hypothesis: BU motivations (NO PROOF)

[jornaldobitcoin]

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

[jonald_fyookball]

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

I have no doubt banks are plotting something sinister with hashing, but what does this have to do with the blocksize? 

I'm not seeing the connection...can you explain?

[Viscount]

Another BU shill? no need to speculate such complicated schemes. It's just chinese miners and Vermin trying to take over bitcoin, just see some facts.

[Viscount]

It's obvious tactic of BTU shills to sow some discord and doubt and escalate FUD   

[jonald_fyookball]

It's obvious tactic of BTU shills to sow some discord and doubt and escalate FUD   

are you talking about OP or me?

[jornaldobitcoin]

no shills, i actually hate BU.Just worried and looking for concrete and substantiated feedback for my hypothesis.could you read it and point what is wrong?

[jonald_fyookball]

no shills, i actually hate BU.Just worried and looking for concrete and substantiated feedback for my hypothesis.could you read it and point what is wrong?

The thing is, anyone with 51% of the hashpower can attack the network and kill it -- they don't BU or anything else, or anyone's consensus or permission.
Also bigger blocks or smaller blocks do not affect this one way or another.   

[Yakamoto]

<snip>

I have no doubt banks are plotting something sinister with hashing, but what does this have to do with the blocksize? 

I'm not seeing the connection...can you explain?

Well, BU is a solution to a debate we're having in the community, and this might just be convenient timing for banks and they're exploiting the situation that has been made available to them.

While this is being slightly tinfoil-y there hasn't been a better opportunity for banks to step in and look to cement some power by offering a good solution to a problem that their opponent (us) is having. If your opponent is making a mistake, put on a mask and solve it for him. Make sure he owes you.

[jornaldobitcoin]

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

I have no doubt banks are plotting something sinister with hashing, but what does this have to do with the blocksize?  

I'm not seeing the connection...can you explain?

in this hypothesis they would be using blocksize discussion to divide and conquer.
They are already sold to the banks. No possibility of losing money.they sold their future mining operations, hardware, manufacturing.
It would create a possibility to stole bitcoin traction, name, or just try to hurt it for a cheaper cost of mining bankscoin in the future, or to prevent competition.
Users get hurt , at least in short term.
If someone reading this could make it reach higher levels in bitcoin community for analysis! i don´t want to spread this to the general public.

[Wind_FURY]

It's obvious tactic of BTU shills to sow some discord and doubt and escalate FUD   

are you talking about OP or me?

I do not think he is talking about you or singling you out. It is more about the Bitcoin Unlimited argument in general. Some big blockers take the issue away from the technicals and take it to the "Blockstream is evil". You have to admit that blatant misinformation drives are going on from both sides.

[jonald_fyookball]

It's obvious tactic of BTU shills to sow some discord and doubt and escalate FUD   

are you talking about OP or me?

I do not think he is talking about you or singling you out. It is more about the Bitcoin Unlimited argument in general. Some big blockers take the issue away from the technicals and take it to the "Blockstream is evil". You have to admit that blatant misinformation drives are going on from both sides.

look, divide and conquer is the oldest scheme in the book and could very well be going on.

But a lot of times one of the groups being conquered really did nothing wrong and is
being attacked and another group are useful idiots who are doing the attacking.  Think about it.

[Kakmakr]

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

I saw somewhere that the Current network is about 3,300,000 TH/s or +/- 240 000 Antminer S9's. So you would need about $250 000 000+ to do this. <120 000 Antminer S9's @ roughly $2100 US = $ 250 000 000 US> This is only for the miners without the other cost to setup the operation.

Banks have investors and even if they manage to stop Bitcoin, it would not be a guarantee that another Crypto currency that are ASIC resistant will not take it's place.  

[jonald_fyookball]

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

i've been thinking more about this and its' a great theory -- i think i was missing the point of what you were saying before...its not about BU, its about divide and conquer.  to me Core created a problem (by not raising 1mb)...BU trying to be solution...and then both sides just fight.  Brilliant!

[Xester]

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

You have a good imagination. Though your idea is far fetch and far from the truth but it can be real  sometime in the future. We can call your post a conspiracy theory since there are no solid evidence that can back up your claims thus it remains as a theory or a hypothesis that lacks clear proof. But the moment you post your idea here you are giving an idea to the miners a way to earn fast money without thinking the negative effects on bitcoin.

[thejaytiesto]

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

I have no doubt banks are plotting something sinister with hashing, but what does this have to do with the blocksize?  

I'm not seeing the connection...can you explain?

Isn't it obvious? Easy.

1) The banks push bitcoin unlimited

2) Bitcoin unlimited gives miners the control of the blocksize.

3) Miners can be easily bribed by big enough pockets.

4) Banks control bitcoin through the bribed miners which enabled software that gives them control (which gives the banks control thought them). Banks having control over the blocksize can cause havok at will in the community. They can choose to centralize the network or they can choose to kill bitcoin.

Therefore, our defense is to not give blocksize control to miners, in other words, reject bitcoin unlimited like the plague.

[jonald_fyookball]

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

I have no doubt banks are plotting something sinister with hashing, but what does this have to do with the blocksize?  

I'm not seeing the connection...can you explain?

Isn't it obvious? Easy.

1) The banks push bitcoin unlimited

2) Bitcoin unlimited gives miners the control of the blocksize.

3) Miners can be easily bribed by big enough pockets.

4) Banks control bitcoin through the bribed miners which enabled software that gives them control (which gives the banks control thought them). Banks having control over the blocksize can cause havok at will in the community. They can choose to centralize the network or they can choose to kill bitcoin.

Therefore, our defense is to not give blocksize control to miners, in other words, reject bitcoin unlimited like the plague.

see my other thread, which was inspired by this one.

Banks don't have to bribe miners, they can get almost free hash power by investing in cloud mining.  And they will play both sides of the scaling debate off each other, which is why miners voting won't work anymore. 

Big bitcoin players just need to agree on a scaling solution and execute leadership.

[jornaldobitcoin]

i do think it is a dangerous idea. i´am trying not to spread it but i don´t have connections with people that have capacity to verify this and i am trying to reach someone because bitcoin matters a lot to me.
I also ask you not to spread it to the general public yet.

[Wind_FURY]

It's obvious tactic of BTU shills to sow some discord and doubt and escalate FUD   

are you talking about OP or me?

I do not think he is talking about you or singling you out. It is more about the Bitcoin Unlimited argument in general. Some big blockers take the issue away from the technicals and take it to the "Blockstream is evil". You have to admit that blatant misinformation drives are going on from both sides.

look, divide and conquer is the oldest scheme in the book and could very well be going on.

But a lot of times one of the groups being conquered really did nothing wrong and is
being attacked and another group are useful idiots who are doing the attacking.  Think about it.

I believe that there is another unknown group trying to divide us. Whether that group is behind Core or Bitcoin Unlimited or both making them fight each other, I do not know. But whoever they are they are trying to wreck Bitcoin.

As a community why not reject both Core and BU and let us start thinking for ourselves.

[jonald_fyookball]

It's obvious tactic of BTU shills to sow some discord and doubt and escalate FUD   

are you talking about OP or me?

I do not think he is talking about you or singling you out. It is more about the Bitcoin Unlimited argument in general. Some big blockers take the issue away from the technicals and take it to the "Blockstream is evil". You have to admit that blatant misinformation drives are going on from both sides.

look, divide and conquer is the oldest scheme in the book and could very well be going on.

But a lot of times one of the groups being conquered really did nothing wrong and is
being attacked and another group are useful idiots who are doing the attacking.  Think about it.

I believe that there is another unknown group trying to divide us. Whether that group is behind Core or Bitcoin Unlimited or both making them fight each other, I do not know. But whoever they are they are trying to wreck Bitcoin.

As a community why not reject both Core and BU and let us start thinking for ourselves.

Absolutely.

Blockstream is the most obvious culprit here...but its possible BU is controlled opposition.

I always liked the idea of just removing the blocksize limit:  Keep in mind that when Satoshi
put in the 1mb, the average block size was 1kb... yep 1000 times smaller.

At this point, I'd be happy as a peach if everyone just got behind a hardfork to 32mb or 8mb.

[Wind_FURY]

It's obvious tactic of BTU shills to sow some discord and doubt and escalate FUD   

are you talking about OP or me?

I do not think he is talking about you or singling you out. It is more about the Bitcoin Unlimited argument in general. Some big blockers take the issue away from the technicals and take it to the "Blockstream is evil". You have to admit that blatant misinformation drives are going on from both sides.

look, divide and conquer is the oldest scheme in the book and could very well be going on.

But a lot of times one of the groups being conquered really did nothing wrong and is
being attacked and another group are useful idiots who are doing the attacking.  Think about it.

I believe that there is another unknown group trying to divide us. Whether that group is behind Core or Bitcoin Unlimited or both making them fight each other, I do not know. But whoever they are they are trying to wreck Bitcoin.

As a community why not reject both Core and BU and let us start thinking for ourselves.

Absolutely.

Blockstream is the most obvious culprit here...but its possible BU is controlled opposition.

I always liked the idea of just removing the blocksize limit:  Keep in mind that when Satoshi
put in the 1mb, the average block size was 1kb... yep 1000 times smaller.

At this point, I'd be happy as a peach if everyone just got behind a hardfork to 32mb or 8mb.

That does not compute. I have just read that the 1MB maxblocksize was added as an anti spam measure. We all know that the flooding of the mempool is because some group is spamming the network, so if we hard fork to an 32MB maxblocksize and some other group is not happy and decide to spam the network that will lead to more blockchain bloat.

[franky1]

That does not compute. I have just read that the 1MB maxblocksize was added as an anti spam measure. We all know that the flooding of the mempool is because some group is spamming the network, so if we hard fork to an 32MB maxblocksize and some other group is not happy and decide to spam the network that will lead to more blockchain bloat.

someone making 1mb of spam today will make 1mb of spam filling the baseblock after segwit activation with native keys.
so that no segwit tx's can fit txdata in the baseblock, thus not hang their sigs outside the baseblock.. thus not even use any of the 3mb extra weight but still have the 'blocks are full' issue.


someone making 1mb of spam today will make 1mb of segwit txdata spam filling the baseblock after segwit activation using segwit tx's. so that it has 2mb of txdata+sig spam and still no moral / normal user transactions able to get in

inshort: segwit does not stop spam because segwit is reliant on the baseblock.

[Wind_FURY]

That does not compute. I have just read that the 1MB maxblocksize was added as an anti spam measure. We all know that the flooding of the mempool is because some group is spamming the network, so if we hard fork to an 32MB maxblocksize and some other group is not happy and decide to spam the network that will lead to more blockchain bloat.

someone making 1mb of spam today will make 1mb of spam filling the baseblock after segwit activation with native keys.
so that no segwit tx's can fit txdata in the baseblock, thus not hang their sigs outside the baseblock.. thus not even use any of the 3mb extra weight but still have the 'blocks are full' issue.


someone making 1mb of spam today will make 1mb of segwit txdata spam filling the baseblock after segwit activation using segwit tx's. so that it has 2mb of txdata+sig spam and still no moral / normal user transactions able to get in

inshort: segwit does not stop spam because segwit is reliant on the baseblock.

Yes I agree the spamming will not stop as long as there are certain groups who are unhappy with the way things are now. I am sure there will be another group who will be unhappy if we hard fork to bigger blocks and have a new set of developers who may not be popular.

If that is a possible scenario then I ask this question from jonald_fyookball's ball comment.

At this point, I'd be happy as a peach if everyone just got behind a hardfork to 32mb or 8mb.

Will that lead to more blockchain bloat or not? There is also the mining centralization issue that comes with bigger blocks.

[jonald_fyookball]

That does not compute. I have just read that the 1MB maxblocksize was added as an anti spam measure. We all know that the flooding of the mempool is because some group is spamming the network, so if we hard fork to an 32MB maxblocksize and some other group is not happy and decide to spam the network that will lead to more blockchain bloat.

It would become pretty expensive to bloat a blockchain that had 32mb blocks.  Let's say a transaction is 0.5 kb, that's 2048 x 32 = 65,536 transactions per block.   At a nickel a transaction, that would be $3276.80.  That's just for one block.  That's $19,660.80 an hour, and $471,859.20 a day.  

[Wind_FURY]

That does not compute. I have just read that the 1MB maxblocksize was added as an anti spam measure. We all know that the flooding of the mempool is because some group is spamming the network, so if we hard fork to an 32MB maxblocksize and some other group is not happy and decide to spam the network that will lead to more blockchain bloat.

It would become pretty expensive to bloat a blockchain that had 32mb blocks.  Let's say a transaction is 0.5 kb, that's 2048 x 32 = 65,536 transactions per block.   At a nickel a transaction, that would be $3276.80.  That's just for one block.  That's $19,660.80 an hour, and $471,859.20 a day.  

But it is still hypothetically possible. Why not maintain the small maxblocksize as an anti spam measure and create an offchain transaction layer built on top that anyone is free to use.

I want to ask you, if Blockstream was not involved in any of this, are you open to a smaller maxblocksize and an offchain transaction layer for Bitcoin? Honestly.

[franky1]

Will that lead to more blockchain bloat or not? There is also the mining centralization issue that comes with bigger blocks.

miner centralisation?? nope

you do know that an ASIC has no hard drive.
ASICS do not store the blockchain and do not care about the data of a block or how big a block is.

an asic is just handed a hash and told how many0000 at the start of the solution is needed for a solved hash

1byte of data
65c74c15a686187bb6bbf9958f494fc6b80068034a659a9ad44991b08c58f2d2

or 1000byte
e6631d63c97fb6d9239bd7d1d0a8878e3ea383722635051f94efc5b2790fc441

or a gigabyte
442aaa99d16cf451b853451fbb0515ed696985f236924adf682b34e9531472b1

the hash a asic is given is the same length

the POOL/nodes however that do validate tx data need to ensure they do it in a timely manner.

for instance v0.12 had a txsigop limit of 4000ops.. and a blocksigop limit of 20,000ops
a malicious person can make 5 transactions of 4000ops to use up the blocks limits.

lets say it takes 0.01sec to process 4000ops
that becomes 0.05sec to do the whole block.

now imagine. instead of having
1mb block with 4,000txsopl and 20,000bsopl
we had
2mb block with 8,000txsopl and 40,000bsopl
using native keys quadratics would take 1min 40 seconds for the 5 tx's

where as if we had
2mb block with 4000txsopl and 40,000bsopl
using native keys even with quadratics would take 0.10 seconds for 10tx's
thus alleviating the quadratics scare because your not allowing a single transaction to multiply up the sigops. but allowing more transactions per block.

the real silly thing is,
core have actually put in
1mb base 4mb weight block with 16,000txsopl and 80,000bsopl
which is incredibly stupid and allows native key sigop spammers to do alot within the baseblock

if basing the block sigop limit on the weight. they should be doing
1mb base 4mb weight block with 4,000txsopl and 80,000bsopl
which would allow 20 bloated maxed out tx's instead of 5. but the timing would only be 0.2sec...
not hours and only five maxed out spam tx's that core 0.14+ allows

but now im just ranting.

[jonald_fyookball]

That does not compute. I have just read that the 1MB maxblocksize was added as an anti spam measure. We all know that the flooding of the mempool is because some group is spamming the network, so if we hard fork to an 32MB maxblocksize and some other group is not happy and decide to spam the network that will lead to more blockchain bloat.

It would become pretty expensive to bloat a blockchain that had 32mb blocks.  Let's say a transaction is 0.5 kb, that's 2048 x 32 = 65,536 transactions per block.   At a nickel a transaction, that would be $3276.80.  That's just for one block.  That's $19,660.80 an hour, and $471,859.20 a day.  

But it is still hypothetically possible. Why not maintain the small maxblocksize as an anti spam measure

Because the context is completely different and we are talking about
2 completely different kinds of 'anti-spam measures'.  

When Satoshi put in the 1mb limit, the avergae block was 1kb,
or 1000 times smaller than the limit, and fees were 0.  
Thus, the spam filter was not operating by making it
expensive for spammers.  Instead, it simply limited
bloat.  

Today, it is more effective to make it economically
expensive, and the way to do that is with bigger
blocks, not smaller ones.

The 'hypothetically possible' that you mention
is a) 'hypothetically possible' at any scale
given enough money and b) 32x cheaper
at 1mb than 32mb.

and create an offchain transaction layer built on top that anyone is free to use.

I'm not against offchain networks per se.  I think its a very cool idea.

I want to ask you, if Blockstream was not involved in any of this, are you open to a smaller maxblocksize and an offchain transaction layer for Bitcoin? Honestly.

If there is to be a maximum blocksize, it should be for a very good reason,
and unless someone convinces me otherwise, it should always be well
beyond that of market demand.   So, if there was no blockstream
but core devs refused to raise it (lets say because of their economic
beliefs) i'd be screaming just as loudly.  It just so happens that
their involvement with blockstream provides a logical explanation
for why they wouldn't take sensible steps to allow growth.

[franky1]

But it is still hypothetically possible. Why not maintain the small maxblocksize as an anti spam measure and create an offchain transaction layer built on top that anyone is free to use.

I want to ask you, if Blockstream was not involved in any of this, are you open to a smaller maxblocksize and an offchain transaction layer for Bitcoin? Honestly.

there is no reason not to use LN.. emphasis as a VOLUNTARY side service for those that need it.
but LN does have some limitations and issues which make it useful for only a niche of people. not everyone.

also the 1mb base still limits how many channels can be active. and needing more base block size will be needed to cover the more channels being open while also allowing people to replenish funds of channels to spend more. (which does require onchain space to restart new channels or add fresh funds to a channel)

some have done the maths.
to have enough channels open to cover say 7billion people with a 1year lock requires 133-200mb blocks
for a more reasonable 2week lock. that would be 5.2gb blocks. so thinking w can survive on 1mb blocks and (i laugh) 'be like visa' is impossible

[ImHash]

Banks/SWIFT have nothing to do with the use case of ASIC machines and they process their transactions entirely in a different way. BU will not fork bitcoin because then no exchanging company/merchants will recognize their generated coins as bitcoin and their coin's price will drop below $200 in matter of one week and drop to zero after a month.
If segwit activated and spammers still able to spam with old keys then every one should switch to segwit and then everyone could ban/ignore those spams and a spammer needs to have hash power in order to mine blocks filled with spam transactions, a miner if stays honest and friendly to the network could profit more.
Miners also need to find the successful and honest pools to point their hash power only towards them and nodes must ban/ignore/blacklist those nodes which are broadcasting spam attacks.

Anyways right now the whole system are following and enforcing Core rules unless running BU right now could give people advantage over Core miners I see no reason to run other versions such as BU/classic/XBTC/8MB.

[Kakmakr]

Why would they go through all the trouble to buy hash power, if they can bribe a couple of government employees to change policies and get Bitcoin banned or regulated? They can even bribe them to stop 3rd party initiatives like the ETF for that matter.

Just look at how effective they were to slow down Bitcoin in New York with the BitLicense. ^grrrrrrrr^

If you have the government in your pocket, you do not need the miners and you do not need Bitcoin. They have not done this aggressively yet, because they know this will turn into a shit show if they do, so they are doing this slowly by doing small things. < Deny ETF / Strict regulations on exchanges / BitLicense >

[franky1]

If segwit activated and spammers still able to spam with old keys then every one should switch to segwit and then everyone could ban/ignore those spams

getting everyone 46million output to move to segwit keys. would in itself cause a mass 'spam event'
....think about it.

secondly then rejecting old transactions is just killing off the hoarders that are not actively spending.
thats like nuking someones old safety deposit box purely in the hopes it will reduce the queue at the banks cashier desk because savers who hardly ever/ dont move funds are then lost.

wake up
far far far easier to not give spammers too many opportunities.. rather than open new attack vectors and then build walls affecting innocent people.

EG
core v0.12
a spammer could fill a block with just 5 bloated tx's of 4000tx sigops. (20k block sigops)
core v0.14
a spammer could fill a block with just 5 bloated tx's of 16000tx sigops.(80k block sigops) meaning...
..yep core 0.14 makes a block have alot longer native quadratic validation time attack.

however. instead of locking out old UTXO's completely as a fix ImHash said..

keep the 4000tx sigops but grow the (80k block sigops) meaning now requires 20 bloated tx's to fill a block instead of 5 and the time is better and manageable,

yep
20 x 4000=80000 is better by many factors of multiplication, rather than
5 x 16000=80000

[Jerean]

Conspiracy theory. BU existence because core is failed to scale the blocksize.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).

That's a nice business idea for mining facilities like BitMain. But why do you think they need to destroy Bitcoin for that? They could just create new asics with new algorithm for the bank coin in parallel. Would be the far easier and more profitable.

And why do you need to spin such theories to explain the simple fact that miners want more onchain scaling?

[Wind_FURY]

jonald_fyookball, franky1, you have gone too technical and lost me. My pea brain can only handle enough information at a time. I will need to step back and reread your posts later.

I request for someone with more technical knowledge for a rebuttal while I try to read their posts. I am learning as I go.

[jonald_fyookball]

jonald_fyookball, franky1, you have gone too technical and lost me. My pea brain can only handle enough information at a time. I will need to step back and reread your posts later.

I request for someone with more technical knowledge for a rebuttal while I try to read their posts. I am learning as I go.

try to look at from a simple supply and demand persective.

Supply = blocksize space
demand = transaction

by making the supply smaller, prices (fees) will go up.   

So if someone wants to manipulate the market (spam attack) and make prices go up, obviously its going to easier with a smaller market (smaller blocksize, smaller supply)
than with a bigger one..

I hope that isn't too technical.

[franky1]

jonald_fyookball, franky1, you have gone too technical and lost me. My pea brain can only handle enough information at a time. I will need to step back and reread your posts later.

I request for someone with more technical knowledge for a rebuttal while I try to read their posts. I am learning as I go.

usually i try to keep things laymens.
non technical version

imagine it like a plane that originally only allows 2500 seats. and people are waiting at the airport to buy their seat

issues.
1 guy can buy a party ticket to buy up all the seats for only 5 obese people to sit in..
leaving 2495 passengers angry and frustrated

solutions

a. allow plans to grow in seating capacity, but limit the party ticket. EG a 5,000 seat plane has a party ticket to allow 20people to reserve the whole plane instead of 5 (or go one step further make it so party ticket people need 40+ to fill the plane instead of 5)
b. make the cargo-hold area into new seating and offer a discount for adults if the let their kids sit in the cargo hold
c. invent a teleporter on teleport island to avoid passengers needing the plane each month. but once a month they need to travel by plane to or from teleport island just to be able to use the teleporter inbetween times.

a=dynamics
b=segwit
c=LN

issues
b. though there are 2500seats that could possibly allow more first class empty seats for more people because some adults volunteer to put their kids into cargo freeing up the main seats. the plane operator has done nothing to stop the party ticket guy from buying up all the seats for only 5 people

c. although some people may love teleport island. some people may only need the plane once a month so why buy a return ticket via teleport island to get to destination. rather than just a single ticket to destination. also plane operator hasnt stopped the partyticket reserving the plane for just 5 people.

thats the situation we are at...


now to your question
1. are you open to a smaller maxblocksize and an offchain transaction layer for Bitcoin? Honestly.
answer: LN (teleport island) does have a niche for gamblers that want to get to Lasvegas many times a day instantly in their coffee break. but LN is not for everyone. and forcing people into LN/teleport island especially without fixing bloat/partyticket, isnt solving the issue of queues at the airport.
answer: also if it starts costing too much just to get to teleport island by plane. people will hate travlling distances and never use the airport to even then use the teleport island.(AKA never use bitcoin to never use LN)

2. planes with (ur 32mb scenario) 80000 seats too big to be reliable around the sky and can crash with all the weight.
answer: no one is building plane to be that big overnight. it would be natural growth over time that move when safety allowances are met. nodes wont flag preference for such big planes unless they could cope. (think slow progressive growth over time. not 32mb by midnight)
answer: if the plane allowed a party ticket of 5 extremely obese guys fill the plane then the unbalance weight could cause more damage. so restrictions of bloat to allow say only parties of 2 onboard (40,000 tickets) is safer and manageable. rather than 5 tickets of insane obesity.

[Hydrogen]

I would like to share an hypothesis.

With enough asics a group of miners could offer/sell an alternative to SWIFT for banks?

The group could settle a secret agreement with some banks to raise a few billion US$ for their hash capacity (they would have to leave bitcoin).
They would need something like 40% to 50% of bitcoin hash rate to avoid attacks (Bitcoin unlimited is in almost 40%?).
They would have to keep building asics to keep hash capacity in bitcoin level. Or build even more.
Them we would live in a world with 2 major coins. Both only vulnerable to each other hash capacity.
The miner (banks backed) would have lot of budget to keep pumping asics until bitcoin is forced to change POW or other mitigation strategy.
The group would guarantee its future in asics manufacturing and operations and would ´t care if bitcoin fails. Quick $ with low risk. As it would have a signed contract with major banks to back them.
Actually this group of miners would gain with bitcoin suffering.
Banks could have a chance to have its own SWIFT and damage bitcoin considerably, gaining more time for their fiat party, with very low costs for them(comparing to acquisitions we are seeing today and the SWIFT value)

Interesting theory OP.

I wonder if this could be evidence of banks/states supporting bu.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hard-fork.asp

There could be some agenda in play where people with money and influence are spreading pro bitcoin unlimited propaganda.

If there is a hard fork, will decreasing the number of miners and nodes also lead to slower transactions?

The concept of a hard fork could be flawed if such is the case.

[Wind_FURY]

jonald_fyookball, franky1, you have gone too technical and lost me. My pea brain can only handle enough information at a time. I will need to step back and reread your posts later.

I request for someone with more technical knowledge for a rebuttal while I try to read their posts. I am learning as I go.

try to look at from a simple supply and demand persective.

Supply = blocksize space
demand = transaction

by making the supply smaller, prices (fees) will go up.  

So if someone wants to manipulate the market (spam attack) and make prices go up, obviously its going to easier with a smaller market (smaller blocksize, smaller supply)
than with a bigger one..

I hope that isn't too technical.

Thank you.

But if we have a layer on top of the blockchain for offchain transactions, we would be given an option as an out to avoid doing the transaction on the blockchain and do it off the chain. That is a shallow reason but still very useful.

Do you think spamming the blockchain will be discouraged by having bigger blocks?

Franky1, I will reply to your post later if I can find the brain cells.

[jonald_fyookball]

of course , because it will be more expensive as we discussed earlier.

[Wind_FURY]

of course , because it will be more expensive as we discussed earlier.

Right. Let me divert the topic a little. Who do you think is spamming the network and for whose best interest is he acting? All we see are cries of "Oh someone is spamming and flooding the mempool" but there is no mention of who or what group is doing this.

In theory it could be someone who has a commitment to Bitcoin Unlimited but I do not want to go there and be biased. That is why I am asking you.

[LesPristy]

The thing is, anyone with 51% of the hashpower can attack the network and kill it -- they don't BU or anything else, or anyone's consensus or permission.

BTC could be taken down with zero hashpower.

[franky1]

of course , because it will be more expensive as we discussed earlier.

Right. Let me divert the topic a little. Who do you think is spamming the network and for whose best interest is he acting? All we see are cries of "Oh someone is spamming and flooding the mempool" but there is no mention of who or what group is doing this.

In theory it could be someone who has a commitment to Bitcoin Unlimited but I do not want to go there and be biased. That is why I am asking you.

looking at the dates of when the most spam spikes are

june/july 2016
and then
a long constant go at it from october onwards..

it appears obvious that anyone offering something from those particular dates that want to sway people into thinking their features are needed to remedy the spam would benefit from creating spam to then point out that something needs to be done.
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1year

june/july 2016 = core CSV
october+ = segwit

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

of course , because it will be more expensive as we discussed earlier.

Right. Let me divert the topic a little. Who do you think is spamming the network and for whose best interest is he acting? All we see are cries of "Oh someone is spamming and flooding the mempool" but there is no mention of who or what group is doing this.

In theory it could be someone who has a commitment to Bitcoin Unlimited but I do not want to go there and be biased. That is why I am asking you.

looking at the dates of when the most spam spikes are

june/july 2016
and then
a long constant go at it from octobre onwards..

it appears obvious that anyone offering something from those particular dates that want to sway people into thinking their features are needed to remedy the spam would benefit from creating spam to then point out that something needs to be done.
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1year

june/july 2016 = core CSV
october+ = segwit

+1 Well said Franky1.

Franky1 has the answer and I recommend others to read his post.

Its obvious there are those with an agenda to undermine Bitcoin. There's a long list of names and institutions, not that hard to identify who.

[franky1]

Do you think spamming the blockchain will be discouraged by having bigger blocks?

by not being so generous with the txsigop limit can discourage it
by having more space in the base block so that it takes more effort can discourage it

by even inventing a new priority mechanism thats not just a rich vs poor preference but a real bloat +young age costly thing.. can discourage it.

but core have not increased base block.
but core have not reduced txsigop limit, infact they increased it to be absurdly more generous to spammers
and core have removed any kind of priority barrier  

even funnier. core say the onchain fee is good for pools. even though pools dont really 'need' it this decade. but at the same time discounted it as a way to tempt people to use segwit. thus not really offering more 'bonus' to pools due to a discount. and not really offering a real discount by pre-emptively increasing the fee's 10-100x the cost of 2015

[Amph]

no shills, i actually hate BU.Just worried and looking for concrete and substantiated feedback for my hypothesis.could you read it and point what is wrong?

The thing is, anyone with 51% of the hashpower can attack the network and kill it -- they don't BU or anything else, or anyone's consensus or permission.
Also bigger blocks or smaller blocks do not affect this one way or another.   

but it's not feasible today to buy tons of petahash just to attack the network, to force a decision, if that the reason behind the attack

it's always better for them to mine with that hashrate than doing an attack, the only case where this can make sense is if bitcoin is tanking hard and there is no real profit anymore

as a desperate final move a 515% would make sense in that case

[franky1]

no shills, i actually hate BU.Just worried and looking for concrete and substantiated feedback for my hypothesis.could you read it and point what is wrong?

The thing is, anyone with 51% of the hashpower can attack the network and kill it -- they don't BU or anything else, or anyone's consensus or permission.
Also bigger blocks or smaller blocks do not affect this one way or another.  

but it's not feasible today to buy tons of petahash just to attack the network, to force a decision, if that the reason behind the attack

it's always better for them to mine with that hashrate than doing an attack, the only case where this can make sense is if bitcoin is tanking hard and there is no real profit anymore

as a desperate final move a 515% would make sense in that case

hashpower alone doesnt mean much. all it means is more dodgy blocks get rejected/orphaned and a group with such high hashpower is just wasting much more electric just to get rejected.

EG
imagine there was 2 pools and the node rule was 1mb
pool A with 500000000 exahash making a 1.000,250 block
and pool B with 4exahash making 0.999,750 block

pool A would lose, all that happens is that the orphan/reject stats would be higher

NODES have to have consensus and accept 1.000,250 block.
and even then thats just to try to keep the over 1mb going because the nodes are just in a orphan drama event.

the only way to make sure that 1.000,250 blocks are acceptable without drama without fuss and with the pools making the blocks able to spend their rewards, is to have node consensus of majority, merchant/services node acceptance and to completely ignore the minority to not care about their old rules.

...
now if dynamic implementations wanted to do this controversially they would have done it already over the last few years. they would have even set a date and announced it.

now if dynamic implementations wanted to do this controversially they would have gmaxwell up on the bilateral split offer, rather than laugh in his face at gmaxwells desire of dominant TIER centralised control by pushing anything not core away/to bottom tier.

[jonald_fyookball]

of course , because it will be more expensive as we discussed earlier.

Right. Let me divert the topic a little. Who do you think is spamming the network and for whose best interest is he acting? All we see are cries of "Oh someone is spamming and flooding the mempool" but there is no mention of who or what group is doing this.

In theory it could be someone who has a commitment to Bitcoin Unlimited but I do not want to go there and be biased. That is why I am asking you.

I really do not know.  It could be either side of the debate trying to force a resolution. 

Honestly I do not think it is Roger Ver (as some say) because I know he was using Bitcoin for
payments, so it wouldn't make sense to cause an issue just so he could complain
about it since he could complain anyway once it became an issue.

[andrew24p]

I think that BU legitimately thinks that they are choosing the way forward, I think the miners are the bad actors here skewing everyones vision. Even Roger I think believes he is doing the right thing, if not he would sell all of his coins and could live like a king for the rest of his life.

[felipehermanns]

BU trash aint dead yet? 

I see people supporting this crap coin. They must be paid by his friend roger and antpool comunist.

What the fork guys. No one want this crap bugged coin. Stop messing up kids.

[Pettuh4]

I think that BU legitimately thinks that they are choosing the way forward, I think the miners are the bad actors here skewing everyones vision. Even Roger I think believes he is doing the right thing, if not he would sell all of his coins and could live like a king for the rest of his life.

BU has missed the way, how can they lead us? They better listen to the core Devs and act appropriately. I don't see why they keep seeking undeserved attention?

[jonald_fyookball]

  I think the miners are the bad actors here skewing everyones vision.

Explain why the miners are bad actors , please...because to me it sounds crazy.  Miners are the ones securing Bitcoin, how could they possibly be bad actors unless
they are going to be blatantly malicious (unwind transactions, block transactions etc)

[iamnotback]

I'm not a BU loyalist.  I'll support any implementation that allows big blocks and on chain scaling.

and no, segwit isn't meaningful onchain scaling in my view.

Decentralized on chain scaling is technologically impossible with PoW:

https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/631ffe/pools_that_block_litecoin_development/dfr3weo/

If you actually understood the technology, then perhaps you'd change your position to something which can actually scale off chain.

The economic majority wins. Those who are buying LTC now are doing so because they want SegWit to be activated. Jihan Wu of Bitmain who is blocking SegWit on both LTC and BTC, created the new more efficient Scrypt miners, so I didn't realize this before. They could monopolize these in theory. So this fight might not be as easy as I thought. But the economic majority should win, unless it lacks resolve and/or patience. Already people are arbitraging and finding ways to rent hashrate in order to earn money and support SegWit. If you think the price is going up, you try to lock in a rental price that doesn't increase as the price rises, so you can profit. Others may be buying A4s if they want to maximize profits and believe the price will remain high (and going higher).

Jihan Wu needs to get his ass kicked economically so both Bitcoin and Litecoin can move forward.

It is most likely that BU is a diversionary lie. These miners simply want to gouge high fees on Bitcoin and block any alternatives. They were never going to fork with BU. It was a lie to prevent everyone from joining together to kick Jihan's ass.

If my health will improve or stabilize, my plan is to launch a Bitcoin Killer which doesn't require PoW (the design is already completed). I want to bankrupt all these miners. Their vested interests are a pain in the ass. We need to kick all their arses out into the street and turn their ASICs into door stops. I am talking long-term plan.

Those who are buying ASICs now, my plans are a year or more away from reaching any relevancy or size, so fear not. Buy A4s and profit.

Both you guys are obstructionist wolves in sheepskin. You pretend you want to make progress but you are intentionally stalling. Any one with a brain stem can see right through your deceit.

ProHashing is not signaling SegWit thus they are an obstructionist. Their words are meaningless. In a meritocracy only actions count.

"Talk is cheap, show me the code", wrote Linus Torvalds

Also it is quite clear that BU never intended to fork Bitcoin with that Buggy Unlimited piece-of-shit, because they know damn well the economics of Bitcoin are that the whales can and will destroy any miners who attempt to fork Bitcoin. I explained this in great detail on BCT.

BU is a lie and diversionary tactic in order to fool everyone. The real goal of Jihan Wu is to gouge maximize transaction fees from Bitcoin and block any alternatives for scaling. These obstructionists are block progress on both Bitcoin and Litecoin, because Bitcoin depends on Litecoin to add off chain scaling, because the whales of Bitcoin will never allow SegWit on Bitcon. Period. ProHashing by their actions is complicit. Words are meaningless.

Look at your conflicting statements:

He states that we oppose Segregated Witness, which is true. We do not think that SegWit is the best course for bitcoin or litecoin.

We do intend to implement SegWit

A majority of customers have requested SegWit, so we plan to implement it.

Stalling. Deceit. An obstructionist wolf in sheepskin.

the IRS doesn't move its deadline back because of SegWit, and we won't have any business at all if they come after us

Miners should leave such an incompetent company.

Whining in a forum about not being able to do your accounting at the same time you do your technical work.

Of course it is quite clear you are just lying and deceitful.

[franky1]

iamback
quoting yourself is meaningless.
your getting to the point of being a traincarwreck endless pil of rants that just circle into an endless loop of 'im wright because i said so here, her and here'

[Wind_FURY]

of course , because it will be more expensive as we discussed earlier.

Right. Let me divert the topic a little. Who do you think is spamming the network and for whose best interest is he acting? All we see are cries of "Oh someone is spamming and flooding the mempool" but there is no mention of who or what group is doing this.

In theory it could be someone who has a commitment to Bitcoin Unlimited but I do not want to go there and be biased. That is why I am asking you.

looking at the dates of when the most spam spikes are

june/july 2016
and then
a long constant go at it from october onwards..

it appears obvious that anyone offering something from those particular dates that want to sway people into thinking their features are needed to remedy the spam would benefit from creating spam to then point out that something needs to be done.
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1year

june/july 2016 = core CSV
october+ = segwit

You cannot be serious in using that as evidence to show that Core or a group allied with Core is behind it right? That is too obvious. Because a group against Core could do it too and make it look like Core did it. We cannot snub that possibility out.