What is UASF exactly?

[OmegaStarScream]

I'm not sure I'm getting it? is UASF another version of SegWit that could (and should) be activated right away without the need of miners signalling it? If yes, then wouldn't that be the exact definition of "centralization"?

[1714005712]

1714005712

[1714005712]

1714005712

[1714005712]

1714005712

[1714005712]

1714005712

[Lauda]

I'm not sure I'm getting it? is UASF another version of SegWit that could (and should) be activated right away without the need of miners signalling it?

Yes, and no. Obviously Bitcoin can't fork without miners in its current state, therefore at least *some* signalling is required. The more the better.

If yes, then wouldn't that be the exact definition of "centralization"?

No.
What it basically does is that it sets a flag day at which the miner/pool would produce Segwit blocks. This proposal does require wast support from the users & economy to work though. Generally it seems that this support already exists. All >= 0.13.1 Bitcoin Core nodes are compatible with it, and it should be compatible with any other existing Segwit implementations.
Notes:
- This proposal is in its early stages and is still being worked on / fixed.
- It is not within Bitcoin Core, but exists as a *patch* from an unknown third party on Github.

[iamnotback]

I'm not sure I'm getting it? is UASF another version of SegWit that could (and should) be activated right away without the need of miners signalling it?

Yes, and no. Obviously Bitcoin can't fork without miners in its current state, therefore at least *some* signalling is required. The more the better.

You guys seem to think the UASF is controlled by the hashrate of the system, but I think I've argued quite convincingly else where, that sufficiently organized whales are superior and are the actual economic majority.

uasf will kick miners out if they dont behave

I already agreed in my prior post. And are you satisfied with the UASF being in centralized control?

Do you know who is the $billionaire leader of (or leading spokesman for his cohort whales who comprise) the actual "UASF" (i.e. the economic majority)?

http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/

Here is more about him.

Here is one quote from him:

I wouldn't really have even bothered with this article if there wasn't a third paragraph there, because contrary to what the stupid imagine, I don't use them for dissection material in order to hurt and humiliate them.

It's not about them, I couldn't care less about them, they're not human as far as I'm concerned. Just like I'm all in favour of butchering a million or a billion, or however many cute fluffy bunny rabbits, be it for making medicine, or cosmetics, or music out of their cries of agony, or whatever else - I'm equally in favour of torturing, mistreating and abusing the stupid in absolutely any way. That's what they're here for, after all, and if that's what gets you off by all means, who cares.

It doesn't really do anything for me, but nevertheless I will dissect them, with no regard to their own whatever bullshit, if I figure I could use the parts to teach, illuminate and instruct people about stupidity. And so here we go, check out the spots on Miscreanity's liver.

Shelby; If you would need to assess the relative seniority of me and Mircea Popescu, which criteria would you use?

Hi Risto. Please excuse my atrocious ignorance, naivete, and cluelessness w.r.t. the underworld of darkhigh finance. This is a strange new terrain for me. I feel like a child who is struggling to take his first steps without stumbling onto my face.

In particular I would really like to understand what is different if anything about your perspective/approach compared to MP's economic philosophy and assessment of the value of humanity. MP seems to think those with the most wealth should be in control of the monetary system yet he hates democracy and mass marketing because he sees those as ways of enslaving the stupid masses in a farcical, house-of-cards, debt-based economic system. Perhaps it can't be any other way? My technological approach with my attempt to find an improvement to Satoshi's design, has been to try to find a design in which nobody is in control.

So I would judge your ability to enlighten me on these issues—either in public or private communication—as the critieria.

Without publicizing any specific event, your actions indicate you are wealthy.

He wrote about you:

Assuming your the real MP what are your thoughts on the wacky Finnish 'supernode' guy?

Pretty good job.

Mircea Popescu is the owner of MPEX which is pretty much the buttcoin stock exchange, he's famous for lasting longer than most bitcoin businesses without failing and hiring an ex-spammer to do PR on bitcointalk despite her having the same level of charm and interpersonal skills as Josh.

No, actually, most recently I'm famous for fixing the price of Bitcoin back in early April, muchly humiliating Max Keiser in the process, and for leading the MtGox collapse by about two months. The rumour du jour at the Google I/O sloppy seconds conference thing they're doing currently is that in fact Gox' demise was pre-arranged and then announced privately to a secret group during my private and at the time secret conference last month.

Before that I was famous for calling various other "news" and "shocking & surprising developments" a month or two in advance, the girls are keeping a list somewhere.

I work with poor people from a third world, Spanish speaking island called "Holyoke, Massachusetts". If they have Internet, it's through their phones, because they can't afford that and a modern pc, cable Internet, or a car, etc. How the hell are they supposed to download a 10 gigabyte block chain? I guess they could give out the block chain on DVD or Blu-Ray. Ok, to use this currency, first you need a copy of every transaction anybody has ever made...

I'm pretty sure nobody involved actually cares about these guys you work with, or poor people in general. This is a little like asking "but how are the thirld worlders from Holyoke Mass going to handle their own private jets". Well... they aren't.

1) Butts don't scale up at all.
2) Because of 1, decreasing mining rewards, greed and mining being ruled by an oligopoly transaction fees will skyrocket.
3) Butts are inconvenient.
4) Butts are insecure.

Why bitcoins will ultimately go down:
2) Exchanges are run by idiots. This is where the government already intervened.
3) Everyone who uses butts is either an idiot (largest proportion), scammer or otherwise criminal and oftentimes both at the same time. This is the case because non-dumbs and people with legal transactions can easily use other services.
4) This is a long shot, but I believe in the future all transactions will have names attached to them and cash will be phased out. It's just a matter of adoption and convenience now.

Apparently you're unaware who exactly you're talking to, which is chuckle worthy. Here's a thought : at the last count I was worth something north of 3/4 million Butts. Now what ?
(Yes, your numbered list consists of nonsense, most of it self-defeating, some of it self contradictory etc. But that's neither here nor there, what's a list these days, anyone's got one.)

In the last statement quoted above, MP is referring to the fact that what the USG.MIT mass media is painting onto Bitcoin is not what Bitcoin really is. Behind the curtain are whales who are changing the world from a debt-based industrial age to a more meritocratic knowledge age. Again I more than concur with MP's logic on this facet, and I even wrote my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of [Usury] Finance essay several years before the first instance of a similar elucidation I've found from him on his blog (of course he may have had those ideas much earlier, ditto for myself).

Perhaps I don't have the same valuation of humanity as he does. I don't entirely devalue the poor. Maybe he has similar logic to mine and just isn't communicating his ideas effectively to me. Essentially my major disagreement with MP seems to revolve around the mathematical fact which MP also derived, that is essentially Taleb's anti-fragility. It seems that MP punts to a hierarchical system of control, e.g. Satoshi's PoW ledger. But what if instead we had a way to encode the laws of physics into a monetary ledger such that nobody was in control, i.e. not a winner-take-all power vacuum of non-resilience? Wouldn't that be preferred?

What do you think about the developers frequently receiving threats by bitcoiners? Or the guild and certain developers trying to push for a centralised validation services?

Bitcointalk is a collection of mostly poor, mostly uneducated, mostly bizarre folk you wouldn't have on your lawn/daughter/whatever. The various shit they do is representative of Bitcoin in the sense Jeremiah Wright is representative of xtians or Cornel West is representative of academia. Specifically about threaths... I get threatened all the time on teh Interwebs. I've never managed to care (yes I'm aware "the FBI takes internet threats very seriously", but I've never managed to care about that, either).

People will always try to push for centralised something or the other as long as they figure they'll have more market share of the centralised thing than they do now. As various failures are pushed aside to rot into irrelevance they're certain to try and find some sympathetic ear to enforce protectionist measures for them too (que Winklewhoever doods ranting about "regulation"). That topic is best served here.

In short I don't think either are suprising or important.

[Carlton Banks]

You guys seem to think the UASF is controlled by the hashrate of the system, but I think I've argued quite convincingly else where, that sufficiently organized whales are superior and are the actual economic majority.

BIP148 UASF will be determined by 1 thing alone, midnight of November 15th 2017.  Nothing to do with hashrate (you're right there) and nothing to do with whales (where you're wrong)

Please don't reply, you're a waste of time and space

[Xester]

I'm not sure I'm getting it? is UASF another version of SegWit that could (and should) be activated right away without the need of miners signalling it? If yes, then wouldn't that be the exact definition of "centralization"?

There is a huge movement and development in the bitcoin industry. The community was flooded by the fighting of greedy miners competing with its other as to whom will the control over the bitcoin production will go to. But the users, exchanges and the economic players are tired of this debates and fights as it is the money of the players, holders and investors are at stake. Thus Super UASF was born and this time as a revolution against the miners. With UASF the one to decide what changes are going to take place in the bitcoin code are the economic players and not the miners.

[lurker10]

UASF is clearly an effort to re-define what Bitcoin is.

From Bitcoin Paper by Great Satoshi Nakamoto Himself here is how consensus in original Bitcoin which is based on Proof-of-Work should be established. Miners use their CPU power to establish it. Quote:

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."

Establishing consensus with anything other than proof-of-work is not original Bitcoin. I don't say it will be a wrong kind of Bitcoin, it's just not original from Satoshi Nakamoto, that's all.

[Velkro]

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."

Establishing consensus with anything other than proof-of-work is not original Bitcoin. I don't say it will be a wrong kind of Bitcoin, it's just not original from Satoshi Nakamoto, that's all.

True words sir i agree. I only ask myself if Satoshi predicted very specific cases like big miners coalition to attack the network.
We will see how it will go in reality.

[Carlton Banks]

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."

Establishing consensus with anything other than proof-of-work is not original Bitcoin. I don't say it will be a wrong kind of Bitcoin, it's just not original from Satoshi Nakamoto, that's all.

True words sir i agree. I only ask myself if Satoshi predicted very specific cases like big miners coalition to attack the network.
We will see how it will go in reality.

Well, if that was true, Satoshi was happy with it. BIPs in the past were activated this way, while Satoshi was still around to object, which he did not.

[paul gatt]

UASF is probably a new solution to solve the current problem and end the war between miners and others. It is a proposal and is still in the research stage, perhaps it is a solution for segwit. Everyone is tired of the current situation, so I hope it will be a good solution, and the fight will be over. Everything is back to normal and bitcoin continues to lead. There are so many altcoins boom over the past, this shows that bitcoin are more competitors. That is a disturbing thing.

[iamnotback]

You guys seem to think the UASF is controlled by the hashrate of the system, but I think I've argued quite convincingly else where, that sufficiently organized whales are superior and are the actual economic majority.

BIP148 UASF will be determined by 1 thing alone, midnight of November 15th 2017.  Nothing to do with hashrate (you're right there) and nothing to do with whales (where you're wrong)

Please don't reply, you're a waste of time and space

Carlton you're a moronmisinformed.

Nodes don't control the outcome, only hashrate does. Well actually the economic majority does. And the sufficiently organized whales are superior when it comes to a hashrate war (this was explained in great detail in the discussion between @dinofelis and myself in the other thread).

The nodes that refuse to mine on the longest-chain will waste their hashrate and bankrupt themselves.

UASF is clearly an effort to re-define what Bitcoin is.

Only the whales (if sufficiently organized) will decide which protocol goes up in price and which one goes to 0.

If the whales are not united, then maybe BIP148 will have some relevancy but it is a power vacuum of democracy thus it will be manipulated or we will have chaos.

We are trying to end voting and democracy, because they don't work. Instead idealistically we want a meritocracy where nobody has control (not even the economic majority), but it is not known if that is feasible (most believe it is not). Satoshi's PoW is flawed and that is why it is devolving like this.

[Carlton Banks]

Nodes don't control the outcome, only hashrate does. Well actually the economic majority does. And the sufficiently organized whales are superior when it comes to a hashrate war (this was explained in great detail in the discussion between @dinofelis and myself in the other thread).

The nodes that refuse to mine on the longest-chain will waste their hashrate and bankrupt themselves.

What if BTC with PoW changed has the larger network, the Bitcoin devs, the larger transaction rate, and the larger market cap ?


Longest chain has nothing to do with anything in 2017, Bitcoin moved away from longest-chain = valid-chain a long time ago anyway, and given what I've described, even the chain with the most cumulative PoW won't matter.




Now, stop wasting everyone's time, you've already been told

[iamnotback]

Nodes don't control the outcome, only hashrate does. Well actually the economic majority does. And the sufficiently organized whales are superior when it comes to a hashrate war (this was explained in great detail in the discussion between @dinofelis and myself in the other thread).

The nodes that refuse to mine on the longest-chain will waste their hashrate and bankrupt themselves.

What if BTC with PoW changed has the larger network, the Bitcoin devs, the larger transaction rate, and the larger market cap ?

Read this post and then this page of the thread. I hope you can assimilate all that without me having to write a single post which tries to glue all that together for the reader.

If sufficiently organized, nothing can defeat the control of the whales (other than a larger economic whale such as the Chinese government).

Longest chain has nothing to do with anything in 2017, Bitcoin moved away from longest-chain = valid-chain a long time ago anyway, and given what I've described, even the chain with the most cumulative PoW won't matter.

Bwrahahaha.

Without a longest-chain rule then consensus is impossible and double-spends are trivial. Dude you've entirely forgotten or never learned Bitcoin 101.

Now, stop wasting everyone's time, you've already been told

Talking about Bitcoin doesn't make you important. Especially when you're incompetent.

I wasn't disrespectful to you, nor even frank about your technological incompetence until you started this authoritarian condescending ad hominem. You started this unnecessary and useless acrimony. You don't have any control over my competency and therefor my importance. Democracy and politics is dead or dying. Meritocracy is what wins now.

[Carlton Banks]

Everyone and anyone knows Bitcoin follows the longest chain, but also the chain with the most proof of work.

Welcome to 2010 (when Satoshi changed from longest chain wins to longest chain + most PoW wins).

[iamnotback]

Everyone and anyone knows Bitcoin follows the longest chain, but also the chain with the most proof of work.

Welcome to 2010 (when Satoshi changed from longest chain wins to longest chain + most PoW wins).

You're playing irrelevant semantic definition of terms diversion. The longest-chain is the one with the most PoW in which the length is correctly calculated by cumulative difficulty.

Just because the longest-chain was incorrectly measured in the past doesn't mean that the longest-chain means today anything other than the "longest cumulative difficulty in a chain of blocks which are linked by cryptographic hashes". Do you really expect someone to write that quoted text instead of the short-hand "longest-chain".

[Kprawn]

I'm not sure I'm getting it? is UASF another version of SegWit that could (and should) be activated right away without the need of miners signalling it?

Yes, and no. Obviously Bitcoin can't fork without miners in its current state, therefore at least *some* signalling is required. The more the better.

If yes, then wouldn't that be the exact definition of "centralization"?

No.
What it basically does is that it sets a flag day at which the miner/pool would produce Segwit blocks. This proposal does require wast support from the users & economy to work though. Generally it seems that this support already exists. All >= 0.13.1 Bitcoin Core nodes are compatible with it, and it should be compatible with any other existing Segwit implementations.
Notes:
- This proposal is in its early stages and is still being worked on / fixed.
- It is not within Bitcoin Core, but exists as a *patch* from an unknown third party on Github.

I wonder how many people will be satisfied to run code that were committed by a unknown third party? We know code are scrutinized by peer

review and nothing will be accepted, if it contains serious flaws or code that would compromise Bitcoin, but people want to blame someone if

something goes wrong... On the other side, if good code is anonymous, it could go through without all of this drama. 

[Carlton Banks]

Everyone and anyone knows Bitcoin follows the longest chain, but also the chain with the most proof of work.

Welcome to 2010 (when Satoshi changed from longest chain wins to longest chain + most PoW wins).

You're playing irrelevant semantic definition of terms diversion. The longest-chain is the one with the most PoW in which the length is correctly calculated by cumulative difficulty.

Just because the longest-chain was incorrectly measured in the past doesn't mean that the longest-chain means today anything other than the "longest cumulative difficulty in a chain of blocks which are linked by cryptographic hashes". Do you really expect someone to write that quoted text instead of the short-hand "longest-chain".

Everything you're saying is a diversion anyway


Longest chain, most PoW, does not matter once the 2 chains are separate, they're separate coins at that point. And that is the point.

So, saying miners are compelled to follow the longest chain is meaningless. By that logic, there would be no altcoins in existence, as they would all have to observe the chain with the most PoW. Which is demonstratively untrue, to wit: a thousand altcoins.


You made 2 false claims. I've demonstrated them false.

Apologise.

[iamnotback]

Everyone and anyone knows Bitcoin follows the longest chain, but also the chain with the most proof of work.

Welcome to 2010 (when Satoshi changed from longest chain wins to longest chain + most PoW wins).

You're playing irrelevant semantic definition of terms diversion. The longest-chain is the one with the most PoW in which the length is correctly calculated by cumulative difficulty.

Just because the longest-chain was incorrectly measured in the past doesn't mean that the longest-chain means today anything other than the "longest cumulative difficulty in a chain of blocks which are linked by cryptographic hashes". Do you really expect someone to write that quoted text instead of the short-hand "longest-chain".

Everything you're saying is a diversion anyway

Longest chain, most PoW, does not matter once the 2 chains are separate, they're separate coins at that point. And that is the point.

So, saying miners are compelled to follow the longest chain is meaningless. By that logic, there would be no altcoins in existence, as they would all have to observe the chain with the most PoW. Which is demonstratively untrue, to wit: a thousand altcoins.

You made 2 false claims. I've demonstrated them false.

Apologise.

You will need to apologize after you read what you were told to read:

Read this post and then this page of the thread. I hope you can assimilate all that without me having to write a single post which tries to glue all that together for the reader.

If sufficiently organized, nothing can defeat the control of the whales (other than a larger economic whale such as the Chinese government).

And realize that the whales' can kill the fork because they already own tokens in both forks from the inception.

And that is what makes it different from launching an altcoin.

Details matter.

Now I've got important work to do. So please stop putting your foot in your mouth at my expense.

[Carlton Banks]

I know all these things.

What you're failing to appreciate is the amount of trust required to handle huge sums of BTC in such fraught circumstances. If you don't own the keys, you don't own the BTC, and depositing thousands of BTC to exchange-owned addresses is not going to be a comfortable move at a time like that.

Where are these whales going to deposit to sell or short? Coinbase? Shapeshift? BTC-e? Bitsquare? MPeX itself? The potential for losing in all sorts of ways, both internal to those exchanges or by external forces are too risky in a post hardfork cirmcumstance.


And how, oh how, will the whales get the BTC to an exchange, when BU miners are actively DoS'ing the BTC chain, as they've stated is their intention?


Details do matter.

That's a lot of ifs, so maybe your "important work" should begin with getting a proper sense of perspective

[iamnotback]

I [didn't] know all these things [and I still don't].

Backsplaining.

What you'rey I always failing to appreciate...

Okay it's a Freudian slip...

...is the amount of trust required to handle huge sums of BTC in such fraught circumstances. If you don't own the keys, you don't own the BTC, and depositing thousands of BTC to exchange-owned addresses is not going to be a comfortable move at a time like that.

Oh you mean literally piddling 1000s of BTC otherwise known as less than 0.1% of the whales' capital.

The tail really does wag the dog in your reality.

If there was/is big money in exchanges, the whales own them.

Details do matter.

That's a lot of ifs, so maybe your "important work" should begin with getting a proper sense of perspective

Indeed. The perspective that I am wasting my time talking to a misinformedmoronic person.

Misinformed people recognize when they've been corrected. Stupid people insist.

[Carlton Banks]

How will the whales shortsell BTU if their BTC is already at the exchanges?


They must withdraw before the fork, the exchanges aren't going to just gift them their BTU doublings when the blockchain forks.



Again: How, then, will these whales get their BTC to the exchanges to shortsell with, in those circumstances? BTC chain won't work under BU hashpower attack, therefore they won't be able to


Again: Which exchange can the whales trust in those circumstances? It's a very dicey move