Yeah. If you go there, I suggest you read that thread to the end to absorb the manner in which iamnotback's thinking on the matter evolves.

[jonald_fyookball]

AnonyMint (iamnotback) has analyzed BU here and his analysis confirm ...

Yeah. If you go there, I suggest you read that thread to the end to absorb the manner in which iamnotback's thinking on the matter evolves.

Oh is that who that is... no wonder he sees every possibility for Bitcoin as doom.   I feel better now. lol.

[Lauda]

You can label things however you want and define consensus however you want.

No. That's why the BTU folk is doing.

Hashing Power and Economic Power are the prime movers here.

Of which you could argue that the latter has more importance; mining worthless coins doesn't make much sense, does it? Hashrate aside, BTU has an absolute minority.

[jonald_fyookball]

Hashing Power and Economic Power are the prime movers here.

Of which you could argue that the latter has more importance; mining worthless coins doesn't make much sense, does it? .

Agree. 

[Xester]

What happened to the BTU rhetoric that 51 hashrate = Bitcoin?

Are you trolling , looking for an argument, or you really want a lesson in consensus?

Argument. That was what was being preached by BTU folk, and you were most certainly not eager to correct them.
 

In a PoW system, the hashpower majority controls the longest chain.  Supply and demand of the token determines its value.  (simple facts, right?)

Miners could theoretically create a contentious hard fork with 51% and then everyone would see what the demand is
for the new token, but it is probably wiser to wait for a larger consensus and that does appear to be what miners intend to do with BU.

 

If only there is a way or a system harmonizing and integrating all codes into one so such conflicts and debate could be avoided. In my own opinion the miners themselves wanted the community to  be in conflict so they can make good profit from increasing the miner fees. I am thinking that the miners are just laughing while the groups are in conflict.