The BUcoin chinese-funded trojan horse exposed

[Lauda]

Truth hurts doesn't it, Lauda?

But go on, keep telling me how hardforks are "contentious" and "dangerous" and how Roger Ver is the anti-christ.

You are either very ignorant/delusional or a paid shill. Pick the lesser evil of the two. You couldn't even conjure a single argument which shows how weak you are.

im guessing with gmaxwell being the moderator of bitcoin discusssion and also part of the acceptance of features that get added to core. you cant really hide cores puppet string masters..

If you mean this section in particular, then your statement is wrong. AFAIK he spends little time moderating anyways.

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

Not really, no.

-snip-
see the hypocrisy?

seems the rule is if not BLOCKSTREAM approved its no good
the real trojan horse starts crawling out

You need to get rid of that tinfoil hat and start listening to reason.

[1713870162]

1713870162

[1713870162]

1713870162

[1713870162]

1713870162

[1713870162]

1713870162

[Karartma1]

Satoshi didn't have a 1MB limit in it. The limit was originally Hal Finney's idea.  Both Satoshi and I objected that it wouldn't scale at 1MB. Hal was concerned about a potential DoS attack though, and after discussion, Satoshi agreed.  The 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched. But all 3 of us agreed that 1MB had to be temporary because it would never scale.

Several attempted "abuses" of the blockchain under the 1MB limit have proved Hal right about needing the limit at least for launching purposes.  A lot of people wanted to piggyback extraneous information onto the blockchain, and before miners (and the community generally) realized that blockchain space was a valuable resource they would have allowed it.  The blockchain would probably be several times as big a download now if that limit hadn't been in place, because it would have a lot of random 1-satoshi transactions that exist only to encode information for altcoins etc.

At this point I don't think random schmoes who would allow just any transaction are getting a  lot of blocks. The people who have made a major investment in hashing power are doing the math to figure out which tx are worthwhile to include because block propagation time (and therefore the risk of orphan blocks) is proportional to block size. So at this point I think blockchain bloat as such is no longer likely to a problem, and the 1MB limit is no longer necessary.  It has been more-or-less replaced by a profitability limit that motivates people to not waste blockchain bandwidth, and miners are now reliably dropping transactions that don't pay fees.  

A temporary restriction is becoming the most interesting dogma of the crypto world. Cryddit left the stage, Satoshi also, Hal is no longer with us.
Three of the most ingenious devs agreed on what should have been a temporary mean.
Where do we go from there?
I do not support neither Core nor BU nor anything else but it's time to find a solution to this.

Great thread, one of the smartest guys around (Death and Taxes) knew where this was all going 2 years ago.

Curious why you don't support BU.  What your main beef with it?

What's my main problem? I really do not want we will undergo a blockchain split like ETH did. I support Bitcoin as a project and as a single entity.
This is no longer a software/blocksize/scaling debate: this is war between conflicting interests.
We are becoming worse than the world we were suppose to change... if you know what I mean by that.

[jonald_fyookball]

What's my main problem? I really do not want we will undergo a blockchain split like ETH did. I support Bitcoin as a project and as a single entity. 

Well, I can appreciate that -- I don't know many people who really want a split.  I certainly don't, if it can be avoided.

However, I strongly feel core is trying to change Bitcoin into something I don't want it to be.  And I would rather challenge
that than allow it to continue.  It is more risky, more dangerous to allow their plan than to fight it.  Those are my sincere
beliefs.

[chopstick]

Truth hurts doesn't it, Lauda?

But go on, keep telling me how hardforks are "contentious" and "dangerous" and how Roger Ver is the anti-christ.

You are either very ignorant/delusional or a paid shill. Pick the lesser evil of the two. You couldn't even conjure a single argument which shows how weak you are.

Standing up against Core's hypocrisy / stupidity does not make me ignorant and it does not make me a shill.

If I wanted to get paid for posting, I'd use one of those stupid signature ad campaigns.

Core is turning BTC into something entirely different, we'll call it Cripplecoin. Well, Cripplecoin is on the way out.

And it's a great day to be alive.

[franky1]

im guessing with gmaxwell being the moderator of bitcoin discusssion and also part of the acceptance of features that get added to core. you cant really hide cores puppet string masters..

If you mean this section in particular, then your statement is wrong. AFAIK he spends little time moderating anyways.

you failed with your attempt to brush all the other area's gmaxwell and his employees are moderating under the carpet. (mailing list/bips/irc) to try hiding gmaxwells control reach of bitcoin proposals, to ensure blockstream set the agenda.

[chopstick]

I love how Lauda calls us crazy, and yet we now have Core devs openly calling for a change to the POW algorithm because they don't like the way miners are deciding things on their own.

Hahahaha, it gets funnier with every passing day.

[Lauda]

Standing up against Core's hypocrisy / stupidity does not make me ignorant and it does not make me a shill.

Unfortunately we live in times where fear has overcome reason. Either you are part of said groups, or you've lost all sense of any reason.

Core is turning BTC into something entirely different, we'll call it Cripplecoin. Well, Cripplecoin is on the way out.

No. This is what Bitcoin is, with the design set in stone by satoshi.

you failed with your attempt to brush all the other area's gmaxwell and his employees are moderating under the carpet. (mailing list/bips/irc) to try hiding gmaxwells control reach of bitcoin proposals, to ensure blockstream set the agenda.

Nobody attempted to "brush anything under a carpet". I thought you were referring to 'Bitcoin Discussion' as this section of the forum. Stop being a troll and learn to discuss in a civil matter.

I love how Lauda calls us crazy, and yet we now have Core devs openly calling for a change to the POW algorithm because they don't like the way miners are deciding things on their own.

The miners deciding things on their own == attack. Therefore, a PoW change would be an appropriate measure.

[jonald_fyookball]

I love how Lauda calls us crazy, and yet we now have Core devs openly calling for a change to the POW algorithm because they don't like the way miners are deciding things on their own.

Hahahaha, it gets funnier with every passing day.

Core's hypocrisy and self contradiction is so obvious.  hard fork? noooo...must avoid at all cost, we wrote 5000+ lines of code segwit ... but now hard fork is a good idea right?
BU is 'radical' by removing blocksize restriction but lets change the POW, thats not radical at all.

Core is turning BTC into something entirely different, we'll call it Cripplecoin. Well, Cripplecoin is on the way out.

No. This is what Bitcoin is, with the design set in stone by satoshi.

The version 0.1 that Satoshi said was set in stone didn't include a blocksize limit.

[franky1]

The miners deciding things on their own == attack.

CORE gave pools the only vote.. core have themselves to blame.
emphasis: (lauda repeat 3 times until it sinks in): CORE gave pools the only vote. CORE gave pools the only vote. CORE gave pools the only vote.

core should instead.

not blackmail pools with algo chaning threats.
but instead do a HARD (node and pool) CONSENSUS (actual full community vote/choice to adopt or not)


not blackmail nodes with UASF banscore threats or their TIER network by hard(node and pool) bilateral split
but instead do a HARD (node and pool) CONSENSUS

and if core still dont get their way, just accept that their way is not wanted. and do something the community do want, without bribes(fee discount) without blackmail, without threat

[Karartma1]

What's my main problem? I really do not want we will undergo a blockchain split like ETH did. I support Bitcoin as a project and as a single entity. 

Well, I can appreciate that -- I don't know many people who really want a split.  I certainly don't, if it can be avoided.

However, I strongly feel core is trying to change Bitcoin into something I don't want it to be.  And I would rather challenge
that than allow it to continue.  It is more risky, more dangerous to allow their plan than to fight it.  Those are my sincere
beliefs.

I understand your point, it makes sense.
My point is, though, that I am tired of fighting for what I've said before. I don't want to contribute to what I see is the worst representation of the world I wanted to fight in the first place.

We could both easily reason, but not everybody is like you and me.

[Vaccinus]

I love how Lauda calls us crazy, and yet we now have Core devs openly calling for a change to the POW algorithm because they don't like the way miners are deciding things on their own.

Hahahaha, it gets funnier with every passing day.

it's too late for changing the pow algo, there are too many asic and money invested, chinese miners would be very mad about this, i don't think they would let this change happen, but maybe they can recycle their asic and change a parameters to make it mine the new one?

[vnvizow]

I love how Lauda calls us crazy, and yet we now have Core devs openly calling for a change to the POW algorithm because they don't like the way miners are deciding things on their own.

Hahahaha, it gets funnier with every passing day.

it's too late for changing the pow algo, there are too many asic and money invested, chinese miners would be very mad about this, i don't think they would let this change happen, but maybe they can recycle their asic and change a parameters to make it mine the new one?

It's in the name: Application Specific Integrated Circuits. If you can't even repurpose one to hash passwords there's not much you can do with one other than use it as a power hungry space heater (stares at my 333mhz antminer). But that aside, I'd love to see the Chinese mining sector pissed and weakened (coming from a Chinese BTC user)

[gentlemand]

it's too late for changing the pow algo, there are too many asic and money invested, chinese miners would be very mad about this, i don't think they would let this change happen, but maybe they can recycle their asic and change a parameters to make it mine the new one?

Why should anyone other than the miners themselves care what happens to them? It's up to them to stay agile when it comes to what Bitcoin gets up to. If a specific bunch is screwing with us then they should be fired and others will pick up the slack.

Obviously a PoW change is a severe move, but your average Bitcoin wallet does not have terms and conditions where you agree to preserve the wellbeing of a bunch of strangers in a far off land making money hand over fist.

I assume that possibility would only be rolled out if there was a move from a group of miners that explicitly harmed everyone else, in which case I'd welcome it.

[chopstick]

The miners deciding things on their own == attack. Therefore, a PoW change would be an appropriate measure.

I think it's obvious who the true paid shill here is, Lauda.

All you ever do is tout the Core propaganda without question.

The only reason some Core devs are even talking about changing POW is because they are panicking, they are realizing they might lose control of the Bitcoin protocol.

Of course, this wouldn't be happening if they were reasonable people capable of leadership & compromise. But they aren't. What is happening now is merely a natural reaction to their failed leadership.

But it's pretty clear what Blockstream Core's agenda is - total control over the Bitcoin protocol. I don't think they even care if they make a profit at this point. Hence the constant dirty tactics and mental gymnastics they engage in to justify their actions and their twisted logic.

[vnvizow]

The miners deciding things on their own == attack. Therefore, a PoW change would be an appropriate measure.

I think it's obvious who the true paid shill here is, Lauda.

All you ever do is tout the Core propaganda without question.

The only reason some Core devs are even talking about changing POW is because they are panicking, they are realizing they might lose control of the Bitcoin protocol.

Of course, this wouldn't be happening if they were reasonable people capable of leadership & compromise. But they aren't. What is happening now is merely a natural reaction to their failed leadership.

But it's pretty clear what Blockstream Core's agenda is - total control over the Bitcoin protocol. I don't think they even care if they make a profit at this point. Hence the constant dirty tactics and mental gymnastics they engage in to justify their actions and their twisted logic.

While I agree that the core team has done jacksh*t in the past few days weeks month despite the community requests, it's still the lesser evil IMO. So it's good that they're panicking, maybe they'll come up with sensible solutions for once.

[Lauda]

Core's hypocrisy and self contradiction is so obvious.  hard fork? noooo...must avoid at all cost, we wrote 5000+ lines of code segwit ... but now hard fork is a good idea right?

Nonsense. No hard fork discussed publicly as per Core contributors is relevant to Segwit. A PoW change my be a necessity in times of great danger.

The version 0.1 that Satoshi said was set in stone didn't include a blocksize limit.

Which was very faulty to begin with. Had we stuck with that, Bitcoin would have been either dead or set back by a long time.

The miners deciding things on their own == attack.

CORE gave pools the only vote.. core have themselves to blame.
emphasis: (lauda repeat 3 times until it sinks in): CORE gave pools the only vote. CORE gave pools the only vote. CORE gave pools the only vote.

Nope, that's not that I'm talking about.

it's too late for changing the pow algo, there are too many asic and money invested, chinese miners would be very mad about this, i don't think they would let this change happen, but maybe they can recycle their asic and change a parameters to make it mine the new one?

The miners don't dictate the rules, otherwise the network wouldn't be based on consensus but would rather rely on the will of the miners.

I think it's obvious who the true paid shill here is, Lauda.

All you ever do is tout the Core propaganda without question.

Said the person deeply entrenched in 1 view, to the person that is open to several solutions. Don't you see the problem in this sentence?

The only reason some Core devs are even talking about changing POW is because they are panicking, they are realizing they might lose control of the Bitcoin protocol.
-snip-

The Core developers do not control anything.

While I agree that the core team has done jacksh*t in the past few days weeks month despite the community requests, it's still the lesser evil IMO.

What community requests? You mean the minority <8% <3% supporting BTU altcoin?

[jonald_fyookball]

No. This is what Bitcoin is, with the design set in stone by satoshi.

The version 0.1 that Satoshi said was set in stone didn't include a blocksize limit.

Which was very faulty to begin with. Had we stuck with that, Bitcoin would have been either dead or set back by a long time.
 

Very faulty, or set in stone.  Well, pick one, because it can't be both.

You tried to appeal to authority, then back peddled when
it didn't work.   
 
 

 


 

[Lauda]

Very faulty, or set in stone.  Well, pick one, because it can't be both.

You tried to appeal to authority, then back peddled when
it didn't work.  

Not only was there no appeal to authority, I was never referencing the version 0.1 anywhere in my post. I guess this is what happens when money dictates what you're supposed to think or write.

[jonald_fyookball]

Very faulty, or set in stone.  Well, pick one, because it can't be both.

You tried to appeal to authority, then back peddled when
it didn't work.  

Not only was there no appeal to authority, I was never referencing the version 0.1 anywhere in my post. I guess this is what happens when money dictates what you're supposed to think or write.

Well if you weren't referring to Satoshi's quote, then I see no reason why you would say that anything is set in stone.   Bitcoin is defined by its users.

[d5000]

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.