SegWit2MB does nothing at all to fix the real problem

[iamTom123]

In my view, it is becoming clear that SegWit and BU have their advantages as well as equal disadvantages. This continuing debate is exposing a great weakness in the Bitcoin community. Instead of opposing each other, why it is so hard for both camps to sit down, calm down and talk to and with each other like people who are working for the same interest? Unless there can be an acceptable and reliable solution to this challenge, we are putting a cap to the growth potential of Bitcoin all in all not helping any of us whether you are for SegWit or BU. Unfortunately, there is no authoritative figure in Bitcoin who can bring these opposing camps in one table.

[1713859685]

1713859685

[1713859685]

1713859685

[1713859685]

1713859685

[1713859685]

1713859685

[1713859685]

1713859685

[franky1]

But who do you propose take over as the stewards of the Bitcoin network?

stewards of bitcoin??

get that centralist hat off your head right now!
there should be no stewards/kings

core want to control bitcoin and fear an open decentralised diverse peer network.

other implementations dont want control. set no deadlines demanded nothing and not making PoW nuke threats.

core is adement that they wont want to join many different brands on a dynamic peer network. where nods of different brands set the rules by independent consensus. core want their controlled TIER network

core want their back door exploit to slide in changes(by going soft) without nodes vetoing the changes

seriously get that "stewardship" hat off your head and think of the big picture

P.S blockstream(core) have admitted that going soft is using a backdoor exploit. and admitted they want to add more exploits to make it easier to go soft.

what becomes 'easier' for core.. is actually bad for the network as other can then use that exploit for more nefarious purposes

[arklan]

So BU is the answer? where only a big mining farm owning almost half the hash power wants to increase the block size as long as there are transactions in the mempool, but would they just and only change the blocksize without changing anything else?

It doesn't necessarily have to be the miners in charge, but it shouldn't be developers either.

to remove long term moral hazard, core block size limit should be made dynamic, put in the realm of software, outside of human hands.

- Jeff Garzik

implement a permanent block size solution once and for all, that will keep the block size limit above market demand. There are several options, such as Stephen Pair’s flexcap proposal.

- Olivier Janssens

yup. should have been done that way from day -1. never should have released the software without it. now we'll never even get the consensus needed to implement this, because it would still be a fork.

Honestly I feel this "HF are bad" stuff is propaganda.  Other cryptos have done hard forks where everyone agrees and knows whats going on and there hasn't been any fall out afaik....

but that's the point. we don't HAVE consensus. everyone doesn't agree. and they never WILL. therefore, any fork, under such a case as we have, will result in chaos.

[andrew24p]

So BU is the answer? where only a big mining farm owning almost half the hash power wants to increase the block size as long as there are transactions in the mempool, but would they just and only change the blocksize without changing anything else?

It doesn't necessarily have to be the miners in charge, but it shouldn't be developers either.

to remove long term moral hazard, core block size limit should be made dynamic, put in the realm of software, outside of human hands.

- Jeff Garzik

implement a permanent block size solution once and for all, that will keep the block size limit above market demand. There are several options, such as Stephen Pair’s flexcap proposal.

- Olivier Janssens

If blocks are too large they will get stuck behind China's great firewall. Thats the beauty of all the god damn miners being located and centralized in one place. You are all worried about centralization in core, well all the Chinese miners know eachother, most of them are friends, and they all have some sort of government connections or they would not be able to get the electricity contracts they are getting.

[Ayers]

this is looking good and all, but it's even feasible, no other dev talk about this possibility, did you test it in testnet? and it work? also this remind me of the solution for the longest chain in case of a 51% attack, and the logest chain should not be the one that count longest

?? your quoting about transaction FEE's but responding about longest chains??

you didn't understand, i was making a comparison between your argument, and what it look like with an example of the longest chain, their look like they are based on the same principle, isn't it?

[franky1]

this is looking good and all, but it's even feasible, no other dev talk about this possibility, did you test it in testnet? and it work? also this remind me of the solution for the longest chain in case of a 51% attack, and the logest chain should not be the one that count longest

?? your quoting about transaction FEE's but responding about longest chains??

you didn't understand, i was making a comparison between your argument, and what it look like with an example of the longest chain, their look like they are based on the same principle, isn't it?

in tests it works. the fee gets expensive for spammers with large bloat spending every block...
but in reality of bitcoin mainnet..

if BTCC for instance, inject their own bloated tx every 10minutes into their own mempool. although it appears they are paying say $60 for their own spam tx, when their block gets added to the chain.. they are actually paying $60 to themselves, so BTCC created spam costs are zero.

so it can help reduce outsider malicious spammers from spamming per block. but would require other node rules such as not allowing tx's of 20% of a whole block to even exist, to reduce the chance of self-paying pools from internally spamming their own block

the fee priority mechanism isnt the end solution by itself, but with other things like
maxTXsigops of 2000 when a maxBLOCKsigops is 80,000.... instead of
maxTXsigops of 16000 when a maxBLOCKsigops is 80,000

and some other tweaks. does a hell of alot better job than cores highschool economics of 'just pay more' even for lean tx's that only spend once a month/year

[uchalkql]

Via @VitalikButerin: Soft forks are coercive, anti-market:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/5llba3/do_any_of_yall_ethereumers_support_the_current/dbwk1bb/

[classicsucks]

new priority fee formulae needs to be introduced that cannot be easily countered by just using more btc VALUE as your change back to yourself per tx like the old formulae did..

soo..

so lets think about a priority fee thats not about rich vs poor but about respend spam and bloat.

lets imagine we actually use the tx age combined with CLTV to signal the network that a user is willing to add some maturity time if their tx age is under a day, to signal they want it confirmed but allowing themselves to be locked out of spending for an average of 24 hours.

and where the bloat of the tx vs the blocksize has some impact too... rather than the old formulae which was more about the value of the tx

where if they want to spend more then once a day, then obviously things like LN would be of benefit


as you can see its not about tx value. its about bloat and age.
this way
those not wanting to spend more than once a day and dont bloat the blocks get preferential treatment onchain.
if you are willing to wait a day but your taking up 1% of the blockspace. you pay more
if you want to be a spammer spending every block. you pay the price
and if you want to be a total ass-hat and be both bloated and respending often you pay the ultimate price

+1 franky - thanks for putting together the numbers on this solution. Placing a higher cost on the spam transactions certainly will help cut them down. As you point out, exchanges can still spam transactions to themselves.

I also believe that the FUD around these giant transactions that trigger quadratic hashing issues is being overplayed. What better way to sell Segfault and LN?

[jonald_fyookball]

So BU is the answer? where only a big mining farm owning almost half the hash power wants to increase the block size as long as there are transactions in the mempool, but would they just and only change the blocksize without changing anything else?

It doesn't necessarily have to be the miners in charge, but it shouldn't be developers either.

to remove long term moral hazard, core block size limit should be made dynamic, put in the realm of software, outside of human hands.

- Jeff Garzik

implement a permanent block size solution once and for all, that will keep the block size limit above market demand. There are several options, such as Stephen Pair’s flexcap proposal.

- Olivier Janssens

If blocks are too large they will get stuck behind China's great firewall. Thats the beauty of all the god damn miners being located and centralized in one place. You are all worried about centralization in core, well all the Chinese miners know eachother, most of them are friends, and they all have some sort of government connections or they would not be able to get the electricity contracts they are getting.

You can't have it both ways... Either China is a threat because they are centralized... or they are weak because they are slow (blocks get orphaned/stuck).   

[Wind_FURY]

But who do you propose take over as the stewards of the Bitcoin network?

stewards of bitcoin??

get that centralist hat off your head right now!
there should be no stewards/kings

core want to control bitcoin and fear an open decentralised diverse peer network.

other implementations dont want control. set no deadlines demanded nothing and not making PoW nuke threats.

core is adement that they wont want to join many different brands on a dynamic peer network. where nods of different brands set the rules by independent consensus. core want their controlled TIER network

core want their back door exploit to slide in changes(by going soft) without nodes vetoing the changes

seriously get that "stewardship" hat off your head and think of the big picture

P.S blockstream(core) have admitted that going soft is using a backdoor exploit. and admitted they want to add more exploits to make it easier to go soft.

what becomes 'easier' for core.. is actually bad for the network as other can then use that exploit for more nefarious purposes

Yes they are the stewards because it has not been hard forked away from them yet. If someday the Bitcoin Unlimited developers gain all the hashing power they need then they, for better or worse, become the new stewards of the Bitcoin network.

Via @VitalikButerin: Soft forks are coercive, anti-market:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/5llba3/do_any_of_yall_ethereumers_support_the_current/dbwk1bb/

Is he trying to justify his decision to do a hard fork that brought forth to Ethereum Classic?

[franky1]

Yes they are the stewards because it has not been hard forked away from them yet. If someday the Bitcoin Unlimited developers gain all the hashing power they need then they, for better or worse, become the new stewards of the Bitcoin network.

wake the hell up there have been many implementations running on the network for years
core only came into existence in 2013

core want to be the stewards. and are playing social politics to try getting that. but core nor anyone else should be.

other implementations want a diverse decentralised network.
AKA PEER network of many 'brands' all on the same level playing field.. and yes if core was dynamic then core can be on that same level too..

its core refusing to do what the community want. and while core refuse.. the other brands are happy to just plod along WITHOUT setting deadlines or agenda's or PoW nuke threats..
of any dynamic implementation wanted to do anything forcefully outide of consensus.. they would have done so already.

but look at core.. wanting their control in a month with their "hope its active by christmas" and now just 6 months in throwing all the weapons to force they way to the top. if you cant see how desperate blockstream are to get what they want then atleast look at the $70m debt they have to repay soon and atleast ask HOW they intend to repay it to then question their rash motives.

wake up and stop thinking that a core controlled TIER network is good
are you even a bitcoiner? or a fiat loving blockstream partnered guy..

seems you are becoming more engrossed in getting blockstream defended then bitcoins peer network defended

EG
everyone should be a steward to prevent anyone from claiming outright steward control.

this may not sound clear to grasp, but then so is
' you are unique, ....... just like everyone else"

nodes themselves should be choosing the rules based on what rules logically make sense and what the community want. there should be free and open choice. not a blockstream or get nuked mandatory slavery

[Wind_FURY]

franky1, I am sorry to say that Roger Ver, the Bitcoin Unlimited developers and the Chinese miners are playing the same game too. They are all colluding to push their own agenda and take the Core developers out by hard forking Bitcoin away from them. Do I think anything is wrong with that? No, it is what it is. But I do not think the developers behind BU should be supported because they are incompetent.

[DGulari]

franky1, I am sorry to say that Roger Ver, the Bitcoin Unlimited developers and the Chinese miners are playing the same game too. They are all colluding to push their own agenda and take the Core developers out by hard forking Bitcoin away from them. Do I think anything is wrong with that? No, it is what it is. But I do not think the developers behind BU should be supported because they are incompetent.

BU devs are fine.  Besides, many of the core devs will join BU after the fork because they love bitcoin.  We just have to get rid of the ownership of the core devs by Blockstream and Adam Back.  That much is bullshit. 

[jonald_fyookball]

franky1, I am sorry to say that Roger Ver, the Bitcoin Unlimited developers and the Chinese miners are playing the same game too. They are all colluding to push their own agenda and take the Core developers out by hard forking Bitcoin away from them. Do I think anything is wrong with that? No, it is what it is. But I do not think the developers behind BU should be supported because they are incompetent.

why not have core, xt, classic, BU all running implementations -- as long as they agree on the consensus rules, let people run what they want.

[franky1]

They are all colluding to push their own agenda and take the Core developers out by hard forking Bitcoin away from them. Do I think anything is wrong with that? No, it is what it is. But I do not think the developers behind BU should be supported because they are incompetent.

lol
1. the assert bug was existant in CORE 0.12. and core didnt go back and correct 0.12 they just made a new version number 0.13 so BU didnt cause a bug, they actually went and fixed a core bug but didnt get time to let the community download the fix. so those few days core went on propaganda war to take advantage.
real funny part is. it proves a diverse decentralised PEER network works.. yea one implementation got shutdown temporarily but didnt cause network wide disruption.. however in 2013 when it was core dominant.. the leveldb bug did cause network wide disruption.

we should not return to the days of just 1 or 2 codebases.. DIVERSITY is important


2. if core are so perfect there should be nothing to fix.. yet even cores "fixes" via the altcoin elements:segwit brand are not 100% guaranteed.

3. there is nothing stopping core making their implementation dynamic and join MANY implementations that are running for years so that core is on the same playing field. but no, core want to own bitcoin with a TIER network and do soft(non-peer) backdoor upgrades.
funny thing is they even admit going soft was using a backdoor. and segwit opens more backdoors "making it even easier to go soft"

4. if core are so perfect why need deadlines, bribery, blackmails, algo nukes and mandatory activations. if core actually got rid of their snobbery and done what the community want there would be no debate

5. if you think that BU want to 'own bitcoin' then please get your head out of the scripts posted on reddit and start looking at bitcoin.. not the words of blockstreamists