BUgcoin strikes back

[ANHEQIAO]

I think BU was good before it had some critical bug that took down lots of their nodes and now another attack occured. Did the core devs mess up like this in the past years?
Luckily the fork hasn't occured yet, they should really fixed their codes first before we get unlimited attacks in the future.
Bitcoin algorithm is extremely complicated i think BU developers are not fit for these field.

[1714817887]

1714817887

[1714817887]

1714817887

[1714817887]

1714817887

[1714817887]

1714817887

[Carlton Banks]

For me personally, off the chain scaling always more sense to for Bitcoin. There is much more possibilites if we do it that way. But I am not saying it is perfect. It will have its own problems.

Remember that it's a tiered system; on-chain is the foundation, the 1st layer. That means we can't get off-chain 2nd layers to scale without scaling the on-chain 1st layer too. Lightning transactions need at least 1 on-chain transaction before they can be made, Lightning depends on the on-chain 1st layer.

BU team's vision is on chain scaling.

So they are coding totally different things, and that is a separate aspect from the skills of the developers.

I get that and respect it. But it will never mean that the reason why the miners are following them is because they are better or their code is better. Politics and the need for control is one of the main reasons or maybe the main reason.

No, jonald's confusing the issue

Big blocks do not scale by definition. They increase capacity, but they don't change the scale at which more capacity is added. To scale transaction capacity meaningfully, we can only achive that by fitting more transactions into the same blocksize, "blocksize scaling" is self contradictory.

[muyuu]

The term "vision" is abused in these parts. What they have is a "simplistic and ignorant obsession" at best, and a "malicious intent" at worst.

[jonald_fyookball]

The term "vision" is abused in these parts. What they have is a "simplistic and ignorant obsession" at best, and a "malicious intent" at worst.

Do you agree Greg Maxwell's intent is to mold Bitcoin into a 2 layered network?

[muyuu]

The term "vision" is abused in these parts. What they have is a "simplistic and ignorant obsession" at best, and a "malicious intent" at worst.

Do you agree Greg Maxwell's intent is to mold Bitcoin into a 2 layered network?

Bitcoin is a 2-layered network already, or do you not use exchanges or mixers? Maxwell is working on a 2nd layer that is permission-less.

[jonald_fyookball]

The term "vision" is abused in these parts. What they have is a "simplistic and ignorant obsession" at best, and a "malicious intent" at worst.

Do you agree Greg Maxwell's intent is to mold Bitcoin into a 2 layered network?

Bitcoin is a 2-layered network already, or do you not use exchanges or mixers? Maxwell is working on a 2nd layer that is permission-less.

So we agree that he is working on a 2nd layer.  You should also agree that he's decidely against allowing the first layer to scale freely.
He's openly stated he wants full blocks and a fee market.  Are we on the same page with that?

To answer your questions:  I use exchanges but those are not part of the Bitcoin network itself. 

LN may be permissionless theoretically, but in practical terms, it may not be...because it may not be economically
feasible to open your open channel, and you'll have to rely on someone else's.   

 

[franky1]

LN may be permissionless theoretically, but in practical terms, it may not be...because it may not be economically
feasible to open your open channel, and you'll have to rely on someone else's.  

LN is not prmissionless.
its a 2 party signature

EG
imagine it like a co-sign bank account.. you cant buy a hooker without your wife signing the cheque..

you cannot just send funds(permissionless). you need to find a second party to agree.

[jonald_fyookball]

thanks Frankie, but lets not lose the forest for the trees.  If both parties want to transact, muyuu is saying
they can do so...but i'm saying it may be infeasible economically. thoughts?

[muyuu]

So we agree that he is working on a 2nd layer.  You should also agree that he's decidely against allowing the first layer to scale freely.
He's openly stated he wants full blocks and a fee market.  Are we on the same page with that?

Hard protocol constraints impede the 1st layer from scaling freely without compromising basic conditions on node maintenance cost.

To answer your questions:  I use exchanges but those are not part of the Bitcoin network itself. 

LN may be permissionless theoretically, but in practical terms, it may not be...because it may not be economically
feasible to open your open channel, and you'll have to rely on someone else's.   

Layer-2 will not be part of the Layer-1 Bitcoin network itself. Nobody will be forced to use them, except by the very constraints of the protocol that are inevitable.

[Carlton Banks]

You should also agree that he's decidely against allowing the first layer to scale freely.
He's openly stated he wants full blocks and a fee market. 

You're not in favour of on-chain scaling jonald, whereas the Bitcoin devs are. They've actually developed on-chain scaling ideas, some with early implementations.

What have you done? You're promoting on-chain capacity increases, which don't scale at all. Your position is untenable on this issue.

[Yakamoto]

What are the real thing to decide the BU or SW? The nodes version or hash power? I see SW is dominant on nodes, but BU is dominant in hashpower.

If I remember correctly it all comes down to the amount of hashing power that decides to go with one fork or the other, and at some point the network is supposed to collectively move to whatever fork is decided in order for the rest of the network to continue propagating.

Nodes only do so much, but a mix of nodes and hashing power is required in order for any fork concept to be successful.

[dinofelis]

Bitcoin is a 2-layered network already, or do you not use exchanges or mixers? Maxwell is working on a 2nd layer that is permission-less.

If you consider that bitcoin is a "fiat-to-fiat" sending device, yes it is a double layer.   That is:

1) you have permissioned, banking-style access to bitcoin through exchange 1 (where you send fiat from your bank account to the exchange, to withdraw true bitcoins on chain).

2) you can send bitcoins permissionless to whomever you want

3) on the receiving side, the person needs permissionned, banking style conversion of his received bitcoin on an exchange, and back to his bank account

With LN, this becomes the following:

1) idem

2) this time, you have to ask the exchange to send bitcoins to you through your permissionned channel on your "LN bank" where you are connected to.

3) you have to ask your LN bank if you can send a permissionned payment to your destination (your LN bank can accept or refuse, ask fees, conditions, explanations, ....), that is to say, to your destination's permissioned LN bank

4) on the receiving side, the person will need to ask his permissioned LN bank to send the coins to his preferred permissioned exchange, convert to fiat, and get that fiat on his bank account.

So, what has disappeared in the LN story, is the permissionless sending of coins from sender to receiver.  You have to go through your fixed, permissioned LN bank, and so does your counter party (your "LN hub" to which you are attached until your LN link is sufficiently used that you can settle on chain).

[jonald_fyookball]

Hard protocol constraints impede the 1st layer from scaling freely without compromising basic conditions on node maintenance cost.
 

Sure.  But node maintenance cost increases are inevitable.  

I understand you are in favor of mitigating/delaying those increases, but what is wrong with letting the free market decide?

In other words, if second layer solutions can shoulder some of the load on the main chain, great...but why not let people choose
those solutions on their own then the solutions are available?   Why do we need to centrally plan this and keep constraints,
ESPECIALLY when LN isn't even ready?  

[Tigggger]

Hard protocol constraints impede the 1st layer from scaling freely without compromising basic conditions on node maintenance cost.

Node's are running fine on Raspberry PI's and an SD Card for ~$75, that's a perfect example of how technology has moved on since bitcoin started.

Why wasn't the 1MB block size a concern in the beginning when the biggest hard disk you could by was ~10GB, these days we have 10TB drives.

I just don't see how 'node maintenance cost' is an issue at all ?

[jonald_fyookball]

Hard protocol constraints impede the 1st layer from scaling freely without compromising basic conditions on node maintenance cost.

Node's are running fine on Raspberry PI's and an SD Card for ~$75, that's a perfect example of how technology has moved on since bitcoin started.

Why wasn't the 1MB block size a concern in the beginning when the biggest hard disk you could by was ~10GB, these days we have 10TB drives.

I just don't see how 'node maintenance cost' is an issue at all ?

I see their side of the argument as far as what would happen to storage requirements and connectivity requirements when we have 300 TPS, and
Moore's law won't always be there to save us.

(But they still haven't convinced me that it sufficient reason to restrict scaling at the present time)

[muyuu]

Hard protocol constraints impede the 1st layer from scaling freely without compromising basic conditions on node maintenance cost.

Node's are running fine on Raspberry PI's and an SD Card for ~$75, that's a perfect example of how technology has moved on since bitcoin started.

Why wasn't the 1MB block size a concern in the beginning when the biggest hard disk you could by was ~10GB, these days we have 10TB drives.

I just don't see how 'node maintenance cost' is an issue at all ?

If you ran a node, which I'm going to assume you don't because of that nonsensical argument, you'll know that the number one constraint is upload bandwidth.

Nodes are hungry on upload bandwidth and this is quite expensive past a certain point. And it barely increases over time because most home consumers need mainly download bandwidth.

The only way to scale past where we currently are in terms of raw blocksize, is to start cutting corners related to P2P connectivity which endanger the network more the higher you take them.

This cannot be done "freely" under any circumstance unless you intend to destroy Bitcoin as a censorship-resistant transaction protocol.

[Carlton Banks]

Why do we need to centrally plan this and keep constraints

You're not recommending anything different jonald


Emergent Chaos just de facto centralises blocksize changes with the mining cartel - not decentralised

Neither Bitcoin EC or Bitcoin Unlimited decentralise development, they keep it centralised (which the Classic devs admitted was the whole point just recently) - not decentralised

ESPECIALLY when LN isn't even ready?  

Well, all I can say is, thanks for helping to stall Segwit, it's given the Lightning developers much more time to get it ready for when Segwit activates  

[Tigggger]

If you ran a node, which I'm going to assume you don't because of that nonsensical argument, you'll know that the number one constraint is upload bandwidth.

Nodes are hungry on upload bandwidth and this is quite expensive past a certain point. And it barely increases over time because most home consumers need mainly download bandwidth.

The only way to scale past where we currently are in terms of raw blocksize, is to start cutting corners related to P2P connectivity which endanger the network more the higher you take them.

This cannot be done "freely" under any circumstance unless you intend to destroy Bitcoin as a censorship-resistant transaction protocol.

I run 2 nodes. One since I started with Bitcoin, and the second was fired up recently as a BU node as a hedge just in case but has since gone back to core after their bugs and closed source patch.

Bandwidth hadn't even entered my head, probably because I have no caps both here and at my office, will have to take a look what they are actually using and if they are maxing out my connections (I am also sure I read that the problem isn't the downloading of the blockchain but the processing of it once it arrives).

Even so upload speeds here have increased over time in the same way as hard disks have got bigger, so I don't see a problem.

It's also silly to me that the 7,000 nodes all need the full blockchain, and surely there has to be a better way that maintains security ?

[muyuu]

I run 2 nodes. One since I started with Bitcoin, and the second was fired up recently as a BU node as a hedge just in case but has since gone back to core after their bugs and closed source patch.

Bandwidth hadn't even entered my head, probably because I have no caps both here and at my office, will have to take a look what they are actually using and if they are maxing out my connections (I am also sure I read that the problem isn't the downloading of the blockchain but the processing of it once it arrives).

Even so upload speeds here have increased over time in the same way as hard disks have got bigger, so I don't see a problem.

It's also silly to me that the 7,000 nodes all need the full blockchain, and surely there has to be a better way that maintains security ?

Congrats, so you do run nodes and you managed to ignore the main issue.

Access to high-speed uploads is relatively limited around the world. My node wrecks my home connection and I have the fastest provider in East London.

The issue of compensating nodes needs to be addressed before placing an even much higher burden on them than they already have. And it goes up exponentially with block size, it's a P2P gossip protocol not "downloading websites" like Gavin used to say - which is moronic.

[jonald_fyookball]

muyuu:

I still didn't see you answer my question:

In other words, if second layer solutions can shoulder some of the load on the main chain, great...but why not let people choose
those solutions on their own then the solutions are available?   Why do we need to centrally plan this and keep constraints,
ESPECIALLY when LN isn't even ready?