Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell

[TKeenan]

As for this particular thread, since it doesn't directly discuss an alternative client, it's unlikely this thread would have been moved anyway, even under the old rules.  

Are you kidding me?  They still censor me ALL the time.  More than half the stuff I post gets clipped.  The forum remains biased.  But, I do think their censorship did ultimately have a very bad opposite effect.  BU started to get popular when people started to notice en masse that Core was trying to silence the opposing argument.  So, I'd have to say they got what they deserved.  People who enjoy the philosophy of Bitcoin - don't really care much for things like censorship.

PhDs or not, they should have figured that out.  Core guys aren't really very good at figuring some things.

[1714179371]

1714179371

[1714179371]

1714179371

[1714179371]

1714179371

[1714179371]

1714179371

[Hyena]

As for this particular thread, since it doesn't directly discuss an alternative client, it's unlikely this thread would have been moved anyway, even under the old rules.  

Are you kidding me?  They still censor me ALL the time.  More than half the stuff I post gets clipped.  The forum remains biased.  But, I do think their censorship did ultimately have a very bad opposite effect.  BU started to get popular when people started to notice en masse that Core was trying to silence the opposing argument.  So, I'd have to say they got what they deserved.  People who enjoy the philosophy of Bitcoin - don't really care much for things like censorship.

PhDs or not, they should have figured that out.  Core guys aren't really very good at figuring some things.

That's exactly why I started to promote BU and discredit and disrespect Segwit / Core everywhere on the Internet where I go. My topic got moved to altcoins section when I wanted to help to solve the block size problem constructively in the Bitcoin technical forums. For me censorship is like a red towel to a bull. I didn't care much about the debate nor about high TX fees because for me they are not too high and I always use estimateTxFee to get my TXs confirmed in 10 minutes like in the good old times. But censoring me, it's like a personal insult!

[lurker10]

That's exactly why I started to promote BU and discredit and disrespect Segwit / Core everywhere on the Internet where I go. My topic got moved to altcoins section when I wanted to help to solve the block size problem constructively in the Bitcoin technical forums. For me censorship is like a red towel to a bull. I didn't care much about the debate nor about high TX fees because for me they are not too high and I always use estimateTxFee to get my TXs confirmed in 10 minutes like in the good old times. But censoring me, it's like a personal insult!

You are not alone there.
Nobody did more to help BU than Core themselves with their censoring. Roger Ver and Jihan pale in comparison. Every day new users who were censored or shadow banned on reddit.com/r/bitcoin come to /r/btc where they can enjoy free speech.

[jonald_fyookball]

So much hate by people that don't contribute anything else but forum posts. Meanwhile Gmaxwell has uncovered the ASICBOOT thing and continues improving Core software. You are all amateurs.

Go read Sam Cole's piece on ASICBOOST.  You are the fucking amateur.

I don't understand the part about why he said it would make zero sense
to split have the cores on a chip...and that would be retarded engineering,
(but Bitmain somehow accomplished this anyway??)

[Alex.BTC]

This whole ASICBoost bullshit is yet another distraction from Blockstream/Core keeping the blocksize at 1M and screwing everyone else over.

ASICBoost was out of the bag ages ago, patents don't stop any nameless mining farm from building their own ASICBoost rigs. If Core don't like ASICBoost, they should just fix the damn code instead of crying about it every year.

The ASICBoost write paper used way too much tech jargon, and when it comes to implementations all you get is "We will not discuss the optimal solution in this paper, but further information can be provided by the author on request."

So a year later half the devs still don't know how it works, if the devs can't even figure it out, it'll be even worse for users, so you end up with all these trolls trying to get away with making the most ridiculous statements, creating new enemy-of-the-week trying to distract people from Blockstream/Core's own fuck ups.

ASICBoost is:
1. A programming short cut of using 3 sha256 operations instead of 4 when mining a block hash.

2. It is possible because sha256 processes data in 64 bytes chunks, but the header is 80 bytes long.

3. So the block header is split into 2 chunks when sha256 computes its hash.

4. The merkle root inside the block header, spans over the position that sha256 split the chunks.

5. The merkle root is 32 bytes, 28 bytes of it (head) ended up in the first chunk, 4 bytes of it (tail) ended up in the 2nd chunk.

6. The second chunk has 16 bytes of data and 48 bytes of padding.

7. Of the 16 bytes of the data in the second chunk, 4bytes is the merkle root tail, the other 12 bytes are  time/difficulty/nonce, all known values by the miner.

8. That means if a miner can generate a bunch of hash with the same last 4 bytes, then the entire 2nd chunk, all 16+48 bytes of it becomes a fixed known value.

9. A fixed value means it can be reused, this allows miners to simplify the sha256 mining loop, so that it only uses 3 sha256 operations instead of 4 and increase efficiency.

10. The more 'hash with the same last 4 bytes' a miner can generate, the more times they can use the short cut, the more performance gain, this process is called 'finding partial hash collision'.

11. To generate these partial hash collisions, miners have to keep changing the data on the block then get a new hash at high speed, but different ways have different costs, only a few of them is worth while.

12. One of the fastest way to find hash collisions is to keep changing the extranonce in the coinbase, at the same time keep reordering tx in the block. This modifies both side of the merkle tree parallelly and allow further math shortcuts to take place.

13. Changing the coinbase and reordering tx is computationally costly, it is only worthwhile if you can do both at the same time without affecting each other.

14. In regular Bitcoin, modifying tx changes the right side of the merkle tree, and modifying the coinbase changes the left side of the merkle tree, the coinbase on the left doesn't care what happens to the tx on the right, and vice versa. There are no double overhead modifying data on any side, so in the end you can gain a 20% advantage with ASICBoost.

15. But if the coinbase merkle root includes the hash of all the tx, then ASICBoost is no longer worth the effort, in fact it'd make mining slower, because now every time you reorder the tx, the coinbase also changes, and you have to use an extra 10 or so operations to update the left side of the merkle tree. That 20% advantage is gone.

16. This is what happens in BIP-141 SegWit, the coinbase has a new merkle root call the 'witness root hash', that includes all regular and side tx. This makes the reordering tx also updates the coinbase, miners have to run extra operations for each reordering, this double overhead makes it too costly to use ASICBoost.

17. Extension Block is base on BIP-141, they have the same commitment structure, so Extension Block is immune to ASICBoost.

18. If anyone is using ASICBoost, the 'overt' method involves modifying block header data directly, so you'll see strange version numbers and other weird data, the 'covert' method involves reordering of tx, or empty blocks, these are also obvious.

19. If there is a new way to use ASICBoost without obvious side effects, then it's just another valid optimization on generating hash, optimization happens all the time.

20. The excuse of ASICBoost patent may lead to centralization is also silly, there are so many patent involved with mining already, from chip to connectors to cooling, everywhere you look there is a patent. Mining is so competitive, every year there are a bunch of new optimizations with a new bunch of patents. The biggest problem with ASICBoost is once it's used, it'll leave obvious patterns in the blockchain, the anomalies will be spotted very quickly.

[Alex.BTC]

https://twitter.com/el33th4xor/status/851412199910322176
Emin Gün Sirer: Bitcoin's big mistake was centralizing the client and the dev team. Getting those decentralized will be as painful as it is essential.

There are large amount of fake supporters for BlockStream/Core/SegWit:
https://twitter.com/nikzh/status/851398297491296256
Nikita Zhavoronkov: Much Sybil. Such attack!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9DF9WzXUAALuvw.jpg

BlockStream is probably building their own botnet for UASF.

[TKeenan]

There are large amount of fake supporters for BlockStream/Core/SegWit:
https://twitter.com/nikzh/status/851398297491296256
Nikita Zhavoronkov: Much Sybil. Such attack!

Ethically speaking, Blockstream/Core are just about the lowest you can go.  Adam Back and Greg Maxwell are poison and have to be eliminated despite their fancy PhD.  We can't have a centralized, for profit head of Bitcoin.  That is all Blockstream and AXA are trying to bring forth.  Time to get a few guys with technical competence and no paycheck from Adam Back to retake over Core.

[Hyena]

There are large amount of fake supporters for BlockStream/Core/SegWit:
https://twitter.com/nikzh/status/851398297491296256
Nikita Zhavoronkov: Much Sybil. Such attack!

Ethically speaking, Blockstream/Core are just about the lowest you can go.  Adam Back and Greg Maxwell are poison and have to be eliminated despite their fancy PhD.  We can't have a centralized, for profit head of Bitcoin.  That is all Blockstream and AXA are trying to bring forth.  Time to get a few guys with technical competence and no paycheck from Adam Back to retake over Core.

We need a new dev team that would take a name Bitcoin-Core to show the world how stupid it is to follow one particular branch of development as if it was the sole owner of the Bitcoin network. Also that new dev team should implement Flexible Transactions but they should name it SegWit. Sure there will be confusion but there's nothing worth saving in the current core camp.

[traincarswreck]

We need a new dev team that would take a name Bitcoin-Core

As it stands anyone can contribute to Core, because core is NOT single dev team, but a composite of many different individuals and sub teams.  You are directly and perfectly calling for a coup of the decentralization core and asking it to be replaced with single entity. Core is comprised of 100's of contributors and more and more as time goes by.  BU is comprised of a dozen or so devs that don't understand decentralization and open source.

[franky1]

We need a new dev team that would take a name Bitcoin-Core

As it stands anyone can contribute to Core, because core is NOT single dev team, but a composite of many different individuals and sub teams.  

??anyone can contribute ??lol
what a laugh

anyone can put in a spell check edit (pull request) of a document and if seen as someone the maintainer likes, it gets added.
but as for trying to actually change to dynamics with core code of the actual code rules.. forget it

many have tried
and guess who is usually the main names that Nack (not acknowledge)

You are directly and perfectly calling for a coup of the decentralization core and asking it to be replaced with single entity. Core is comprised of 100's of contributors and more and more as time goes by.

i feel hyena is more so asking to get rid of the blockstream puppetmasters. to actually have core become unbiased

BU is comprised of a dozen or so devs that don't understand decentralization and open source.

if core was really "independent". then technically they would not be dependant on core and could help out with other implementations with out any repercussions or threats of being REKT by leaving core..

yet the history shows if you leave core your instantly REKT.

just look what your own words are saying .. core are a group of X but BU are Y.. if core are independent then why be so bold as to try tarnishing anything not core why not just say BU needs more devs and core devs are free to help out anyone or any brand with no arrogant insulting childish 'eww your leaving the cool kids and playing with the the small kids' name calling

[traincarswreck]

No but seriously, core is not a team, its an open source project anyone can contribute too and get involved with.  BU you have to be voted into the club.  Core has 100's of contributors and I can't do anything about BU having only a about a dozen.

You can't get kicked out of core or leave.  It's not a club you join like bu with membership rules. 

I understand now you just can't understand this concept of decentralization and open contribution.  I suppose now no bu supporters do.

[AngryDwarf]

No but seriously, core is not a team, its an open source project anyone can contribute too and get involved with.  BU you have to be voted into the club.  Core has 100's of contributors and I can't do anything about BU having only a about a dozen.

You can't get kicked out of core or leave.  It's not a club you join like bu with membership rules.  

I understand now you just can't understand this concept of decentralization and open contribution.  I suppose now no bu supporters do.

Thats why it can be cloned when the source code maintainers don't like your ideas and don't give you the key to the door. This happens with many open source projects. People have different ideas on how things can be implemented. Some solutions are superior, others are just different approaches.
The difference with bitcoin is that people only have to comply with a protocol. The code is not the protocol.

As for BU, is there nothing stopping people submitting a pull request, or opening issues? Same with core, classic, xt. They are all clubs if you like, that can decide to accept or reject your pull request, or may respond with different ideas to the issue that you opened.

[Alex.BTC]

Ethically speaking, Blockstream/Core are just about the lowest you can go.  Adam Back and Greg Maxwell are poison and have to be eliminated despite their fancy PhD.  We can't have a centralized, for profit head of Bitcoin.  That is all Blockstream and AXA are trying to bring forth.  Time to get a few guys with technical competence and no paycheck from Adam Back to retake over Core.

I haven't seen such sustained blatant evilness in open source for years.

All the Blockstream tactics are straight out of the banking cartel's playbook.

[traincarswreck]

As for BU, is there nothing stopping people submitting a pull request, or opening issues? Same with core, classic, xt. They are all clubs if you like, that can decide to accept or reject your pull request, or may respond with different ideas to the issue that you opened.

I can't be anything clearer, you have to be a member of BU to make a proposal, and so you have to be invited be the existing membership, which created and invited itself.  It cannot be any more a setup for a dictatorship who's sole intention is to usurp power from the decentralized structure.

This is why there is 100's of core contributor's which is not a single team but many teams and many individuals versus a very very small handful that is the clique that is BU.

[hv_]

As for BU, is there nothing stopping people submitting a pull request, or opening issues? Same with core, classic, xt. They are all clubs if you like, that can decide to accept or reject your pull request, or may respond with different ideas to the issue that you opened.

I can't be anything clearer, you have to be a member of BU to make a proposal, and so you have to be invited be the existing membership, which created and invited itself.  It cannot be any more a setup for a dictatorship who's sole intention is to usurp power from the decentralized structure.

This is why there is 100's of core contributor's which is not a single team but many teams and many individuals versus a very very small handful that is the clique that is BU.

You are the ideal buddy.

What do you think, ideal code should look like for your ideal money solution?

Would you think it should have thousans of lines with thousands of params?

Or just minimal lines with minimal param set?

I suggest you should apply for BU membership!

[AngryDwarf]

As for BU, is there nothing stopping people submitting a pull request, or opening issues? Same with core, classic, xt. They are all clubs if you like, that can decide to accept or reject your pull request, or may respond with different ideas to the issue that you opened.

I can't be anything clearer, you have to be a member of BU to make a proposal, and so you have to be invited be the existing membership, which created and invited itself.  It cannot be any more a setup for a dictatorship who's sole intention is to usurp power from the decentralized structure.

This is why there is 100's of core contributor's which is not a single team but many teams and many individuals versus a very very small handful that is the clique that is BU.

So are you saying you have to be a member to create a BUIP? Is it not possible to propose a change to them for which they may create a BUIP for it? How significantly different is this to creating a BIP, which has to go through an approval process?

[The One]

Just a reminder. SegWit is a transaction limit proposal, and if activated it will be much harder to increase transaction capacity on chain knowing that post SegWit increases comes with 4X the block weight. 


here are the economic policies being pushed by incumbent developers - they unanimously support limiting bitcoin transaction:

“There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.“

“we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later”

“Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome.”

“Reasonable block sizes currently range from ~550k to 1 MB"

“…higher fees may be just what is needed…”

“A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions.”

The lot of them above are talking bollocks. The problem with computer geeks is that they are brilliant at computer programming but piss poor at understand economics. That is true of every geek i've met in my life.

[cryptoanarchist]

The lot of them above are talking bollocks. The problem with computer geeks is that they are brilliant at computer programming but piss poor at understand economics. That is true of every geek i've met in my life.

Hey, not every geek! I got into Bitcoin in 2011 because I understood the economic principles. I still don't understand the specifics of the code, but understood from the outset why bitcoin would succeed against crap like say, the LETS system. Mostly due to the fact that I had been trying to establish private value backed currency for 4 years prior.

The problem is that as soon as Silk Road got popular and drew attention from the powers that be, a lot of money was pumped into hiring kids out of college that had tech skills but zero understanding of how banks are a scam and that how bitcoin was designed as a system to bring banks down to rubble. Mostly they had a couple decades of state-sponsored brainwashing and couldn't understand how money could exist outside the state and went to work trying to make it succeed at exactly opposite of what it was built to do.

I suspect a lot of these new coders are even from privileged families and are completely aware of the nonsense they are promoting. Some kid with blue hair goes straight from college to heading a 75 million dollar company? I call bullshit. Who are this kid's parents?

[traincarswreck]

Hey, not every geek! I got into Bitcoin in 2011 because I understood the economic principles. I still don't understand the specifics of the code, but understood from the outset why bitcoin would succeed against crap like say, the LETS system. Mostly due to the fact that I had been trying to establish private value backed currency for 4 years prior.

The problem is that as soon as Silk Road got popular and drew attention from the powers that be, a lot of money was pumped into hiring kids out of college that had tech skills but zero understanding of how banks are a scam and that how bitcoin was designed as a system to bring banks down to rubble. Mostly they had a couple decades of state-sponsored brainwashing and couldn't understand how money could exist outside the state and went to work trying to make it succeed at exactly opposite of what it was built to do.

I suspect a lot of these new coders are even from privileged families and are completely aware of the nonsense they are promoting. Some kid with blue hair goes straight from college to heading a 75 million dollar company? I call bullshit. Who are this kid's parents?

Are you claiming to have ever read a book on economics, because your post here seems to show you have zero understanding economics, macro economics, central banking, or the existing banking system works?

[traincarswreck]

The lot of them above are talking bollocks. The problem with computer geeks is that they are brilliant at computer programming but piss poor at understand economics. That is true of every geek i've met in my life.

Have you ever read a book on economics?