Well, well, well, now we know what Jihan Wu’s been up to.

[Hueristic]

Statement from Bitmain (Jihan Wu):

https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/

Short summary:

• We have asicboost designed in our chips but we don’t use it.
• We can legally use asicboost if we want in China.
• If you think we use it, prove that we do.

Definitely funniest lie I've seen today! Does he think any sane person would believe this. LOL

Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought the fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

[Killerpotleaf]

i guess its time for Ver to make a youtube video backing bitmain

[FiendCoin]

More anti-core/blockstream bullshit  

You shills crack me up  

if your only rebuttle is to call someone a shill. may i suggest you just make a bot that justs pastes the word "shill" into your posts
or.
take off your defender hat, think logically, have a cup of coffee allow tim for your thought to gather and think of a suitable reply that has some content/substance that can actually refute some stuff.

otherwise your wasting your own time even replying just to shout "shill"

iamnotback is also the Nashian topic de-railer called traincarwreck. amongst many other names he uses

FTFY

OMG, is making a bot to reply a thing?  I would totally do that to you shills if I knew how LOL

[FiendCoin]

You shills crack me up 

i perfer to remain an amartue shill so i can compete in the olympics

I don't think you're a shill Killerpotleaf.

Now, in time that could change 

[franky1]

OMG, is making a bot to reply a thing?  I would totally do that to you shills if I knew how LOL

not knowing how just reveals your lack of coding talent. thus you have just gone and made yourself redundant to any topic about code discussions

have a nice day though

[xhiggy]

How is this "controversy", no evidence of any wrong doing yet, anything other than the free market working.

[FiendCoin]

OMG, is making a bot to reply a thing?  I would totally do that to you shills if I knew how LOL

not knowing how just reveals your lack of coding talent. thus you have just gone and made yourself redundant to any topic about code discussions

have a nice day though

Wow, you're a shill AND a moron.

Have a nice day to you as well and while you're at, peddle you're shills somewhere else.

[leopard2]

The issue is that the patent results in a massive vested interest for certain parties, such as Bitmain and the patent owners, to push for BU and fight SegWit.

If there is a vested interest in the order of 20% of global BTC mining power consumption (enough to put competitors, who do not use Asicboost out of business) the economic interest in pushing BU is gigantic. So gigantic that IMHO BU has lost all credibility at this point.

Even if the patent could be used for both Segwit and BU, I would still be sceptical: the patent would mean that those countries, where it could be effectively enforced, would drop out of the mining business, while other countries with inefficient patent protection (AKA China) would thrive. Asicboost means nothing less than this: future BTC mining is going to be centralized in countries with cheap dumping power prices and no patent protection == China.

It is kind of like a 20% difficulty decrease for patent cheaters.

Now Segwit is not an option, it is a must... 

[jonald_fyookball]

  BU has lost all credibility at this point.
 

what does this have to do with BU?  BU is just one of several scaling proposals that Bitmain (and others) support.

[Finksy]

Efficiency advantages should not be the grounds on which to condemn Bitmain, nor should ethics or morality, these were not a part of the founding principles of Bitcoin.  It is written in the rules that PoW mining is a free market as has been said, and is subject to the rules of a free market. It's also disingenuous to claim that shortcuts in the PoW process are an exploit, if they still accomplish the same goal with the same level of security. At most they could be considered an oversight in the design of Merkle–Damgård construction, but in that case they are evenly open to said optimization (patents do not apply to this argument).  The empty block argument is also null, it does not effectively hurt the bitcoin ecosystem, it is simply a byproduct of a process improvement.  That said, I fully side with Nick Szabo in what he said:

"Secret mining advantage is expected. The problem is incentive to oppose incompatible upgrades for secret reasons."

That is it.  No condemnation of shady Chinese backdoor deals about hardware improvements, or how they potentially de-frauded their customers by selling them hardware that was neutered in order to hinder competition and hide their own advantages.  None of that has any bearing on this conversation (though ti deserves its own).  Just remove the roadblocks that hinder future improvement protocols (covert boost), and demand transparency in issues that revolve around bitcoin governance and the future of the protocol instead of hiding behind secret agendas. 

If Bitmain is already taking advantage of ASICboost covertly for their own mining, and they own the patent in their own jurisdiction (again, set morality/ethics of potential infringement aside), then what would prevent them from continuing to use ASICboost technology overtly and reap the same advantage/benefit they are already? If it's to protect the public opinion of their company, they need to take their head out of the sand. Everyone knows what they are about.

Why did you copy and paste what I wrote 7 pages back without quotation?  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1857162.msg18480572#msg18480572

[Quickseller]

First item is to understand why Blockstream refused to accept 2MB blocks along with SegWit.

The first time the max block size is raised, it will be very difficult to accomplish because this has never been done before, and it will be very easy to spread FUD about potential HFs.

Once the max block size is raised the first time (and for each subsequent time), it will be much easier to raise it a second time when the market demands even larger blocks. Blockstream needs transaction fees to be very high in order for LN to be economical, however if high tx fees cause the max block size to increase, then LN will never be economical.

It is not that they feel that 1MB is the optimal number (if the max block size was currently 2MB, they would not be pushing for the max block size to be lowered to 1MB), and it is not that they are against 2MB blocks in itself, it is that they are against any max block size increase ever.

[jonald_fyookball]

First item is to understand why Blockstream refused to accept 2MB blocks along with SegWit.
 

Smartest thing you've said all week.

[franky1]

they would not be pushing for the max block size to be lowered

luke JR wants 0.5mb blocks.. just to correct you a little

[leopard2]

Statement from Bitmain (Jihan Wu):

https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/

Short summary:

• We have asicboost designed in our chips but we don’t use it.
• We can legally use asicboost if we want in China.
• If you think we use it, prove that we do.

Definitely funniest lie I've seen today! Does he think any sane person would believe this. LOL

Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought the fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

If they use it or not, is not the point.

The point is, that if BTC is now moving to BU, then in the future there is nothing that can be done to prevent it. It is like handing China and Bitmain a nuclear weapon.

This nuclear weapon must be destroyed, either by making the patent available for free for everyone on the planet, or moving to Segwit. Period.  

[andyatcrux]

Luke Jr has proposed a BIP for blockchain increase and has even recently presented an argument for smaller blocks. Personally, my biggest concern about large block sizes is, to put simply: Datacenters instead of home users running full nodes.

 I do agree that Segwit with 2MB blocks would have been a fine compromise, despite being less than ideal.

I am not nearly as technically well versed as many of my peers here, but having admittedly "appealed to authority" in people like Andreas Antonopoulos and Nick Szabo (who don't have a dog in the blockstream/bitmain fight) I have come to this conclusion. Though it is subject to change based on the evolving debate at hand.

[FiendCoin]

First item is to understand why Blockstream refused to accept 2MB blocks along with SegWit.

It is not that they feel that 1MB is the optimal number (if the max block size was currently 2MB, they would not be pushing for the max block size to be lowered to 1MB), and it is not that they are against 2MB blocks in itself, it is that they are against any max block size increase ever.

From the core roadmap https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

Finally--at some point the capacity increases from the above may not
be enough.  Delivery on relay improvements, segwit fraud proofs, dynamic
block size controls, and other advances in technology will reduce the risk
and therefore controversy around moderate block size increase proposals
(such as 2/4/8 rescaled to respect segwit's increase). Bitcoin will
be able to move forward with these increases when improvements and
understanding render their risks widely acceptable relative to the
risks of not deploying them. In Bitcoin Core we should keep patches
ready to implement them as the need and the will arises, to keep the
basic software engineering from being the limiting factor.

They want improvement and security BEFORE raising the blocksize, nowhere does it say 1mb forever.

[jonald_fyookball]

  Personally, my biggest concern about large block sizes is, to put simply: Datacenters instead of home users running full nodes.
 

Such a red herring though... Go to 2/4/8MB now... and worry about 'datacenters' later while we work on LN etc.
 

[iamnotback]

Give it a rest because obviously you being paid by to attack anyone for reasons.

Nobody pays me dude.  I am sincere. And you're still acting like an idiot.

I looked at your post history, if you're not paid to shill why the hell have you been posting non-stop since the asicboost scandal with your anti-core/blockstream propaganda?

I have been posting factual analysis. If a lot of my posts look like gibberish to you, it is because you are not capable of assimilating so many details and wide ranging knowledge that I bring to bear in my posts.

I am trying to help you sometimes clueless readers understand what is going on. I am not anti-anything other than I know that John Nash (who is the man behind Bitcoin's creation) designed Bitcoin to model the properties and game theory of an ideal money, which means it can't be modified. The reason all of you are fighting, is because the master of game theory designed it that way:

Satoshi died on the NJ turnpike recently. I am not joking.

It is funny that you guys still aren't able to follow my posts in other threads and figure out what I have already explained.

Yet I don't write only for those of you who are incapable of understanding. I write also so the smart readers can discern who is smart and who is not.

I am on a quest for knowledge and to fix this mess of PoW and Bitcoin. And you are going to be damn surprised in the future, that the person you were talking shit to, ends up being the one that actually does something very amazing that helps you and humanity in fabulous ways.

You will regret every negative word you have written about me.

Again I am sincere. It is frustrating how dumb and lazy some of you guys are. But yet other readers aren't as dumb and lazy so I do get value from posting.

It is an intellectual pursuit. Nobody needs to pay me, to motivate me.

Don't you agree that this thread doesn't benefit from noise discussing whether I am sincere or not. The readers who know me well over the 4 years I've been in BCT, know very well I am sincere.

iamnotback is also anti BU

Yes because I explained that block size increases are not scaling. I am basing my analysis on mathematical and technological facts as follows:

Clearly though Blockstream has planned to hijack the protocol with SegWit. And the whales have stopped it.

Larger blocks will not be allowed.

I want bigger blocks.  I wanted them 2 years ago.

You'll never get them.

Scaling is impossible with larger blocks, because the orphan rate is an exponential function of the block size. BU is idiotic shit. Xthin has a game theory will enables larger hashrate and better connectivity miners to attack lesser miners.

Exponential shit does not scale. If you don't know this, then you don't even know basics of computer science.

There is no point to increasing the blocksize, because it isn't a scaling solution. There isn't any size of block that scales. You've got to scale off chain. But Blockstream is not going to be allowed to mutate Bitcoin's protocol.

That is the reality, whether you like it or not.

[anonymoustroll420]

Personally, my biggest concern about large block sizes is, to put simply: Datacenters instead of home users running full nodes.

Thats already a reality. Vast majority of nodes are currently run in datacenters.

The 300GB/mo bandwidth it takes to run a node is a lot for any home users connection. Even unmetered internet has a "fair usage policy", which is an undisclosed bandwidth limit that the ISP can change at any time. If your running a node at home and have multiple people streaming HD videos, you're going to get a call from your ISP about your "excessive bandwidth usage" regardless of what your limit is.

[iamnotback]

First item is to understand why Blockstream refused to accept 2MB blocks along with SegWit.

It is not that they feel that 1MB is the optimal number (if the max block size was currently 2MB, they would not be pushing for the max block size to be lowered to 1MB), and it is not that they are against 2MB blocks in itself, it is that they are against any max block size increase ever.

From the core roadmap https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

Finally--at some point the capacity increases from the above may not
be enough.  Delivery on relay improvements, segwit fraud proofs, dynamic
block size controls, and other advances in technology will reduce the risk
and therefore controversy around moderate block size increase proposals
(such as 2/4/8 rescaled to respect segwit's increase). Bitcoin will
be able to move forward with these increases when improvements and
understanding render their risks widely acceptable relative to the
risks of not deploying them. In Bitcoin Core we should keep patches
ready to implement them as the need and the will arises, to keep the
basic software engineering from being the limiting factor.

They want improvement and security BEFORE raising the blocksize, nowhere does it say 1mb forever.

But Blockstream's stated logic above makes no sense. The real reason Blockstream doesn't want 2MB blocks now can only be because of what I explained earlier (because there is no other plausible reason that makes any sense).

It makes no sense from both a technology standpoint (i.e. afaik SegWit adds no significant reliability and security that would alleviate issues that a 2MB block could cause, instead the improvements of SegWit are bugs fixes for things that have nothing to do with block size)  and also because it is quite clear that they know Bitmain can covertly block all block size increases, so they know that the 2MB offer is actually a clever ploy of Bitmain wherein Bitmain's own customers will end up blocking the block size increase (so Bitmain can deny that they did it) and also because Blockstream knows they become irrelevant once the market has SegWit and block size increases. The market won't be in any rush to accept further protocol changes from Blockstream. So Blockstream is fighting for their control against Bitmain. So then if you understand all this I have written, then you understand that Bitmain is really against block size increases, but they have such a clever strategy that they can make it appear that they are for larger block sizes. The covert aspect of asicboost is a very key component to the masterful chess that Bitmain is playing. Bitmain's goal is to keep the protocol immutable and to destroy Blockstream. Very simple. But they have a clever strategy will obscures their actual intentions. Blockstream's goal is to be in control of the changes to Bitcoin's protocol.

Read again Bitmain's statement with this new analysis in mind.

I enjoy figuring out these mental chess challenges. That is why I do it. Not because I am for or against anything. I am trying to help readers understand the facts.

First item is to understand why Blockstream refused to accept 2MB blocks along with SegWit.

I haven't actually looked to see their official stated reason, but I can guess that it must be because they know they each time they want to "upgrade" the protocol, they need have some carrot and stick that forces the market to want their upgrade. So keeping blocksize very constrained is necessary so that Blockstream remains in control of the protocol.

In other words, Blockstream can't accept 2MB blocks, because they know their business model depends on them being in control of the protocol of Bitcoin. Also factor in that maybe Bitmain has told them behind the curtain that Bitmain will block all their future protocol changes after the 2MB+SegWit. Blockstream probably couldn't repeat that in public, because Bitmain would deny it and accuse Blockstream of fabricating lies.

Am I correct so far?

First item is to understand why Blockstream refused to accept 2MB blocks along with SegWit.

I haven't actually looked to see their official stated reason, but I can guess that it must be because they know they each time they want to "upgrade" the protocol, they need have some carrot and stick that forces the market to want their upgrade. So keeping blocksize very constrained is necessary so that Blockstream remains in control of the protocol.

In other words, Blockstream can't accept 2MB blocks, because they know their business model depends on them being in control of the protocol of Bitcoin. Also factor in that maybe Bitmain has told them behind the curtain that Bitmain will block all their future protocol changes after the 2MB+SegWit.

Am I correct so far?

It could be a matter of opinion. Or maybe you have perceived one actors tactical methods used in pursuit of their strategic goals.

If you had the chance to get your most significant work approved (SegWit) and only had to accept a 2MB block, why wouldn't you do it?

It makes absolutely no sense. Can you think of any other rational explanation than the one I offered?

Even if Blockstream had an opinion that they don't like 2MB blocks, they wouldn't block their own work over such a small quibble. There has to be a more significant reason they refuse 2MB blocks with SegWit. I offered my reason. Is there any possible other reason that makes any sense?

(note I am so very sleepy, so we may have to continue this after I sleep)

Presuming I am correct that Bitmain knows that Blockstream will never accept a 2MB+SegWit proposal, then you can then re-analyze their statement knowing full well that he knows there will never be big blocks.

Furthermore Bitmain is challenging the community to make AsicBoost patent licensing accessible to everyone. And to enable AsicBoost in the most optimum way. But Bitmain already stated that larger blocks make AsicBoost less efficient.

And remember some "hacker" (which is actually Bitmain but nobody can prove it) can release the covert upgrade so all Bitmain's [existing customers who own] miners on the planet could increase their efficiency and side-step the patent (and also they would be against large blocks).

So Bitmain is total BS about wanting larger blocks. Bitmain is trying to destroy Blockstream by never allowing them to get any protocol changes at all. That is why they proposed the 2MB+SegWit at HongKong. And that is why @Gmaxwell is wanting to block the covert AsicBoost.

But Bitmain has checkmated Blockstream. Think it out. I am too sleepy to explain all the detailed reasoning.

So I hope you understand that I don't think Bitmain nor its customers are currently employing asicboost in mining. Rather Bitmain has an installed base of customers worldwide (where the patent is a liability for the customers) whose hardware could suddenly be made more efficient if Bitmain were to release the software/firmware upgrade to enable asicboost.

Thus Bitmain has a poison pill on any block size increases which won't pin the blame on them for the failure of any soft (or hard) fork which attempts a block size increase. Because a "hacker" (who is actually Bitmain) could release the covert asicboost upgrade over the Internet, and then all those Bitmain customers would be economically incentivized to employ it and to block both block size increases and @gmaxwell's overt BIP (which is supposed to block the covert form of asic boost but not the overt form). Or even some clever people might reverse engineer and design the upgrade from scratch and release it. The point is the customers of Bitmain wouldn't want to run the overt asic boost because they wouldn't want patent liability. And those customers would also not want block size increases because asic boost looses efficiency with larger block sizes.

So Bitmain can block any block size increases without it even being provable that they did obstruct it. It can be made to appear that Bitmain was the good guy and was supporting 2MB blocks, but in fact behind the scenes Bitmain has already told Blockstream the truth and Blockstream is realizing they are fucked and trying to find a way to fight back, but it is too late, they are already checkmated by Bitmain's very clever strategy.

Bitmain urges the community to make the patent licensing available to all (not their patent but the patents held by others on asicboost) so it appears Bitmain is the good guys. Yet in reality, Bitmain knows that the patent licensing won't be forthcoming because you can't organize such a thing given there are multiple patent holders in different jurisdictions. Thus Bitmain knows the covert upgrade is the poison pill that blocks any thing Blockstream would attempt to do. Blockstream is now frantic and desperate.

Given the Chinese now know they have us by the balls, they are always manipulating the LTC markets as well. Using all this to pump up and crash the LTC price at will and taking more BTC from all of us.

I am hating PoW even more. I want to make those ASICs irrelevant. I want to eliminate PoW. I am so tired of all this fighting and manipulation. Before I supported Bitcoin because I thought it was a stable and politics-free reserve currency of the altcoins which I could hold without losing my time on this shit. Now these fuckers have turned the Bitcoin into a fucking noise that makes it just not worth it.

I will kill this shit. I hope you guys understand what is really going on.

I don't take sides. Bitmain is attempting to maintain immutability. Blockstream is attempting to take control and gain mutability. And all the fuckers involved are gaming this shit and making it a huge fucking mess. So we need to destroy this shit and replace it with something that actually works properly without any possible politics.

Impossible? Maybe. But I love a challenging goal.

I also think that giving every asicboost for free means that no one will have the advantage, and so now one will stand to lose anything by going with bigger blocks.

Not everybody has Bitmain's hardware. Not everybody is willing to risk the liability of running a (potentially) patented thing covertly. It is just simple economics. Miners are forced to support what gives them an economic advantage.

Why would Bitmain not want a larger max block size? Larger blocks will ultimately lead to additional total tx fees (and in turn higher overall block rewards), both of which will lead to greater profitability of those who run their equipment, which would theoretically lead to higher market prices for their equipment, and most importantly, more profits for them.

1. Because killing Blockstream and removing their ability to destroy Bitmain (and Bitcoin) by controlling the protocol is more important.

2. Because SegWit can be added on Litecoin where they can still earn all those fees, and Blockstream will be impotent.

It all about removing the coup d'etat of Blockstream.

In that way I like Bitmain, but as I said the Chinese are fucking with us and making it a fucking mess. I really blame PoW, because PoW makes all of this shit possible.

Can there be a better way? Maybe not. Maybe yes. I have ideas I need to go work on.

So are there are any objections to my analysis of this fucking mess?

I also think that giving every asicboost for free means that no one will have the advantage, and so now one will stand to lose anything by going with bigger blocks.

Not everybody has Bitmain's hardware. Not everybody is willing to risk the liability of running a (potentially) patented thing covertly. It is just simple economics. Miners are forced to support what gives them an economic advantage.

but Bitmain said he would want to work with other patent holders to null and void the patents and make it available to everyone.

his reasoning was, its better for bitcoin's security, to have an extra 20% hashpower over all, then drop hashing power by disabling his (potential) advantage.

I already refuted that:

Bitmain urges the community to make the patent licensing available to all (not their patent but the patents held by others on asicboost) so it appears Bitmain is the good guys. Yet in reality, Bitmain knows that the patent licensing won't be forthcoming because you can't organize such a thing given there are multiple patent holders in different jurisdictions. Thus Bitmain knows the covert upgrade is the poison pill that blocks any thing Blockstream would attempt to do. Blockstream is now frantic and desperate.

Can anyone find a flaw in my analysis?

Can anyone find a flaw in my analysis?

not really. it rings a tad false to me, and seems highly speculative, but its a workable theory...

If you can't come up with an alternative ECONOMICALLY plausible theory, then you'll know mine isn't speculative.

You can't just believe what people say. You have to analyze if what they say makes any sense or not.