it is Core, not Bitman blocking segwit

[jonald_fyookball]

found this on r/btc: "Bitmain signed the HK agreement and we support SegWit as long as there is a block size bump up hard fork. So it cannot claim that Bitmain is against SegWit.”
---


I now expect Core shills to complain about a HF.  HF aren't bad if everyone agrees on the change...
guess what, the only people against 2mb/segwit is Core.

[1714238275]

1714238275

[1714238275]

1714238275

[1714238275]

1714238275

[Holliday]

You guys are in full damage control mode today, huh? I see all the familiar faces (all 4 of you) posting like madmen.

[jonald_fyookball]

You guys are in full damage control mode today, huh? I see all the familiar faces (all 4 of you) posting like madmen.

Huh?? I'm pointing out facts:

Asicboost is supposed to be incompatible with segwit, that's what
the whole grand conspiracy is about here... yet Bitmain supports
segwit as long as it can have bigger blocks. 

I really don't care what rules Jihan Wu broke (probably none
since he owns the Chinese patent), as long as Bitcoin can
scale...this whole thing is just another distraction.


   

[andron8383]

***
I now expect Core shills to complain about a HF.  HF aren't bad if everyone agrees on the change...
guess what, the only people against 2mb/segwit is Core.

****

THey were codding and making analysis that 1MB segwit will make effective 2MB increase.
simple 2MB just increase is damaging for network and would lead to decreasing number of nodes.
Also 2mb block would lead to hardfork and when you have tons of apps stop working.
1MB segwit is solving problems with old soft compatibility.
To get VISA transfers you need about 1000MB blocks , you can do it in paypal mysql database but not in decentralized network.

****
I really don't care what rules Jihan Wu broke (probably none
since he owns the Chinese patent)
***

And you won't care when Jihad will lift limit of 21m becouse you love so much CHina miners.
If you let single guy fuck your ass once he will fuck your ass twice.
Lets make UASF and see if they will mine their BU china coin.
I don give shit to bitmain as they don't  give shit to BTC but just to their POCKET.

[Holliday]

Here is a life lesson for you: Ignore what people say and watch what they do.

Mining pool operators clearly have no interest in scaling Bitcoin at this juncture.

[FiendCoin]

You guys are in full damage control mode today, huh? I see all the familiar faces (all 4 of you) posting like madmen.

Shills going to shill.

[AgentofCoin]

You guys are in full damage control mode today, huh? I see all the familiar faces (all 4 of you) posting like madmen.

Huh?? I'm pointing out facts:

Asicboost is supposed to be incompatible with segwit, that's what
the whole grand conspiracy is about here... yet Bitmain supports
segwit as long as it can have bigger blocks.  

...

You are assuming that when the miners signed the HK agreement,
they already knew what the final SegWit implementation would be.

The reality is that they did not perform their due diligence until after
SegWit was released. When the miners signed the "agreement" they
signed a promise based on a design that was still being worked out.

It is very likely that when ASICBoost Miners learned that the
coinbase is altered in SegWit, they would never follow through with
the full terms of the HK "agreement".

ASICBoost Miners, in theory, can never support new coinbase
references. The issue is not SegWit, it is the Coinbase data.

[andron8383]

***
It is very likely that when ASICBoost Miners learned that the
coinbase is altered in SegWit, they would never follow through with
the full terms of the HK "agreement".
***

That is why we shuld start UASF and 55% hashpower needed. BU will have their own for of china coin and they will make that big blocks as they really want. In reality NO ONE give a fuck to China miner coin.
Lets move this case forward.
Since segwit can not be compatible with bitmain miners will be good cut them of cake at this point and teach asholes lesson.

[jonald_fyookball]

You guys are in full damage control mode today, huh? I see all the familiar faces (all 4 of you) posting like madmen.

Huh?? I'm pointing out facts:

Asicboost is supposed to be incompatible with segwit, that's what
the whole grand conspiracy is about here... yet Bitmain supports
segwit as long as it can have bigger blocks.  

...

You are assuming that when the miners signed the HK agreement,
they already knew what the final SegWit implementation would be.
 

My point isn't so much about the miners, but Core.

Core won't even compromise to 2mb/segwit, which
probably could get consensus.  
 

THey were codding and making analysis that 1MB segwit will make effective 2MB increase.

Miners don't want 'just segwit'.  They want a HF and blocksize increase. 
Easy for everyone to point the finger at everyone else and say the
other one is the obstructionist, but before Segwit came along,
there was discussion of 4mb vs 8mb (then later 2mb) and that
was the debate. 

Core created the entire 'HF are bad' narrative and then segwit
out of nowhere.

At least miners are willing to compromise, and that is the difference.
Core is not.

[franky1]

You are assuming that when the miners signed the HK agreement,
they already knew what the final SegWit implementation would be.

The reality is that they did not perform their due diligence until after
SegWit was released. When the miners signed the "agreement" they
signed a promise based on a design that was still being worked out.

It is very likely that when ASICBoost Miners learned that the
coinbase is altered in SegWit, they would never follow through with
the full terms of the HK "agreement".

ASICBoost Miners, in theory, can never support new coinbase
references. The issue is not SegWit, it is the Coinbase data.

your assuming that bitmain read october 2016's segwit code
and then time travels back to 2015 and made blueprints for a chip that could attack segwit..

..
more likely sceneario.. segwit is not ASIC compatible .. not the other way round.(unless time travel is possible)

end result
0.13.x versions have issues with ASIC and no longer going to be segwit compatible ..
time to wait a month and let 0.14.1 to be released and let blockstream restart their nodecount that will work with ASICS

[AgentofCoin]

You are assuming that when the miners signed the HK agreement,
they already knew what the final SegWit implementation would be.

The reality is that they did not perform their due diligence until after
SegWit was released. When the miners signed the "agreement" they
signed a promise based on a design that was still being worked out.

It is very likely that when ASICBoost Miners learned that the
coinbase is altered in SegWit, they would never follow through with
the full terms of the HK "agreement".

ASICBoost Miners, in theory, can never support new coinbase
references. The issue is not SegWit, it is the Coinbase data.

your assuming that bitmain read october 2016's segwit code
and then time travels back to 2015 and made blueprints for a chip that could attack segwit..
..
more likely sceneario.. segwit is not ASIC compatible .. not the other way round.(unless time travel is possible)

end result
0.13.x versions have issues with ASIC and no longer going to be segwit compatible ..
time to wait a month and let 0.14.1 to be released and let blockstream restart their nodecount that will work with ASICS

I'm not saying that SegWit is not compatible with ASICs.
I'm saying that ASICs with ASICBoost is not compatible with new Coinbase references.
And that may be the true reason why SegWit blocking Miners are actually against SegWit.
If SegWit could be rewritten without the Coinbase change, they may be fine with SegWit.

So, miners that have ASICBoost can not accept new features that add data to the Coinbase.
This is the theory. Nothing to do with SegWit or ASICs specifically. It is about an addition
that causes the full PoW work to be performed into the future and renders ASICBoost like
designs and utilization worthless.

[gentlemand]

Core won't even compromise to 2mb/segwit, which
probably could get consensus.  

Erm, I thought the great reveal of the last couple of days was Segwit nullifying Bitmain's advantage. I don't know how recently this advantage was discovered and put into action but that explains plenty of recent attitudes.

[jonald_fyookball]

Core won't even compromise to 2mb/segwit, which
probably could get consensus.  

Erm, I thought the great reveal of the last couple of days was Segwit nullifying Bitmain's advantage. I don't know how recently this advantage was discovered and put into action but that explains plenty of recent attitudes.

no great reveal...just more propaganda.

Some facts:
1. Jihan supported SegWit in the HK agreement, it was Greg that broke it.
2. Now Jihan is supporting Ext Blocks, which is incompatible with ASICBoost, the 'exploit' he was accused of using.
3. Core devs have zero proof Jihan is using ASICBoost in production. (Is the any evidence of ANYONE using ASICBOOST?)
4. Facts indicate Jihan/AntPool isn't using ASICBoost at all: (If the shuffling of transactions is required for ASICBOOST to work, I don’t see any evidence that AntPool uses it)
5. In recent blocks, about 14% of AntPool's income come from fees.
6. Greg's math is wrong, again. Bitmain: Regarding Recent Allegations and Smear Campaigns
 

[AgentofCoin]

Core won't even compromise to 2mb/segwit, which
probably could get consensus.  

Erm, I thought the great reveal of the last couple of days was Segwit nullifying Bitmain's advantage. I don't know how recently this advantage was discovered and put into action but that explains plenty of recent attitudes.

no great reveal...just more propaganda.

Some facts:
1. Jihan supported SegWit in the HK agreement, it was Greg that broke it.
2. Now Jihan is supporting Ext Blocks, which is incompatible with ASICBoost, the 'exploit' he was accused of using.
3. Core devs have zero proof Jihan is using ASICBoost in production. (Is the any evidence of ANYONE using ASICBOOST?)
4. Facts indicate Jihan/AntPool isn't using ASICBoost at all: (If the shuffling of transactions is required for ASICBOOST to work, I don’t see any evidence that AntPool uses it)
5. In recent blocks, about 14% of AntPool's income come from fees.
6. Greg's math is wrong, again. Bitmain: Regarding Recent Allegations and Smear Campaigns

Some clarification on those "facts":

1. Jihan supported before understanding the final SegWit Implementation code.
After learning the Coinbase references are used, he would obviously retract that support.

2. Extension blocks do not change the Coinbase references, only add new anchor txs.
Those anchor txs should not effect the way ASICBoost works, the way new Coinbase refs do.

3. This comment is jumping the gun. In depth investigations begin now.

4. This data set should be larger and go farther back in time. Likely prior to the patent dates.
The ASICBoost could be throttled from time to time to prevent obvious indicators.

5. Fees are irrelevant here. The exploit centers around gaining more block rewards.
In a future with less block reward and more fees, this exploit is worthless.

6. We need independent verification, which will begin now.


It would likely be best for you to stop quoting Alex.BTC since it is obvious that he
is not interested in learning anything, but perpetuating the obfuscations.
In time, all will be revealed. This is a new development and nicely explains many
previously unknown factors. If motive needed to be determined, this would be a
reasonable assumption to investigate further, and so the community will.

Your adherents to your viewpoints in light of new information still being gathered, is telling.

[gentlemand]

no great reveal...just more propaganda.

Ach, I really don't give a shit any more. Everyone from every angle is becoming equally tedious.

I'm off to invent a tiny brain that lives in a box that out mines everything else on Earth by a factor of 1 billion and then I'll toss a coin as to which version I prefer.

[jonald_fyookball]

snip

  
Let's not get distracted here with irrelevant details.

Even IF Bitmain was using ASICboost, (no evidence they are)
and even IF that was illegal (its not since they hold the Chinese patent),
so what?
  
Point is, they support segwit (if done with big block) , and also extension
blocks.  (neither is compatible with asicboost btw). 
Core won't support anything but their roadmap.   So, which party is
unilaterally preventing a scaling solution...honestly?

[franky1]

some clarification on those "facts":

1. Jihan supported before understanding the final SegWit Implementation code.
2. Extension blocks do not change the Coinbase references, only add new anchor txs.
3. This comment is jumping the gun. In depth investigations begin now.
4. This data set should be larger and go farther back in time. Likely prior to the patent dates.
The ASICBoost could be throttled from time to time to prevent obvious indicators.
5. Fees are irrelevant here. The exploit centers around gaining more block rewards.
In a future with less block reward and more fees, this exploit is worthless.
6. We need independent verification, which will begin now.

so your saying they did go back in time and made S9chips to include asic boost to attack segwit..
wow amazing.

or logic dictates that segwit wasnt programmed well to actually work with asic efficiency boosts.
Hint: which is easier
1. go back in time by 2 years and undo hardware changes to meet temporary software requirements just 6 months ago, just for some blockstreamer
2. get the centralist blockstream team to now change their code seeing as its only been in public for 6 months and not even active code yet

calling an efficiency boost an attack, even though the efficiency boost existed prior to the code that is supposedly being attacked.. has been the funniest twist of words by greg this month.

anyway

just done some quick maths


* stats at time of post

hmm
looks like BTCC and F2pool are the ones making more blocks than their hash %
not the other way round

*for those wishing to question the numbers

i would have expected antpool to have a block % of something in the 40's while having hash in the 30's if all this gmaxwell PoW propaganda was real
definitely not less than their hash%

[AgentofCoin]

snip

  
Let's not get distracted here with irrelevant details.

Even IF Bitmain was using ASICboost, (no evidence they are)
and even IF that was illegal (its not since they hold the Chinese patent),
so what?
  
Point is, they support segwit (if done with big block) , and also extension
blocks.  (neither is compatible with asicboost btw).  
Core won't support anything but their roadmap.   So, which party is
unilaterally preventing a scaling solution...honestly?

Those aren't irrelevant. This may be the real issue at hand.

The significance is allowing miners to continue using such an
exploit prevents Bitcoin from upgrading in different ways.
Many of Satoshi's ideas of extra features are dependent on
Coinbase references. ASICBoost prevents any new Coinbase
references.

Blocksize debate is irrelevant in this current issue. Using
ASICBoost prevents many forms of development that helps
scaling and non-scaling issues. It is potentially more serious
than anything else currently.

If Miners are allowed to continue with ASICBoost, Bitcoin
development ends in many fundamental ways.

You have sided with one miners profits over the whole future
of the Bitcoin community. You do not know what you are
hitching yourself to.

[franky1]

Using ASICBoost prevents many forms of development that helps
scaling and non-scaling issues. It is potentially more serious
than anything else currently.

asic boost has been around longer.
easy fix.. make software that doesnt hurt the hardware.. not the other way round.


cant blame the hardware of 2 years ago for software problems of 6 months go

thats like saying ATI exploited bitcoin by being better at GPU mining in 2011-2013 compared to Geforces poor efforts

that like blaming raspberry Pi1 for not validating signatures fast, and so libsecp256k1 had to be invented because raspberry Pi was attacking bitcoin

[AgentofCoin]

some clarification on those "facts":

1. Jihan supported before understanding the final SegWit Implementation code.
2. Extension blocks do not change the Coinbase references, only add new anchor txs.
3. This comment is jumping the gun. In depth investigations begin now.
4. This data set should be larger and go farther back in time. Likely prior to the patent dates.
The ASICBoost could be throttled from time to time to prevent obvious indicators.
5. Fees are irrelevant here. The exploit centers around gaining more block rewards.
In a future with less block reward and more fees, this exploit is worthless.
6. We need independent verification, which will begin now.

so your saying they did go back in time and made S9chips to include asic boost to attack segwit..
wow amazing.

or logic dictates that segwit wasnt programmed well to actually work with asic efficiency boosts.
Hint: which is easier
1. go back in time by 2 years and undo hardware changes to meet temporary software requirements just 6 months ago, just for some blockstreamer
2. get the centralist blockstream team to now change their code seeing as its only been in public for 6 months and not even active code yet

calling an efficiency boost an attack, even though the efficiency boost existed prior to the code that is supposedly being attacked.. has been the funniest twist of words by greg this month.

anyway
...

Bitmain in their recent statement admitted that there chips have ASICBoost
built in, but have not used them on the main chain. Are you calling Bitmain
timetravelers then? Obviously not. This means they had them for a longer
time than people assumed.

When SegWit was released, Bitmain and it's pool, Antpool, did not yet know
that the Coinbase reference is added to with anchor codes. When they learned
it did, they likely began to oppose SegWit on those grounds secretly but
declared publicly it was because there would be no 2MB blocks.

This is a reasonable premise and is being investigated.

If Maxwell is a liar or spreading FUD as you and Bitman believe, that will be
determined in time. All things come out in the wash in time.

[AgentofCoin]

Using ASICBoost prevents many forms of development that helps
scaling and non-scaling issues. It is potentially more serious
than anything else currently.

asic boost has been around longer.
easy fix.. make software that doesnt hurt the hardware.. not the other way round.

cant blame the hardware of 2 years ago for software problems of 6 months go
...

No. The mining community agreed not to use ASICBoost for many different reasons.
In fact, today, no miner that I am aware of openly admits using it, since its taboo.

In addition, using that on a large scale would hinder many importation developments
that can not be implemented as cleanly as with new Coinbase references.

The Miners can not dictate the direction of efficient new features and optimization.
They need to perform the full PoW and that is all. If they make custom hardware
that cheats the PoW, that was a risky move that the rest of the community does
not need to be subjected to, neither the innocent users or innocent miners.

That was their financial gamble. Some dice rolls are one too many.
In time, we will learn what the true scale and impact this issue is.

[franky1]

Bitmain in their recent statement admitted that there chips have ASICBoost
built in, but have not used them on the main chain. Are you calling Bitmain
timetravelers then? Obviously not. This means they had them for a longer
time than people assumed.

what i mean is asicboost is not a "segwit attack/exploit"
asicboost is just an efficiency gain.. end off..

its greg denying his bad code, by using his snobbery to hide that his code is just not compatible with hardware of 2 years ago

When SegWit was released, Bitmain and it's pool, Antpool, did not yet know
that the Coinbase reference is added to with anchor codes. When they learned
it did, they likely began to oppose SegWit on those grounds secretly but
declared publicly it was because there would be no 2MB blocks.

so they said no to segwit because they knew segwit had a incompatibility bug with efficient hardware..
EG like saying you cant use bitcoin with an ATI GPU in 2011, because of an issue that was added in code in 2011 that only works with geforce GPU's

do you blame ATI or the code writers for not making mining easy.

[freebutcaged]

Aren't miners now all mining with ASICs? then how can they vote for something that will defuse them makes them useless?
Changing POW of bitcoin to what exactly? what can we mine bitcoin with after such a change? let them cheat in mining we
just need to get involved in trading bitcoin, it's not like common folks can jump in mining with their laptops or desktops
after POW changes anyways.

[AgentofCoin]

Bitmain in their recent statement admitted that there chips have ASICBoost
built in, but have not used them on the main chain. Are you calling Bitmain
timetravelers then? Obviously not. This means they had them for a longer
time than people assumed.

what i mean is asicboost is not a "segwit attack/exploit"
asicboost is just an efficiency gain.. end off..
...

I agree. ASICBoost was not intended to prevent SegWit and I don't think
anyone is reasonably thinking that. The issue is that allowing ASICBoost to
continue and be used through the mining community makes development in
certain aspects very restrictive and harder to do. Satohi's Fraud Proofs
relied on the Coinbase Ref idea and expected that Coinbase refs will be used
in the future to help improve the network. Widespread ASICBoost use will
prevent that avenue we have, potentially indefinitely.

When SegWit was released, Bitmain and it's pool, Antpool, did not yet know
that the Coinbase reference is added to with anchor codes. When they learned
it did, they likely began to oppose SegWit on those grounds secretly but
declared publicly it was because there would be no 2MB blocks.

so they said no to segwit because they knew segwit had a incompatibility bug with efficient hardware..
EG like saying you cant use bitcoin with an ATI GPU in 2011, because of an issue that was added in code in 2011 that only works with geforce GPU's

do you blame ATI or the code writers for not making mining easy.

I disagree. The use of the ASICBoost mechanism prevents improvements to
the Bitcoin network. It is not an optimization of the mining process. In fact, it
uses a short cut or loophole. When GPUs became ASICs that is somewhat acceptable,
since that was a true optimization in technology. ASICBoost exploits a failing in PoW
which creates non-mining and far reaching problems for the community.

It is one thing to create new mining devices to beat your competitors, its another to
find "zero-days" which could be used to beat your competitor as well as prevent
further expansion of the bitcoin code in ways that even Satoshi envisioned.
That is the difference here. One is natural, the other is a bug exploit.

[franky1]

I disagree. The use of the ASICBoost mechanism prevents improvements to
the Bitcoin network. It is not an optimization of the mining process. In fact, it
uses a short cut or loophole.When GPUs became ASICs that is somewhat acceptable,
since that was a true optimization in technology.ASICBoost exploits a failing in PoW
which creates non-mining and far reaching problems for the community.

It is one thing to create new mining devices to beat your competitors, its another to
find "zero-days" which could be used to beat your competitor as well as prevent
further expansion of the bitcoin code in ways that even Satoshi envisioned.

prevent improvements?

seriously..!!
then gmaxwell should could program new code that does work. rather than be adement that the code should not change one bit but hardware should..

blaming hardware is no excuse for sloppy code.
especially when the code doesnt live up to ANY of its promises anyway.

i can think of many ways to fix it in software but after dealing with his snobbery last year where it took a good 6 months for him to accept the issue was an issue and then without admission change a few things round.. screw it if im gonna help him again

[ebliever]

"it is Core, not Bitman blocking segwit"

Do you not see how ridiculous this sounds to even the most minimally informed person? You're way past the point where the best thing you could do is just... stop writing. Just stop. Just walk away from the keyboard and tell Roger/Jihan you can't do this any more.

[AgentofCoin]

I disagree. The use of the ASICBoost mechanism prevents improvements to
the Bitcoin network. It is not an optimization of the mining process. In fact, it
uses a short cut or loophole.When GPUs became ASICs that is somewhat acceptable,
since that was a true optimization in technology.ASICBoost exploits a failing in PoW
which creates non-mining and far reaching problems for the community.

It is one thing to create new mining devices to beat your competitors, its another to
find "zero-days" which could be used to beat your competitor as well as prevent
further expansion of the bitcoin code in ways that even Satoshi envisioned.

prevent improvements?

seriously..!!
then gmaxwell should could program new code to fix it.

blaming hardware is no excuse for sloppy code.
especially when the code doesnt live up to ANY of its promises anyway.

It is not about Maxwell and SegWit.
It is about restricting certain avenues of development because a miner took a risk and lost.
You are advocating that this miner is "too big to fail" and so the community needs to bail them out.

The community should not be subjected to this miner's bad business decisions.
That is anti-Bitcoin and anti-Satoshi. We are not Ethereum.
Optimizations are acceptable, "zero-day" like exploits in PoW is playing fast and loose.

It needs to be patched. In time the mining community will likely agree.

[jonald_fyookball]

Those aren't irrelevant. This may be the real issue at hand....

snip

Blocksize debate is irrelevant in this current issue....  

To you it may be the current issue.  

To me, its a non-issue.

To me, Blocksize debate is the only issue
that's important.  Everything else is a distraction.

[cpfreeplz]

You guys are in full damage control mode today, huh? I see all the familiar faces (all 4 of you) posting like madmen.

Did something happen today? Did I miss something? I've been busy the last few days and I feel like I'm missing some good news. The price went up a decent amount which was unexpected with all of the turmoil going on.

[Killerpotleaf]

core has a bug in its code where it cannot accept 2MB blocks

NOW its clear why they didnt honer the HK argument and get segwit activated

[ebliever]

You guys are in full damage control mode today, huh? I see all the familiar faces (all 4 of you) posting like madmen.

Did something happen today? Did I miss something? I've been busy the last few days and I feel like I'm missing some good news. The price went up a decent amount which was unexpected with all of the turmoil going on.

!!!

You've basically missed the biggest news since the collapse of Mt. Gox. Maybe bigger. Rather than try to summarize it for you, just start digesting these:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html

https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/asicboost-the-reason-why-bitmain-blocked-segwit-901fd346ee9f

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/mining-manufacturer-blocking-segwit-benefit-asicboost/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63qaps/a_list_of_all_the_bu_supporter_concocted/

[Quantus]

This is a shill thread.

[Alex.BTC]

1. Jihan supported before understanding the final SegWit Implementation code. After learning the Coinbase references are used, he would obviously retract that support.

This is the same kind of idiotic argument I keep seeing around here.

The problem with your story is that you simply don't know what Jihan knew, and it was Greg who broke the HK agreement, not Jihan.

I know you tried your best to pretend to be logical, but in the end you just failed the simple common sense test. This is what happens when you have to make something sound 10 times more complex than it actually is.

2. Extension blocks do not change the Coinbase references, only add new anchor txs.
Those anchor txs should not effect the way ASICBoost works, the way new Coinbase refs do.

You're just trying to misdirect people without technical background here, the key to ASICBoost is the rearrangement of tx in a block, SegWit makes it costly to rearrange tx, so does Ext Block.

Granted there was still a little loop hole remaining in the tx in the canonical block, but it's so easy to fix, after Greg's crying, the Ext Block devs just eliminated the entire ASICBoost issue by adding 2 words in the Ext Block spec.

Just add a little extra crap to the merkle root calculation step, and ASICBoost instantly becomes a total non-issue, that is how small an issue this is, this is how weak your speculation is.

3. This comment is jumping the gun. In depth investigations begin now.

And yours is a year late. The ASICBoost issue is over 2 years old, Core/Blockstream already cried about it a year ago, nobody gave a fuck. Stop pretending ASICBoost is some newly discovered game changing trick only Bitmain knew about until today.

30 Apr 2016 Luke Parker: AsicBoost claims 20% efficiency improvement in Bitcoin mining
13 May 2016 - ‏@olivierjanss: Note to miners: We, the core devs, discovered a patented optimization in your ASIC. We will make it obsolete in the next update.

4. This data set should be larger and go farther back in time. Likely prior to the patent dates.
The ASICBoost could be throttled from time to time to prevent obvious indicators.

So go ahead and gather older data then, you're the accuser here, the burden of proof is on you, so back up your accusations with facts instead of pure speculations, prophecies and red herrings.

5. Fees are irrelevant here. The exploit centers around gaining more block rewards.
In a future with less block reward and more fees, this exploit is worthless.

That fact was for the idiots who keep regurgitating the 'AntPool is using ASICBoost to mine empty blocks' bullshit script.

6. We need independent verification, which will begin now.

Blockstream already spent a year digging and got nothing solid on Bitmain. All Blockstream got is 'ASICBoost maybe used in the future', but it's obvious Bitmain/AntPool will be instantly caught if they actually use ASICBoost in any meaningful way that affect results.

It would likely be best for you to stop quoting Alex.BTC since it is obvious that he
is not interested in learning anything, but perpetuating the obfuscations.
In time, all will be revealed. This is a new development and nicely explains many
previously unknown factors. If motive needed to be determined, this would be a
reasonable assumption to investigate further, and so the community will.

Your adherents to your viewpoints in light of new information still being gathered, is telling.

This is hilarious, all I did was post facts, and all you did was make speculations and then justify them by acting like some cult prophet talking bullshit prophecies  (read: Charles Manson/Heaven's Gate).

ASICBoost is an old issue, Greg is using it again as a distraction, get that through your head.

[kiklo]

Maxwell is a liar

Now you're getting it. 

 

[kiklo]

This is a shill thread.

Maybe you should change your name to This is a shill thread.

It is all you seem to say. 

Does that make you sad? 


 

[paul gatt]

Why does this always bring controversy among all people? Is segwit really necessary for bitcoin for people to target it? I feel bored when this is constantly being debated. If segwit is really needed, why do not people still choose it? Why is it not accepted by everyone? and why Bitcoin still thrive without it? I like bitcoin as present, strong and agile. We do not need something new just to make more losses, BU is an example.

[Xester]

found this on r/btc: "Bitmain signed the HK agreement and we support SegWit as long as there is a block size bump up hard fork. So it cannot claim that Bitmain is against SegWit.”
---


I now expect Core shills to complain about a HF.  HF aren't bad if everyone agrees on the change...
guess what, the only people against 2mb/segwit is Core.

This is a very surprising turn of events and this kind of move by bitmain was a good move and will place the core on the edge. We dont know how the core will answer to this kind of movement but I guess they will not give a reply and continue to proceed on their original plan.  Well let us just hope that everything will turn out well and that both groups will agree to something for the sake of bitcoin and the community.

[glub0x]

Isn't the patent a big problem?
This looks like a failure scenario for bitcoin that i never envisioned before.
A few years ago, the classic newbe question was " what if minning function was hacked?" or "omg quantum computer"
and the classic answer was that it cannot be hacked, any efficiency gain would spread to minner or a consensus people will occur because otherwise btc die..

But patent changes that.
If a proprietary code afford a bonus in mining efficiency then a manufacturer can have a monopole on asic production, or a miner can out-price all the other miners ....

I am not an expert here but i belive that something should be done to prevent this asicboost patent from working asap. It should not include anything else. And maybe after that the community will be more united...

[jonald_fyookball]

I am not an expert here but i belive that something should be done to prevent this asicboost patent from working asap.

Yes, to his credit Greg already created a BIP for that.

[digaran]

found this on r/btc: "Bitmain signed the HK agreement and we support SegWit as long as there is a block size bump up hard fork. So it cannot claim that Bitmain is against SegWit.”
---


I now expect Core shills to complain about a HF.  HF aren't bad if everyone agrees on the change...
guess what, the only people against 2mb/segwit is Core.

By everyone you mean Chinese miners? if hard fork with 95% consensus it's fine if soft fork with 75% consensus it's fine but changing protocol as soon as you reach 51%+ hash power it's not fine. instead of dying from the shame of mining with a significant advantage over others now you guys are distracting all the attentions away from asicboost?

[jonald_fyookball]

found this on r/btc: "Bitmain signed the HK agreement and we support SegWit as long as there is a block size bump up hard fork. So it cannot claim that Bitmain is against SegWit.”
---


I now expect Core shills to complain about a HF.  HF aren't bad if everyone agrees on the change...
guess what, the only people against 2mb/segwit is Core.

By everyone you mean Chinese miners? if hard fork with 95% consensus it's fine if soft fork with 75% consensus it's fine but changing protocol as soon as you reach 51%+ hash power it's not fine. instead of dying from the shame of mining with a significant advantage over others now you guys are distracting all the attentions away from asicboost?

Who wouldn't support 2mb/segwit except people that say "cores roadmap is the only one"

stop trolling.  asicboost is the distraction away from scaling debate and meaningful proposals like extension blocks.

[glub0x]

Then let's implement the anti asicboost bip and then see what changes it brings in the community,
If it is a "distraction", it won't change anything and we will only loose a few weeks. Otherwise it might bring consensus all at once on something.

Do not misunderstand me i think we should have bigger block, yet this "distraction" looks like a real threat to me.

[Lauda]

It must be nice drinking that kool-aid, or should I say receiving that fat check mister jonald? This statement by Bitmain is completely nonsensical, in a way that they are trying to distract you from the truth.
ASICBoost is being used by Antpool: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/dfy5o65/

[jonald_fyookball]

It must be nice drinking that kool-aid, or should I say receiving that fat check mister jonald? This statement by Bitmain is completely nonsensical, in a way that they are trying to distract you from the truth.
ASICBoost is being used by Antpool: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/dfy5o65/

Even if they are using it, I don't see how this is relevant to the scaling debate.  Let's say in a hypothetical scenario, they say "ok you caught us, we've
been using it.  But we have the patent and its our right, we still support segwit+2mb or extension block"... so core devs can block asicboost, dont block it,
it doesnt matter... we're no closer to a solution.   don't tell me you think the rest of the miners are going to suddenly love and support SF segwit in that case?
 

[Lauda]

Even if they are using it, I don't see how this is relevant to the scaling debate. 

Obviously it is very much related. Segwit would prevent them from using it covertly, which is what they have been doing (even though they are denying it).

Let's say in a hypothetical scenario, they say "ok you caught us, we've been using it.  But we have the patent and its our right, we still support segwit+2mb or extension block"...

There is nothing indicating that they really support/want "SW + 2MB". This was just used as a deflecting statement due the recent outing.

so core devs can block asicboost, dont block it, it doesnt matter... we're no closer to a solution.   don't tell me you think the rest of the miners are going to suddenly love and support SF segwit in that case?

Segwit is the short term solution. Nothing is indicating that it would be inadequate. Please do not tell me that you'd be willing to accept a coin where mr. Jihan (and/or his partners) control the direction in which the coin is going. It seems that UASF is the only way to break out of the ASICBoost covert abuse & SW blocking by Jihan. What ever happened to the Segwit + EC implementation?

[jonald_fyookball]

Even if they are using it, I don't see how this is relevant to the scaling debate.

Obviously it is very much related. Segwit would prevent them from using it covertly, which is what they have been doing (even though they are denying it).

Let's say in a hypothetical scenario, they say "ok you caught us, we've been using it.  But we have the patent and its our right, we still support segwit+2mb or extension block"...

There is nothing indicating that they really support/want "SW + 2MB". This was just used as a deflecting statement due the recent outing.

so core devs can block asicboost, dont block it, it doesnt matter... we're no closer to a solution.   don't tell me you think the rest of the miners are going to suddenly love and support SF segwit in that case?

Segwit is the short term solution. Nothing is indicating that it would be inadequate. Please do not tell me that you'd be willing to accept a coin where mr. Jihan (and/or his partners) control the direction in which the coin is going. It seems that UASF is the only way to break out of the ASICBoost covert abuse & SW blocking by Jihan. What ever happened to the Segwit + EC implementation?

You didn't answer my question at all... I'll restate it another way: Regardless of whether you think its related, or what they support, or whether anything was deflected,
how would anything change in the scaling debate even if they did admit they were using asicboost?

[Lauda]

You didn't answer my question at all... I'll restate it another way: Regardless of whether you think its related, or what they support, or whether anything was deflected,
how would anything change in the scaling debate even if they did admit they were using asicboost?

It doesn't change much besides seeing the malicious incentives for blocking protocol upgrades. Therefore, you as a rational (assumption) individual along with other rational individuals would condemn their behavior. This should lead to miners switching pools and the economy making a stronger push towards other methods of upgrading (as mentioned, UASF). Regardless of whether you support Core, BU, SW, EC, or something else, you should never condone what Antpool was/is doing.

[Paashaas]

Wauw, so many people tried explaining all kind off things but Jonald keeps putting his fingers in his ears..

Is he really not open to others opinion? his vision seems to be the only one and nothing else

[jonald_fyookball]

You didn't answer my question at all... I'll restate it another way: Regardless of whether you think its related, or what they support, or whether anything was deflected,
how would anything change in the scaling debate even if they did admit they were using asicboost?

It doesn't change much

Glad we agree on that.

 Therefore, you as a rational (assumption) individual along with other rational individuals would condemn their behavior.
 

IF it can be proven they have been using it while claiming they weren't, I would say that is dishonest and deceitful and harmful to Bitcoin, absolutely.   They secured a patent and wrote functions to use it, but there is no actual proof (such as transaction re-ordering) that they have been using it.  They may have merely prepared to use defensively if other miners started using it.  The fact that they did agree in the HK to segwit+8mb or segwit+4b whatever it was plus the fact that Jihan said (before this 'scandal') that he supports extension blocks (also incompatible with asicboost) supports the idea that they indeed haven't been using it.  Also my understanding from reading a r/bitcoin thread is that it requires a pool to allow and there's no evidence of antpool or any other pool allowing it.

Anyway , I would support a BIP to block asicboost generally speaking.  Not really that interested in further debate on it.   Have a good weekend.

 

[jonald_fyookball]

Wauw, so many people tried explaining all kind off things but Jonald keeps putting his fingers in his ears..

Is he really not open to others opinion? his vision seems to be the only one and nothing else

Wauw, all kinds of people are trolling and shilling....

Fact is, I'm open to many scaling proposals:

Bitcoin Original
Bitcoin Classic
Bitcoin Unlimited
Lightening Network
Bitcoin CoreEC
Flexcap
Extension Blocks

I would even compromise with Segwit-HF + bigger blocks.

Core Devs and their supporters seem to be the ones unwilling to be open to others opinion and unwilling to compromise.

[Carlton Banks]

Wauw, all kinds of people are trolling and shilling....

Fact is, I'm open to many scaling proposals:

Bitcoin Original
Bitcoin Classic
Bitcoin Unlimited
Lightening Network
Bitcoin CoreEC
Flexcap
Extension Blocks

hmmmm..... except those are all capacity change proposals, not scaling proposals. Who's the sh(r)ill troll, jonald fyookball?

[glub0x]

If we stop them using asicboost, they still have some substantial money invested in bitcoin mining.
So the second after asicboost is rendered useless, they might change their opinion and seek diferent consensus. This is very relevent.

2m+segwit, why not? But what i understood is that it would not stop asicboost to work...
So why not bip anti asicboost and then see if 2mb + segwit get traction ?

[LittleBitFunny]

Core won't even compromise to 2mb/segwit, which
probably could get consensus.  

You're right, they won't, which is why it's an interesting coincidence that Bitmain would support SegWit only in the circumstances which you believe won't happen.  They're taking advantage of Core's unwillingness to compromise by implying that they would support SegWit in other situations.

[Killerpotleaf]

some devs have found a clever hack which they can use to make BTC TX and NOT pay miners a TX fee
we should enact a USHF to prevent this hack from being exploited, the security model of bitcoin itself is in jeopardy!!

[Carlton Banks]

2m+segwit, why not?

Because it involves doubling MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT as well as MAX_BLOCK_SIZE.

In practice, that means 2MB + 6MB, not 1MB + 3MB (Segwit BIP 141 as proposed).

But what i understood is that it would not stop asicboost to work...

No, that's the whole point behind Antpool/Bitmain blocking Segwit (apparently). Segwit activation would stop ASIC Boost working, because of the way Segwit changes the coinbase structure in blocks. Blocking Segwit would allow Bitmain to continue covert ASIC Boosting, although we haven't got direct evidence that Bitmain are using it (but a range of highly suspicious indirect evidence, of course, exists)

[unamis76]

THey were codding and making analysis that 1MB segwit will make effective 2MB increase.
simple 2MB just increase is damaging for network and would lead to decreasing number of nodes.
Also 2mb block would lead to hardfork and when you have tons of apps stop working.
1MB segwit is solving problems with old soft compatibility.

SegWit will make an effective increase if/when someone jumps on board.

And what "old soft compatibility" issues does SegWit solve? If you're referring to what's described here, that's not really solving anything.

To get VISA transfers you need about 1000MB blocks , you can do it in paypal mysql database but not in decentralized network.

Of course one can't. At least for now.

And you won't care when Jihad will lift limit of 21m

I guess nobody will care, they can go on with their own altcoin if they so desire, but that's not really on the scope of this subsection of the forum.

Here is a life lesson for you: Ignore what people say and watch what they do.

Good lesson.

Mining pool operators clearly have no interest in scaling Bitcoin at this juncture.

Miners have all the interest in scaling Bitcoin. If Bitcoin does not scale it will not survive and miners have vested interest in Bitcoin.

If Miners are allowed to continue with ASICBoost, Bitcoin
development ends in many fundamental ways.

Well then, it's not hard to figure out what miners will opt for

[jonald_fyookball]

Mining pool operators clearly have no interest in scaling Bitcoin at this juncture.

Miners have all the interest in scaling Bitcoin. If Bitcoin does not scale it will not survive and miners have vested interest in Bitcoin.
 

Holliday has made his position clear to me:  He thinks Bitcoin will be fine with low TPS and it will still be valuable as a kind of digital gold.

[Lauda]

Is he really not open to others opinion? his vision seems to be the only one and nothing else

Unfortunately this is the case for the supermajority of the population as well as as good portion of the Bitcoin users ("even those thinking they are *awake*").

IF it can be proven they have been using it while claiming they weren't, I would say that is dishonest and deceitful and harmful to Bitcoin, absolutely.   

I'm pretty sure that it is extremely hard/possibly impossible to detect covert usage (which Segwit would prevent).

They secured a patent and wrote functions to use it, but there is no actual proof (such as transaction re-ordering) that they have been using it. 

Why would they spend money building compatible hardware only to *not* use it? Anyone can see that this logic makes no sense.

The fact that they did agree in the HK to segwit+8mb or segwit+4b whatever it was plus the fact that Jihan said (before this 'scandal') that he supports extension blocks (also incompatible with asicboost) supports the idea that they indeed haven't been using it. 

HK was neither +8 MB nor + 4MB. There was never an exact number specified.

[Carlton Banks]

They secured a patent and wrote functions to use it, but there is no actual proof (such as transaction re-ordering) that they have been using it. 

Why would they spend money building compatible hardware only to *not* use it? Anyone can see that this logic makes no sense.

Even so, there still isn't any proof. But I agree, it's highly likely Bitmain are mining empty blocks to make use of ASIC Boost. They've admitted it's there in the ASICs, but deny using it. The BIP to remove covert ASIC Boosting should still happen of course, but there genuinely is no proof it's being used, just some highly suspicious circumstantial evidence, it's not called covert ASIC Boosting for nothing.

[The One]

some devs have found a clever hack which they can use to make BTC TX and NOT pay miners a TX fee
we should enact a USHF to prevent this hack from being exploited, the security model of bitcoin itself is in jeopardy!!

Sources?

[The One]

2m+segwit, why not?

Because it involves doubling MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT as well as MAX_BLOCK_SIZE.

In practice, that means 2MB + 6MB, not 1MB + 3MB (Segwit BIP 141 as proposed).

But what i understood is that it would not stop asicboost to work...

No, that's the whole point behind Antpool/Bitmain blocking Segwit (apparently). Segwit activation would stop ASIC Boost working, because of the way Segwit changes the coinbase structure in blocks. Blocking Segwit would allow Bitmain to continue covert ASIC Boosting, although we haven't got direct evidence that Bitmain are using it (but a range of highly suspicious indirect evidence, of course, exists)

I haven't seen any direct evidences from anyone so far about anything. All i see is opinions, accusations, etc. Hence this debate rolls on and on and on boring me to near death.

[glub0x]

2m+segwit, why not?

Because it involves doubling MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT as well as MAX_BLOCK_SIZE.

In practice, that means 2MB + 6MB, not 1MB + 3MB (Segwit BIP 141 as proposed).

What i meant in my whole post is that asicboost looks like an important issue to resolve.
Of course segwit would solve it, but it doesn't make consensus now and it can't be activated now.
So it is probably better to just stop asicboost from working and then go back to this old debate.
After asicboost has been stop working, jihan and other won't have any mean to activate it again and they might simply go on for segwit.


I am really preaching against myself here because i am in favor of bigger block but i do not want to arguement that here because i already done that and it gives no result...

[BillyBobZorton]

Im tired of all of this talking, we need action now. We need to take out Jihan Wu, then we need segwit so we can enjoy lightning networks and sidechains, all other positions are incorrect.

[Carlton Banks]

2m+segwit, why not?

Because it involves doubling MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT as well as MAX_BLOCK_SIZE.

In practice, that means 2MB + 6MB, not 1MB + 3MB (Segwit BIP 141 as proposed).

What i meant in my whole post is that asicboost looks like an important issue to resolve.
Of course segwit would solve it, but it doesn't make consensus now and it can't be activated now.
So it is probably better to just stop asicboost from working and then go back to this old debate.

After asicboost has been stop working, jihan and other won't have any mean to activate it again and they might simply go on for segwit.

Yes, I broadly agree.

But it sounds like you're saying Segwit might not have a chance, but support from miners is steadily rising, consistently above 30% for nearly a week now.

Also, stopping ASIC Boost might cut Bitmain's hashrate share significantly (assuming they're actually using it, which is not an unfair assumption). Fear of getting their blocks orphaned by >51% of miners signalling Segwit might indeed change Bitmain's mind, they'd have little choice but to start signalling Segwit too, or they'd risk losing blocks and revenue.
the

I am really preaching against myself here because i am in favor of bigger block but i do not want to arguement that here because i already done that and it gives no result...

I'm not in favour of bigger blocks, but you will have your wish, when Segwit activates. I think 4MB blocks are a danger, especially since geopolitical tensions seem to increase every day (and more and more governments are using the tension to advocate putting more controls on the internet).

But I'm willing to compromise with Segwit. If you don't think 4MB blocks will be enough today, I don't know what compromise any of us could agree to.

[jonald_fyookball]

Im tired of all of this talking, we need action now. We need to take out Jihan Wu, then we need segwit so we can enjoy lightning networks and sidechains, all other positions are incorrect.

i read this as:   I am a shill for Core/Blockstream.  Their scaling roadmap is the one true God.

[franky1]

But it sounds like you're saying Segwit might not have a chance, but support from miners is steadily rising, consistently above 30% for nearly a week now.

sorry to burst your bubble

 f2pool was good enough to have morals to admit something

meanwhile bitcoins segwit 31% block flagging is only temporary due to a hack expect it to drop back down below 30% in the next fortnight

https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/848582740798611456

Wang Chun‏ @f2pool_wangchun

Someone hacked major mining operations and their stratum had been changed from antpool, viabtc, btctop to us. Our hashrate doubled instantly

10:07 am - 2 Apr 2017

[AgentofCoin]

1. Jihan supported before understanding the final SegWit Implementation code. After learning the Coinbase references are used, he would obviously retract that support.

This is the same kind of idiotic argument I keep seeing around here.
The problem with your story is that you simply don't know what Jihan knew, and it was Greg who broke the HK agreement, not Jihan.
I know you tried your best to pretend to be logical, but in the end you just failed the simple common sense test. This is what happens when you have to make something sound 10 times more complex than it actually is.

First off, the fact that Jihan signed the HK Agreement doesn't mean anything of any value
in relation to this current ASICBoost issue. Second, Maxwell never signed the HK agreement,
so he could not have broken the agreement that he was not a party to. So, part of your "fact #1"
is not actually factual.

So, I'll give you 0.5 points for your first "fact". (0.5 out of 1.0)
Half a point because Jihan signed it, but that doesn't prove anything at issue.

2. Extension blocks do not change the Coinbase references, only add new anchor txs.
Those anchor txs should not effect the way ASICBoost works, the way new Coinbase refs do.

You're just trying to misdirect people without technical background here, the key to ASICBoost is the rearrangement of tx in a block, SegWit makes it costly to rearrange tx, so does Ext Block.
Granted there was still a little loop hole remaining in the tx in the canonical block, but it's so easy to fix, after Greg's crying, the Ext Block devs just eliminated the entire ASICBoost issue by adding 2 words in the Ext Block spec.
Just add a little extra crap to the merkle root calculation step, and ASICBoost instantly becomes a total non-issue, that is how small an issue this is, this is how weak your speculation is.

Sadly, you are the one misdirecting people.

You stated that your "Fact #2" was that Ext Blocks also blocked covert ASICBoost and
Jihan supports that, so you imply Jihan's innocence, since he would never accept the
Ext Block proposal if it also hurt the purported covert ASICBoost advantage and patents.
This is not a correct record of the events.
Ext Blocks only recently patched it to prevent ASICBoost use, and since then, Jihan will
no longer support that Ext Block proposal. Jihan only supported the Ext Block version that
allowed Covert ASICBoosting to remain intact.

So, I'll give you 0.0 points for your second "fact". (0.5 out of 2.0)
Due to being totally wrong.

3. This comment is jumping the gun. In depth investigations begin now.

And yours is a year late. The ASICBoost issue is over 2 years old, Core/Blockstream already cried about it a year ago, nobody gave a fuck. Stop pretending ASICBoost is some newly discovered game changing trick only Bitmain knew about until today.
30 Apr 2016 Luke Parker: AsicBoost claims 20% efficiency improvement in Bitcoin mining
13 May 2016 - ‏@olivierjanss: Note to miners: We, the core devs, discovered a patented optimization in your ASIC. We will make it obsolete in the next update.

Again, you are the one misdirecting people.

The issue of ASICBoost a few years ago, which I was around for, centered around the
community acknowledgment that Miners should not use it. In addition, Miners agreed
not to use it. The CURRENT ISSUE is that ASICBoost has been purportedly redesigned
to allow for covert ways to ASICBoost, which would be in violation of the community
and miner verbal agreements. I never claimed ASICBoost was newly discovered and
no one in the community is.

So, I'll give you 0.0 points for your third "fact". (0.5 out of 3.0)
Due to trying to arguing that no obvious evidence now, it proof of no wrongdoing.
That is equivalent to saying "there is no body now, so there was no murder ever".

4. This data set should be larger and go farther back in time. Likely prior to the patent dates.
The ASICBoost could be throttled from time to time to prevent obvious indicators.

So go ahead and gather older data then, you're the accuser here, the burden of proof is on you, so back up your accusations with facts instead of pure speculations, prophecies and red herrings.

Of course, the burden in on the community to determine if there is any evidence.

Your "fact #4" relied on faulty data and an incomplete examination of all the
data we could be analyzed. When you dismiss the current accusations outright
and cite a Twitter guy that only went back 3 months, that is disingenuous and
misdirection. We still need time to look over everything. It is likely, based upon
past Bitcoin events, within the next two months or less, someone will publish a
full scientific report either confirming, denying, or concluding that it is
indeterminable. As a Bitcoin supporter you should be interested in those results,
regardless of who is right. You shouldn't be prejudging.

Ultimately, you declaration that there is no evidence is very premature.
You may be correct in the end, but your "Fact #4" is not an actual fact yet.

So, I'll give you 0.0 points for your fourth "fact". (0.5 out of 4.0)
Due to it being not a "fact" and we will have actual "facts" in time.

5. Fees are irrelevant here. The exploit centers around gaining more block rewards.
In a future with less block reward and more fees, this exploit is worthless.

That fact was for the idiots who keep regurgitating the 'AntPool is using ASICBoost to mine empty blocks' bullshit script.

Again, you are the one misdirecting people.

Your "fact" implies that AntPool is innocent since they only profited 14% fees.
Ultimately, that statement is irrelevant entirely. ASICBoost is about cutting the
time down on finding blocks to gain the blockreward, not to gather as many fees
as possible. In addition, it may be possible with this new proposed covert ASICBoost
design, it could account for AntPools high empty block count. This may or may not
be correct, we still don't know. The community is still looking into this.

So, I'll give you 0.5 points for your fifth "fact". (1.0 out of 5.0)
Due to it being partial correct, but wrong as a "fact" to disprove the current accusations.

6. We need independent verification, which will begin now.

Blockstream already spent a year digging and got nothing solid on Bitmain. All Blockstream got is 'ASICBoost maybe used in the future', but it's obvious Bitmain/AntPool will be instantly caught if they actually use ASICBoost in any meaningful way that affect results.

Again, you are the one misdirecting people.

Your "fact #6", you stated that "Greg's math is wrong" which can not be a "fact"
and then you cited Bitman's public response to the current issue, which does not
cite any math or proofs as to why "Greg's math is wrong" or what is the math
determinations in general. I only stated that the community needs to begin
independent investigation. So this "fact #6" can't be a fact as well.

So, I'll give you 0.0 points for your sixth "fact". (1.0 out of 6.0)
Due to citing something that doesn't prove your asserted "Fact #6".

It would likely be best for you to stop quoting Alex.BTC since it is obvious that he
is not interested in learning anything, but perpetuating the obfuscations.
In time, all will be revealed. This is a new development and nicely explains many
previously unknown factors. If motive needed to be determined, this would be a
reasonable assumption to investigate further, and so the community will.
Your adherents to your viewpoints in light of new information still being gathered, is telling.

This is hilarious, all I did was post facts, and all you did was make speculations and then justify them by acting like some cult prophet talking bullshit prophecies  (read: Charles Manson/Heaven's Gate).
ASICBoost is an old issue, Greg is using it again as a distraction, get that through your head.

Here you go on to state that you provided "facts", yet as I have outlined above, your
"fact" score is around 1.0 out of a possible 6.0 facts. That is a lousy fact ratio.

Maybe the community should also investigate why your facts seem not to add up to what
the current evidence is and what it is currently pointing to. I would assume your high error
ratio has to do with being heavily biased in general and not having a problem with it, since you
are pushing an agenda that doesn't care about anything other than your own personal ego
and financial satisfaction. If you cared about Bitcoin and the community, you wouldn't post
those "facts" because they are self serving and a true distraction. "Nothing to see here guys".
"Don't try to look into any of the accusations, because there is no evidence. Case closed."

Talking about me acting like a cult prophet is laughable. Anyone can go back through my
post history and take a look if I have spoken like a prophet, alluding to communication with
God (or Satoshi, in this case), used people, attacked people, purposefully misconstrued info,
shilled positions that are unreasonable, fallen in line with "party" positions, or whatever. My
only allegiance is to the Bitcoin network and it's unencumbered unrestricted unregulated
future. The community can decide between both of us, who seems more reasonable and
genuine, and who is the bullshit artist.

The truth is that everything you are accusing me of is likely what you yourself is doing. I
haven't called you names, but if we are doing that now, I would advise you to read about
Jim Jones and The People's Temple. Since you think I'm acting like a false prophet or whatever,
I will prophesize that your future in the Bitcoin community and your false arguments will fall
along the same lines as what occurred with them. I see great disillusion in your future.

[jonald_fyookball]

Ext Blocks only recently patched it to prevent ASICBoost use, and since then, Jihan will
no longer support that Ext Block proposal.

  Very interesting...  do you have a source?

[Alex.BTC]

First off, the fact that Jihan signed the HK Agreement doesn't mean anything of any value in relation to this current ASICBoost issue.

Not when someone with tunnel vision keep accusing Jihan of stop supporting SegWit once he realized he can't use ASICBoost on it.

The SegWit agreement was already derailed by Greg's 'dipshits' comment right after the agreement was signed, it was later furter derailed by Greg+gang changing the story to 'SegWit was the blocksize increase'.

The key here is Jihan was not the only miner who was pissed at Blockstream/Core and switched to BU. Pinning the entire mass exodus from Core on ASICBoost is just another distraction from the real issue: The 1M blocksize limit.

Second, Maxwell never signed the HK agreement, so he could not have broken the agreement that he was not a party to. So, part of your "fact #1" is not actually factual.

Irrelevant word play, when you resort to nitpick on a micro level, you should know the HK Agreement wasn't even a legally binding contract, but an acknowledgement of consensus between miners and Blockstream/Core.

Adam Back represented Blockstream when he signed the HK Agreement (he used a bait and switch at the last minute, but f2pool corrected him afterwards), Greg was part of Blockstream and Core, so everyone in Blockstream is in the same party that signed the agreement.

Greg actively and vocally went against the HK agreement right after it was signed, Greg's bullshit continued to this day. Greg wasn't the only one from Blockstream/Core working against the agreement, but he was the most vocal, that's why he's now called "One Meg Greg", miners switched to BU once it was clear that Blockstream/Core wasn't going to keep their promises and offer 2MB non witness blocks as promised.

This Blockstream circus has been going on for over a year, you have to be intentionally dishonest or grossly uninformed to claim Greg didn't break the HK Agreement.

You stated that your "Fact #2" was that Ext Blocks also blocked covert ASICBoost and
Jihan supports that, so you imply Jihan's innocence, since he would never accept the
Ext Block proposal if it also hurt the purported covert ASICBoost advantage and patents.
This is not a correct record of the events.

Ext Blocks only recently patched it to prevent ASICBoost use

I knew you'd fall for it. Ext Block had always been immune to ASICBoost, simply because its design is base on BIP-141 (SegWit), which hash all regular and side tx into the coinbase merkle root.

And now I know you really are a paid troll, only a paid troll would act stupid all the time then suddenly become smart enough to pick up on small details and try go for a kill. But you were lazy and didn't check commit history, so you didn't notice it was just a bait.

The funny thing is this time I'll use Greg's ASICBoost inhibiting proposal and BIP-141(SegWit) to prove you wrong, using one shill against another just for kicks.

Take a look at Greg's ASICBoost inhibiting proposal on 5 Apr 2017:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html
BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the Bitcoin POW function

It is this final optimization which this proposal blocks.

==New consensus rule==
Beginning block X and until block Y the coinbase transaction of
each block MUST either contain a BIP-141 segwit commitment or a
correct WTXID commitment with ID 0xaa21a9ef.

(See BIP-141 "Commitment structure" for details)

Notice the bold part, the key here is "BIP-141 commitment structure".

What this means is that if your proposal uses BIP-141(SegWit)'s commitment structure, then it is immune to ASICBoost. (BIP-141 is what Extension Block is base on, that's why Extension Block is immune to ASICBoost)

As to what the 'commitment structure' is, it is described in the spec of BIP-141 (haven't changed since 2016):

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki
Extensible commitment structure

The new commitment in coinbase transaction is a hash of the witness root hash

Commitment structure
A new block rule is added which requires a commitment to the wtxid. The wtxid of coinbase transaction is assumed to be 0x0000....0000.

A witness root hash is calculated with all those wtxid as leaves, in a way similar to the hashMerkleRoot in the block header.

Transaction ID
A new wtxid is defined: the double SHA256 of the new serialization with witness data

A non-witness program (defined hereinafter) txin MUST be associated with an empty witness field, represented by a 0x00. If all txins are not witness program, a transaction's wtxid is equal to its txid.

So, in BIP-141, you have a new commitment hash (a new markel root) in the coinbase called the 'witness root hash', this hash is base on all the 'wtxid' in the block, 'wtxid' is all the tx in the block, including both witness and non-witness tx.

That means, in plain english, in BIP-141 (aka SegWit, which Extension Block is also base on), every time you reorder/add/remove/replace a transaction from the block (to generate a new hash), the coinbase is changed.

By placing the hash of all the tx on the left side (witness root hash inside the coinbase), everytime you change the right side (reorder tx), you also change the left side at the same time.

This renders ASICBoost useless since one of the shortcut ASCIBoost relies on, is the fact that in Bitcoin when you change the tx order (right side of the Markel Tree), the coinbase (left side) doesn't change, which makes it much cheaper to generate and filter hash collisions (which will then be used for the sha256 msg expansion short cut in the mining outer loop).

Greg further explained BIP-141's ASICBoost immunity here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/dfvzn08/
nullc

Any protocol improvement that requires a hash in the coinbase transaction (left side of the tree) that changes based on transactions in the right side of the tree is incompatible with the most efficient covert boosting implementation.

Greg is a well-known for his lying, but he is also hell-bent on destroying Jihan and it took him a year to come up with this, so I might as well use it against another shill.

Now, about Extension Block, and why your accusations and prophecies don't stand up to facts.

On 3 Apr 2017, Jinhan posted this on twitter:" I love the extension block proposal. It is compitable with BU."

This was the spec of Extension Block on 1 Apr 2017 (2 days before Jihan's tweet, 5 days before the so-called ASICBoost patch):

Commitment
The commitment serialization and discovery rules follows the same rules defined in BIP141.

The merkle root is to be calculated as a merkle tree with all extension block txids and wtxids as the leaves. Regular txids, although not necessary for security purposes, are included for the possibility of regular TXID merkle proofs.

This establishes three facts:
1. Extension Block uses the same commitment structure as BIP-141(SegWit), which is immune to ASICBoost.
2. In Extension Block, all txid, regular block or extension block, are all included in the Merkle Root. (Changing right side of the Merkle Tree = changing the left side = high tx reorder cost = immune to ASICBoost)
3. The Extension block spec Jihan supported on 3 Apr 2017, was immune to ASICBoost.

In 4 Apr 2017, 1 day after Jihan voiced his support for Extension block, chjj, an Ext Block dev, made the following changes in the Ext Block spec:

-txids and wtxids as the leaves. Regular txids, although not necessary for
-security purposes, are included for the possibility of regular TXID merkle
-proofs.
+txids and wtxids as the leaves.

In this commit, chjj basically tried to remove the ASICBoost immunity from Extension Block.

What he did here was changed the spec to no longer include regular txid into the coinbase merkle root, this means miners can reorder regular txid (changing right side of the tree), without changing the coinbase (left side of the tree), this allow ASICBoost to efficiently generate and filter collision hashes for the mining loop short cut.

But he did a half ass job, because the line above still read:
"The commitment serialization and discovery rules follows the same rules defined in BIP141"

Following BIP-141 means all regular/extended tx is still in the new merkle root in the coinbase, still immune to ASICBoost.  

On the surface, it may look like chjj had no idea what he was doing.
(this is also the part where you got fucked over, thinking ASICBoost actually would work on Extension Block after chjj's botched edit)

This is evidenced by the issue he created the next day, 5 Apr 2017, soon after Greg posted the ASICBoost inhibiting proposal:

https://github.com/tothemoon-org/extension-blocks/issues/6
chjj commented Apr 5, 2017

I haven't read this too closely, but if this is actually real we should take preventative measures: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html

We may need to add an extra commitment to the coinbase prevent asicboost.

chjj's edit lasted only for one day, quickly fixed after some knee jerk reaction from the devs on Greg's ASICBoost inhibiting proposal.

A more experienced dev, indutny, made the following comment the next day:

indutny commented Apr 6, 2017 - Contributor

I believe that this proposal is not compatible with ASICBOOST, at least according to Greg's suggestion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Extension Blocks still require commitment over whole tree (both main and extension), which means that re-arrangements of TXs are still as expensive as in SEGWIT.

indutny was correct, Extension Block has always been immune to ASICBoost, Ext Block's commitment structure was base on BIP-141/SegWit, so add/remove/reorder/replace any regular/extension tx has the same effect as SegWit - it changes the coinbase, making ASCBoost's collision filtering short cut no longer works, hash collision generation and filter too costly.

But one thing is curious tho, chjj removed 2 lines from the Ext Block spec to make it look like Extension Block wasn't immune to ASICBoost, at the same time Greg was posing the ASICBoost inhibiting proposal.

Right after he removed that line, he created an issue to ask for help on dealing with ASICBoost, then quickly accepted a PR to 'fix' the ASICBoost issue.

Delete ASICBoost immunity > Ask for Help on ASICBoost > Accept PR to deal with ASICBoost, all within 2 days. The delete commit was also burried under a bunch of other edits, with a disguised description.

What a series of strange coincident. It's as if chjj wanted to make a big deal out of ASICBoost in the Ext Block issue/pull request while Greg was also making a big deal out of ASICBoost at the same time.

and since then, Jihan will no longer support that Ext Block proposal. Jihan only supported the Ext Block version that
allowed Covert ASICBoosting to remain intact.

I just established, using verifiable facts, that Jihan/Bitmain/AntPool supported Extension Block, which was and still is immune to ASICBoost.

The issue of ASICBoost a few years ago, which I was around for, centered around the
community acknowledgment that Miners should not use it. In addition, Miners agreed
not to use it. The CURRENT ISSUE is that ASICBoost has been purportedly redesigned
to allow for covert ways to ASICBoost, which would be in violation of the community
and miner verbal agreements.

Again, still no proof that ASICBoost was ever used in production.

With all these screaming you'd expect at least a little proof, but nope, just a bunch of idiots regurgitating the same script.

The real reason Jihan even put ASICBoost on the market but not enabled it was because 'first to market' is how you win patent wars. ASICBoost was being patened by other people in other countries, obviously the next move was to put ASICBoost on market to defend the patent.

That's also why Jihan Wu made the 'ASICBoost? Do you have any basic understanding of patent law' tweet then deleted it, him or his lawyer probably realized speaking that truth wasn't going to be helpful to future patent lawsuits.

And the real current issue here is a bunch of trolls are suffering from verbal diarrhea, trying to distract people from the real issue: the blocksize increase.

I never claimed ASICBoost was newly discovered and no one in the community is.

All the knee jerk responses, screaming and finger pointing, foaming at the mouth baseless accusations about ASICBoost suggest otherwise.

Of course, the burden in on the community to determine if there is any evidence.

You made the accusations, the burden of proof is on you, back up your own words instead of cry wolf nonstop then looking around like a moron waiting for someone else to clean up your mess.

Your "fact #4" relied on faulty data and an incomplete examination of all the
data we could be analyzed. When you dismiss the current accusations outright
and cite a Twitter guy that only went back 3 months, that is disingenuous and
misdirection. We still need time to look over everything. It is likely, based upon
past Bitcoin events, within the next two months or less, someone will publish a
full scientific report either confirming, denying, or concluding that it is
indeterminable. As a Bitcoin supporter you should be interested in those results,
regardless of who is right. You shouldn't be prejudging.

Ultimately, you declaration that there is no evidence is very premature.
You may be correct in the end, but your "Fact #4" is not an actual fact yet.

The blockchain (that immutable thing you call 'faulty data') has always been out there for everyone to see.
There are no long strings of empty blocks.
There are no pattern of funny version numbers.
There are no pattern of weird tx orders.

If there is some kind of secret way to use ASICBoost that can hide this well from everyone for this long, then ASICBoost automatically become yet another optimization. But then again, there aren't any abnormal hashrate:blockrate ratio.

You made accusations with absolutely nothing but bullshit prophecies, then you complain about people showing up with facts dating back months? Normal people just can't be that silly, trolling as a job is one thing, but this is just bad acting, very unprofessional.

Your "fact" implies that AntPool is innocent since they only profited 14% fees.
Ultimately, that statement is irrelevant entirely. ASICBoost is about cutting the
time down on finding blocks to gain the blockreward, not to gather as many fees
as possible. In addition, it may be possible with this new proposed covert ASICBoost
design, it could account for AntPools high empty block count. This may or may not
be correct, we still don't know. The community is still looking into this.

So, I'll give you 0.5 points for your fifth "fact". (1.0 out of 5.0)
Due to it being partial correct, but wrong as a "fact" to disprove the current accusations.

Again, no long strings of empty blocks.
No abnormal hashrate/blockrate ratios.

It takes time to calculate the next block template, during which miners mine empty blocks, AntPool has the highest hash rate, naturally they'll have more empty blocks than others.
 
Empty blocks existed before ASIC was even in the picture.

Try look for some abnormal patterns from the blockchain, instead of keep pulling crystal balls out of your rear.

Your "fact #6", you stated that "Greg's math is wrong" which can not be a "fact"
and then you cited Bitman's public response to the current issue, which does not
cite any math or proofs as to why "Greg's math is wrong" or what is the math
determinations in general. I only stated that the community needs to begin
independent investigation. So this "fact #6" can't be a fact as well.

So, I'll give you 0.0 points for your sixth "fact". (1.0 out of 6.0)
Due to citing something that doesn't prove your asserted "Fact #6".

He did say why Greg was wrong.

Why are you even arguing for Greg. Greg doesn't even understand the difference between 1MB and 2MB.

Maybe the community should also investigate why your facts seem not to add up to what
the current evidence is and what it is currently pointing to. I would assume your high error
ratio has to do with being heavily biased in general and not having a problem with it, since you
are pushing an agenda that doesn't care about anything other than your own personal ego
and financial satisfaction. If you cared about Bitcoin and the community, you wouldn't post
those "facts" because they are self serving and a true distraction. "Nothing to see here guys".
"Don't try to look into any of the accusations, because there is no evidence. Case closed."

Or they should investigate why there are so many unprofessional trolls posting similar bullshit narratives non stop.

No logic, no facts, wrong every time, yet keep repeating them like their jobs depend on it.

Sometimes they don't even remember what they posted a page ago, like they're working on multiple sites at the same time, or more than one PR worker is using the account.

Talking about me acting like a cult prophet is laughable. Anyone can go back through my
post history and take a look if I have spoken like a prophet

1. You are laughable.
2. They can, I did, and you have.
3. Cult prophet wannabe proof:
AgentofCoin: In time, all will be revealed.
AgentofCoin: within the next two months or less, someone will publish a full scientific report
AgentofCoin: Jihan will no longer support that Ext Block proposal.

In time, you'll find a better job than acting like a robot online all the time.

take a look if I have attacked people, purposefully misconstrued info,
shilled positions that are unreasonable, fallen in line with "party" positions, or whatever.

You do realize you just got out trolled because you asked for it by name on page 1, right? Here:

It would likely be best for you to stop quoting Alex.BTC since it is obvious that he is not interested in learning anything, but perpetuating the obfuscations. In time, all will be revealed.

And you do realize I was just using you to explain to people Extension Block is immune to ASICBoost, right?

This whole ASICBoost bullshit is just another distraction from Core keeping the blocksize at 1M slowing everything down.

The ASICBoost write paper used a lot of tech jargon, that's why after a year over half the devs still don't know how it works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. This allows miners to simplify the sha256 mining loop, so that it only uses 3 sha256 operations instead of 4, and increase performance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. This is what happens in BIP-141 SegWit, the coinbase has a new merkle root call the 'witness root hash', that includes all regular and side tx. This makes reordering tx also updates the coinbase, miners have to spend 10 extra operations for each tx reordering, this double overhead makes it too costly to use ASICBoost.

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

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

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

20. The excuse of ASICBoost patent may lead to centralization is just silly, there are so many patent involved with mining already, from chip to connectors to cooling, everywhere you look there is a patent. This field is so competitive, every year there are a bunch of new optimizations with a new bunch of patents.

So, ASICBoost doesn't work on Extension Block, and ASICBoost was never used in production.

Stop crying about it being used and just show us the proof for all your accusations.

[Alex.BTC]

Ext Blocks only recently patched it to prevent ASICBoost use, and since then, Jihan will
no longer support that Ext Block proposal.

  Very interesting...  do you have a source?

He does, it's a sphere, it's made of glass, it's on the floor of his toilet and it has wet brown stains on it.

[X7]

You guys are in full damage control mode today, huh? I see all the familiar faces (all 4 of you) posting like madmen.

They literally spend most of their time writing these garbage posts.

[lottery248]

because the majority is using bitcoin core, most of the people in the dark of any client else than core will not get into it. IIRC core is more sustainable by its growth of blockchain size, other than which propose a higher size per block are not affordable to them.

inability of sustaining a blockchain by miners, so do the majority. their statement of using core are reasonable to software users.

[jonald_fyookball]

Ext Blocks only recently patched it to prevent ASICBoost use, and since then, Jihan will
no longer support that Ext Block proposal.

  Very interesting...  do you have a source?

He does, it's a sphere, it's made of glass, it's on the floor of his toilet and it has wet brown stains on it.

not sure i get the joke.

But seriously, AgentofCoin...regardless of the fact that this is a distraction from the scaling debate,
you made an interesting/important claim here about Jihan...so I would like to know where you
got that from.  Surely, you didn't just make this up?

[Alex.BTC]

Ext Blocks only recently patched it to prevent ASICBoost use, and since then, Jihan will
no longer support that Ext Block proposal.

  Very interesting...  do you have a source?

He does, it's a sphere, it's made of glass, it's on the floor of his toilet and it has wet brown stains on it.

not sure i get the joke.

But seriously, AgentofCoin...regardless of the fact that this is a distraction from the scaling debate,
you made an interesting/important claim here about Jihan...so I would like to know where you
got that from.  Surely, you didn't just make this up?

He can't answer you, AgentofCoin likes to use his secret crystal ball instead of facts.

[AgentofCoin]

First off, the fact that Jihan signed the HK Agreement doesn't mean anything of any value in relation to this current ASICBoost issue.

Not when someone with tunnel vision keep accusing Jihan of stop supporting SegWit once he realized he can't use ASICBoost on it.
The SegWit agreement was already derailed by Greg's 'dipshits' comment right after the agreement was signed, it was later furter derailed by Greg+gang changing the story to 'SegWit was the blocksize increase'.
The key here is Jihan was not the only miner who was pissed at Blockstream/Core and switched to BU. Pinning the entire mass exodus from Core on ASICBoost is just another distraction from the real issue: The 1M blocksize limit.

No, the key here is your explanation is irrelevant. You stated that Jihan signed the
HK Agreement and Maxwell then violated that agreement. The fact was that agreement
was not bound to Maxwell nor to any other Core dev other than to who signed that
document. All signatory developers were not granted any authority to make future
development decisions by the Core dev group.

My comment to your original comment centered around ASICBoost and nothing else.
You were insinuating that Jihan understood when signing the HK Agreement that SegWit
would break his ASICBoost, so he signed it in good faith and with knowledge. I merely
pointed out that was impossible in the timeline of events.
But you don’t care what I am saying because you have a malicious agenda.

Second, Maxwell never signed the HK agreement, so he could not have broken the agreement that he was not a party to. So, part of your "fact #1" is not actually factual.

Irrelevant word play, when you resort to nitpick on a micro level, you should know the HK Agreement wasn't even a legally binding contract, but an acknowledgement of consensus between miners and Blockstream/Core.
Adam Back represented Blockstream when he signed the HK Agreement (he used a bait and switch at the last minute, but f2pool corrected him afterwards), Greg was part of Blockstream and Core, so everyone in Blockstream is in the same party that signed the agreement.
Greg actively and vocally went against the HK agreement right after it was signed, Greg's bullshit continued to this day. Greg wasn't the only one from Blockstream/Core working against the agreement, but he was the most vocal, that's why he's now called "One Meg Greg", miners switched to BU once it was clear that Blockstream/Core wasn't going to keep their promises and offer 2MB non witness blocks as promised.
This Blockstream circus has been going on for over a year, you have to be intentionally dishonest or grossly uninformed to claim Greg didn't break the HK Agreement.

If you acknowledge that it was just a gentlemen’s agreement between individuals
(and not representatives of Core with decision authority, which is impossible and a
oxymoron in a voluntary open-source community), why are you arguing about it?

It seems to me that the miners were attempting to pull a fast one. They were trying
to get a handful of people to decide the future of the Bitcoin Network. During that
meeting, all invited parties told the miners they had no actual authority and the
miners got mad because they are ignorant as to how the Bitcoin development
community actually works. They thought they could dictate the future.

Blockstream has no authority over the Core development. Maxwell and other
employees of Blockstream are Core developers, but they are separate entities.
If you think Blockstream breached, sue them. If you think Maxwell, as an employee
of Blockstream was a bad boy, ask Back to fire him. Ultimately, it is worthless since
all parties who signed the “agreement” had no power nor authority to guarantee or
implement a 2MB hardfork. That is the community's decision. Not any of theres.

You might consider the reason why you think there is a “Blockstream Circus” is
because you don’t really understand the full development system. If you or the
miners would have had your way, Bitcoin would have a dictator or CEO, it seems.

I love Bitcoin and the liberty it grants, you only love to control and strangle it.

You stated that your "Fact #2" was that Ext Blocks also blocked covert ASICBoost and
Jihan supports that, so you imply Jihan's innocence, since he would never accept the
Ext Block proposal if it also hurt the purported covert ASICBoost advantage and patents.
This is not a correct record of the events.

Ext Blocks only recently patched it to prevent ASICBoost use

I knew you'd fall for it.
And now I know you really are a paid troll, only a paid troll would act stupid all the time then suddenly become smart enough to pick up on small details and try go for a kill. But you were lazy and didn't check commit history, so you didn't notice it was just a bait.
The funny thing is this time I'll use Greg's ASICBoost inhibiting proposal and BIP-141(SegWit) to prove you wrong, using one shill against another just for kicks.

Why begin accusing me of being a paid troll or shill? The fact is you are the noob
who copies and pastes from other forums and websites and literally checks off
talking points as you go. Half the time your points have nothing to do with our
original conversation. Normal people do not resort to calling people shills or trolls.
But you do that to hide the fact that you likely are one.  Like I said in my original
post to Jonald, you are just here to “perpetuate the obfuscations”. But, if you are
not a paid shill or troll then you are prone to paranoid delusions.

…
…
…
…
…

But one thing is curious tho, chjj removed 2 lines from the Ext Block spec to make it look like Extension Block wasn't immune to ASICBoost, at the same time Greg was posing the ASICBoost inhibiting proposal.
Right after he removed that line, he created an issue to ask for help on dealing with ASICBoost, then quickly accepted a PR to 'fix' the ASICBoost issue.
Delete ASICBoost immunity > Ask for Help on ASICBoost > Accept PR to deal with ASICBoost, all within 2 days. The delete commit was also burried under a bunch of other edits, with a disguised description.
What a series of strange coincident. It's as if chjj wanted to make a big deal out of ASICBoost in the Ext Block issue/pull request while Greg was also making a big deal out of ASICBoost at the same time.

I disagree with your analysis and conclusion.
In fact, it seems to have a major flaw.

According to my simple research chjj changed Ext Blocks code 1 hour and  
21 minutes before Jihan commented that he loved Ext blocks. So, if that is true,
 that means Jihan likely got chjj to change the code and not Blockstream or
Maxwell.

So, you wrote a lot, and that is nice, but your time stamps do not match the
proper time line. If your conspiracy was to be correct then chjj should have
changed AFTER Jihan’s twitter posting, not BEFORE as he did.

This would also explain tany other issues and contradictions on the GitHub in
a reasonable way. In this case, chjj issued pull after Maxwell’s email to the
Core Devs could be seen as a “cover my ass” pull request. Either way, Jihan
twitter commented after the chjj change was made.

So as a non-technical person who hasn't gone deep into the details yet,
I think you are overall wrong due to timeline error.

and since then, Jihan will no longer support that Ext Block proposal. Jihan only supported the Ext Block version that
allowed Covert ASICBoosting to remain intact.

I just established, using verifiable facts, that Jihan/Bitmain/AntPool supported Extension Block, which was and still is immune to ASICBoost.

I think I have shown simply that Jihan tweeted his love for Ext Block after chjj
change its code. Your facts were not complete and you jumped to conclusions.

The issue of ASICBoost a few years ago, which I was around for, centered around the
community acknowledgment that Miners should not use it. In addition, Miners agreed
not to use it. The CURRENT ISSUE is that ASICBoost has been purportedly redesigned
to allow for covert ways to ASICBoost, which would be in violation of the community
and miner verbal agreements.

Again, still no proof that ASICBoost was ever used in production.
…
And the real current issue here is a bunch of trolls are suffering from verbal diarrhea, trying to distract people from the real issue: the blocksize increase.

I never argued there was proof currently available.
Everyone who is bothering to read this thread (which I assume is quite low
since most people would not waste their time and are likely telling themselves
that I am a moron for bothering to talk to you in a reasonable manner) can
see i never made the claim you are now attributing to me, once again.

The blocksize increase is not the true issue since Jihan doesn’t even really care
about that either. He cares more about the potential loss of profits if ASICBoost
is restricted from the network. He basically said so in the Bitmain published
statement. He only cares about his patents while drapes himself in how he
doesn't want to harm the Bitcoin community, yet that is what he has been doing.

People who think that Jihan is a true believer of the blocksize increase is naïve
at best and a paid shill at worst. You have been used by a Chinese businessman
who thought he would use the blocksize issue as a pawn, including its adherents.
The very people Satoshi created the Bitcoin system to control, you are advocating
we should trust. The only thing you should trust is that they will try to find the
next block over their competitor.

I never claimed ASICBoost was newly discovered and no one in the community is.

All the knee jerk responses, screaming and finger pointing, foaming at the mouth baseless accusations about ASICBoost suggest otherwise.

That may be because you can’t tell the different between two separate distinctions.

Of course, the burden in on the community to determine if there is any evidence.

You made the accusations, the burden of proof is on you, back up your own words instead of cry wolf nonstop then looking around like a moron waiting for someone else to clean up your mess.

Lol. Pretty hostile statement.

In the past, community members who have specialized knowledge and training
have come forth to do that work. Why do I, someone who has no training in
computers or math, need to lead this charge. Lol, I’m not as arrogant as you to
think I could do it. Community members who are experts will handle that. I have
nothing to prove personally. As I have stated previously, the community will
investigate and analyze like every other time a controversy like this occurred.

See what I said there. That is called being rational. I know its hard for you.
But you need to learn to try more.

Your "fact #4" relied on faulty data and an incomplete examination of all the
data we could be analyzed. When you dismiss the current accusations outright
and cite a Twitter guy that only went back 3 months, that is disingenuous and
misdirection. We still need time to look over everything. It is likely, based upon
past Bitcoin events, within the next two months or less, someone will publish a
full scientific report either confirming, denying, or concluding that it is
indeterminable. As a Bitcoin supporter you should be interested in those results,
regardless of who is right. You shouldn't be prejudging.

Ultimately, you declaration that there is no evidence is very premature.
You may be correct in the end, but your "Fact #4" is not an actual fact yet.

The blockchain (that immutable thing you call 'faulty data') has always been out there for everyone to see.
There are no long strings of empty blocks.
There are no pattern of funny version numbers.
There are no pattern of weird tx orders.

If there is some kind of secret way to use ASICBoost that can hide this well from everyone for this long, then ASICBoost automatically become yet another optimization. But then again, there aren't any abnormal hashrate:blockrate ratio.

You made accusations with absolutely nothing but bullshit prophecies, then you complain about people showing up with facts dating back months? Normal people just can't be that silly, trolling as a job is one thing, but this is just bad acting, very unprofessional.

You twisted my words. So you are either not reading properly or doing it
intentionally. You are stating there is no evidence. Have you already looked into
this subject? Maybe you should publish your report on your findings, since you
claim there are no patterns or anything of any interest. I’m sure that would be
an interesting read, as much as your prior analysis ont chjj and the ext block
github was, Lol. You cited a "fact" that was based on only 3 months of data,
when the technology in question is over 2 years old.

You lack of imagination is remarkable.

Your "fact" implies that AntPool is innocent since they only profited 14% fees.
Ultimately, that statement is irrelevant entirely. ASICBoost is about cutting the
time down on finding blocks to gain the blockreward, not to gather as many fees
as possible. In addition, it may be possible with this new proposed covert ASICBoost
design, it could account for AntPools high empty block count. This may or may not
be correct, we still don't know. The community is still looking into this.

So, I'll give you 0.5 points for your fifth "fact". (1.0 out of 5.0)
Due to it being partial correct, but wrong as a "fact" to disprove the current accusations.

Again, no long strings of empty blocks.
No abnormal hashrate/blockrate ratios.
It takes time to calculate the next block template, during which miners mine empty blocks, AntPool has the highest hash rate, naturally they'll have more empty blocks than others.
Empty blocks existed before ASIC was even in the picture.
Try look for some abnormal patterns from the blockchain, instead of keep pulling crystal balls out of your rear.

Lol. You were the one who was declaring “facts”, remember? You are the one who
is predicting the future by saying there is nothing to find. You are doing the “Do not
look at the man behind the curtain!” routine. Stop telling me to look and also saying
there is nothing to find. It is pretty contradictory.

Your "fact #6", you stated that "Greg's math is wrong" which can not be a "fact"
and then you cited Bitman's public response to the current issue, which does not
cite any math or proofs as to why "Greg's math is wrong" or what is the math
determinations in general. I only stated that the community needs to begin
independent investigation. So this "fact #6" can't be a fact as well.

So, I'll give you 0.0 points for your sixth "fact". (1.0 out of 6.0)
Due to citing something that doesn't prove your asserted "Fact #6".

He did say why Greg was wrong.
Why are you even arguing for Greg. Greg doesn't even understand the difference between 1MB and 2MB.

No, their statement said that he was wrong, not why, and then they go on to state a
better way to deal with this issue other than what Maxwell proposed. They never
pointed out actual math as to why Maxwell was wrong.

I am not arguing for Maxwell. I am only arguing against your “facts” you posted prior.
I’m pretty sure Maxwell and the community understands the difference between 1MB
and 2MB. Since, if they didn’t, we would all be at 5MB by now, and on our way to
14MB within the year.

Maybe the community should also investigate why your facts seem not to add up to what
the current evidence is and what it is currently pointing to. I would assume your high error
ratio has to do with being heavily biased in general and not having a problem with it, since you
are pushing an agenda that doesn't care about anything other than your own personal ego
and financial satisfaction. If you cared about Bitcoin and the community, you wouldn't post
those "facts" because they are self serving and a true distraction. "Nothing to see here guys".
"Don't try to look into any of the accusations, because there is no evidence. Case closed."

Or they should investigate why there are so many unprofessional trolls posting similar bullshit narratives non stop.
No logic, no facts, wrong every time, yet keep repeating them like their jobs depend on it.
Sometimes they don't even remember what they posted a page ago, like they're working on multiple sites at the same time, or more than one PR worker is using the account.

What? Are you talking about yourself here? I think you might be referring to yourself
here.  My guess is anyone who is constantly attacking people about them being a
paid shill or paid troll or whatever, is likely the true shill or troll. Most people fight, but
when you resort to those types of things, it usually means that individual is the weaker
one and the deceiver, and normal regular people know this. I guess you never learned
that lesson in shill school.

Talking about me acting like a cult prophet is laughable. Anyone can go back through my
post history and take a look if I have spoken like a prophet

1. You are laughable.
2. They can, I did, and you have.
3. Cult prophet wannabe proof:
AgentofCoin: In time, all will be revealed.
AgentofCoin: within the next two months or less, someone will publish a full scientific report
AgentofCoin: Jihan will no longer support that Ext Block proposal.

In time, you'll find a better job than acting like a robot online all the time.

Lol. That is pretty weak. (1) is not a prophesy, that is life in general (2) someone
publishing an analysis should be expected, it happens constantly within our community
(3) that is not a prophecy either, that’s deduction.  But I dare you to have Jihan tweet
that he will accept a scaling solution that enforces anti-ASICBoost like measures. If he
does it and the community sees that statement, I will admit that I was wrong and you
were correct. (Something I'm sure you are incapable of doing yourself).

take a look if I have attacked people, purposefully misconstrued info,
shilled positions that are unreasonable, fallen in line with "party" positions, or whatever.

You do realize you just got out trolled because you asked for it by name on page 1, right? Here:

It would likely be best for you to stop quoting Alex.BTC since it is obvious that he is not interested in learning anything, but perpetuating the obfuscations. In time, all will be revealed.

Lol. Oh no… You got me, I told people not to listen to you because you are
“perpetuating the obfuscations”, and you have interpreted that as an attack in
your simple mind. See that? Where I called your mind simple there. That’s an
attack. Now I have attacked you individually. You are a base shitty person and
there is no wonder why the bitcoin community is so crazy. There are people like
you making new accounts to copy and paste shit for a few satoshis.

BTW you stated above "You do realize you just got out trolled". So is that your
admission that you are indeed a troll then? But, lets continue

And you do realize I was just using you to explain to people Extension Block is immune to ASICBoost, right?

Think about it, here we have some paid trolls whose job is to keep their filthy mouth open all day like a $5 crack whore, it's their job to go online and claim every fact is wrong, but if after 3000 words you people still can't prove me wrong, that means what I posted must be right, if you trolls had anything solid to dispute these facts, you would have used them by now.

Lol.  You used me? Oh man I feel dirty and violated now, kinda like that crack
whore you refer to. What are you like 17 years old? Nothing you have stated on
this whole forum has any truth to it, let alone this little thread. If you think you
have not been proven wrong by now, that’s only due to your own ignorance and
delusion and not due to your "factual" knowledge.

I have now above, shown how your chff and Ext block analysis was wrong.
Are you going to ignore that one too next time you respond? I bet if I am correct
I will never hear about your correction of that error.

You were showing a dumb robitic pattern, so I gave you a chance to think you got me and see how you would react. Yup, you stopped being a complete retard for a minute and went straight for a kill (but missed), so 100% a paid troll.

Like I've kept telling you paid shills here, you need to put more effort to act like normal humans, show more professionalism, you can't slack off and go full retard all the time, normal people just aren't that stupid, not for that long and not with that kind of consistent pattern.

Beep Boop. Oh no. Alex.BTC has figured out I’m a robot and he got me. Beep Boop.
I hope he gets paid double from his shill master because he is greatest shill in all
shilldom. The paragraph he wrote above here really outlines how Alex.BTC’s mind
works, and why he is malicious to the bitcoin community. Anyone who continues to
listen to him is either misguided or just as bad. Remember kids, don’t grow up to be
like Alex.BTC. You have to learn to deal with your hate in healthy ways. Don't throw
your life away and grow up to be a paid shill like Alex.BTC. Take a stand with
something you believe in and don't participate in the hate mongering. Beep boop.

Once your idiocracy reach a certain therhold, people begin to recognize an odd pattern, the pattern of you people being wrong on the same obvious things over and over like a broken robot, at that point it becomes too obvious that we're just dealing with someone with an online troll job.

Remember, being a troll is not about being a robot. A robotic troll is like a bad actor, when you do that your PR campaign will actually have the opposite effect. Listen to your instinct, once you've crossed that line of 50 IQ, pull back, act normal again for a while, otherwise it'd become too obvious.

Lol. This is my favorite part of the speech. The 50 IQ part. Lol. People can’t speak
proper sentences, let alone hold a thought in their head at that level. But whatever..
You just like to say anything, even things that aren't "factual". Beep Boop.

Talk to your handler, have a meeting, ask for a better PR script.

I mean you just based a 1000 words troll post on a false assumption that ASICBoost works on Extension Block. That's just sloppy trolling. Research the subject, stop making amateur mistakes, your problem isn't the trolling, it's the lack of professionalism and bad acting.

Ask yourself, would you even hire yourself for a PR campaign?

Talk to my handler, eh? Looks like we got ourselves an intelligence agent here.
Alex.BTC has exposed himself to be an intelligence agent by using their lingo.
Beep Boop Maybe your "handler" will read this thread and fire your ass for
doing a lousy job. But unfortunately, I suspect you will get a raise since
your job is to create division and obfuscation, as opposed to providing
any "facts" to the community.

You want me to ask my 50 Point IQ robot brain if I would hire my 50 IQ robot
brain for a PR campaign? LOL!! If you are not a paid troll/shill I really have no
idea what they would be like, since if your not one, I’d be afraid to meet a real
one. Pathetic my friend, real pathetic.

If I had to score your factual ratio again, you would get another low score, my
robot brain thinks.

[AgentofCoin]

Ext Blocks only recently patched it to prevent ASICBoost use, and since then, Jihan will
no longer support that Ext Block proposal.

Very interesting...  do you have a source?

He does, it's a sphere, it's made of glass, it's on the floor of his toilet and it has wet brown stains on it.

not sure i get the joke.
But seriously, AgentofCoin...regardless of the fact that this is a distraction from the scaling debate,
you made an interesting/important claim here about Jihan...so I would like to know where you
got that from.  Surely, you didn't just make this up?

He can't answer you, AgentofCoin likes to use his secret crystal ball instead of facts.

My crystal ball is saying that Alex.BTC will need to get a real job soon because
his shill work isn't paying the bills. Soon he is going to have to scam the members
in the Digital Good section.

Hey Alex.BTC make sure you address my points in my most recent response since
you are accustomed to taking snippets that never address the actual issues.
Thanks buddy. Looking forward to reading your word salad and tap dancing later.

[jonald_fyookball]

Ext Blocks only recently patched it to prevent ASICBoost use, and since then, Jihan will
no longer support that Ext Block proposal.

Very interesting...  do you have a source?

He does, it's a sphere, it's made of glass, it's on the floor of his toilet and it has wet brown stains on it.

not sure i get the joke.
But seriously, AgentofCoin...regardless of the fact that this is a distraction from the scaling debate,
you made an interesting/important claim here about Jihan...so I would like to know where you
got that from.  Surely, you didn't just make this up?

He can't answer you, AgentofCoin likes to use his secret crystal ball instead of facts.

My crystal ball is saying that Alex.BTC will need to get a real job soon because
his shill work isn't paying the bills. Soon he is going to have to scam the members
in the Digital Good section.

Hey Alex.BTC make sure you address my points in my most recent response since
you are accustomed to taking snippets that never address the actual issues.
Thanks buddy. Looking forward to reading your word salad and tap dancing later.

I don't necessarily share Alex's conclusion you're a "paid shill"
although you are clearly biased in your politics as evidenced
by your signature (nothing necessarily wrong with that).

But I also would like to say that I agree with Alex that
your position on HK is just word play... Lets keep it real here.
You don't think Greg and Adam talk to each other almost
every day?  Of course, they acted as a united front, made,
and broke the agreement.  The fact that it was a non-binding
agreement is irrelevant to demonstrating their lack of compromise
and obstructionism.  Please stop making excuses for this; it
just makes you look bad.  Pick your battles.

Also, you didn't answer my question about where you came
up with this claim about Jihan back peddling on Extensionblocks.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here.  I hope you didn't
just make up a lie, that would make you look really bad.

[franky1]

If you acknowledge that it was just a gentlemen’s agreement between individuals
(and not representatives of Core with decision authority, which is impossible and a
oxymoron in a voluntary open-source community), why are you arguing about it?

It seems to me that the miners were attempting to pull a fast one. They were trying
to get a handful of people to decide the future of the Bitcoin Network. During that
meeting, all invited parties told the miners they had no actual authority and the
miners got mad because they are ignorant as to how the Bitcoin development
community actually works. They thought they could dictate the future.

Blockstream has no authority over the Core development. Maxwell and other
employees of Blockstream are Core developers, but they are separate entities.
If you think Blockstream breached, sue them. If you think Maxwell, as an employee
of Blockstream was a bad boy, ask Back to fire him. Ultimately, it is worthless since
all parties who signed the “agreement” had no power nor authority to guarantee or
implement a 2MB hardfork. That is the community's decision. Not any of theres.

You might consider the reason why you think there is a “Blockstream Circus” is
because you don’t really understand the full development system. If you or the
miners would have had your way, Bitcoin would have a dictator or CEO, it seems.

I love Bitcoin and the liberty it grants, you only love to control and strangle it

agent...
by you pretending Gmax is not the chief tech officer (boss) of development
by you pretending luke does not moderate bips(along with gmax)
by you pretending they are as powerless as a highschool janitor..

is you failing to understand.
many many many people have had dynamic proposals rejected even at mailing list level(blockstream moderated)
and at bip level(blockstream moderated)
and then even when just grabbing core code and independently adding tweaks and asking the core devs to help out.
again blockstream devs REKT that too by saying "its not core, its an alt".

core are not independent. they are follow the leader of 10 paid devs and 100 unpaid interns staying loyal in hopes of getting a job with blockstream

the HK agreement was where people who CAN CODE and CAN direct their employees were invited to write code...
if the HK agreement thought open community effort was possible then .... oh wait, that was tried and REKT..
so the HK agreement wanted the guys that could code to get core to open its gates and do something to be on the same playing field as other diverse nodes.
but luke JR, etc just wanted to act like unskilled janitors/floor cleaners, just turning up for a free lunch before returning to mop and wax the floor, because gmax didnt want to go that route.

i find it funny that one day you praise blockstream devs as kings that own bitcoin and deserve control.
then the next day, pretend they are just floor sweeping janitors and there is no control.

so.

either
man up and be ok with diversity and decentralisation (true independence).
or
man up and admit your preference of core dominance and control in a centralised one codebase dependant group

[AgentofCoin]

Ext Blocks only recently patched it to prevent ASICBoost use, and since then, Jihan will
no longer support that Ext Block proposal.

Very interesting...  do you have a source?

He does, it's a sphere, it's made of glass, it's on the floor of his toilet and it has wet brown stains on it.

not sure i get the joke.
But seriously, AgentofCoin...regardless of the fact that this is a distraction from the scaling debate,
you made an interesting/important claim here about Jihan...so I would like to know where you
got that from.  Surely, you didn't just make this up?

He can't answer you, AgentofCoin likes to use his secret crystal ball instead of facts.

My crystal ball is saying that Alex.BTC will need to get a real job soon because
his shill work isn't paying the bills. Soon he is going to have to scam the members
in the Digital Good section.

Hey Alex.BTC make sure you address my points in my most recent response since
you are accustomed to taking snippets that never address the actual issues.
Thanks buddy. Looking forward to reading your word salad and tap dancing later.

1) I don't necessarily share Alex's conclusion you're a "paid shill"
although you are clearly biased in your politics as evidenced
by your signature (nothing necessarily wrong with that).

2) But I also would like to say that I agree with Alex that
your position on HK is just word play... Lets keep it real here.
You don't think Greg and Adam talk to each other almost
every day?  Of course, they acted as a united front, made,
and broke the agreement.  The fact that it was a non-binding
agreement is irrelevant to demonstrating their lack of compromise
and obstructionism.  Please stop making excuses for this; it
just makes you look bad.  Pick your battles.

3) Also, you didn't answer my question about where you came
up with this claim about Jihan back peddling on Extensionblocks.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here.  I hope you didn't
just make up a lie, that would make you look really bad.

 

1) When I give my opinions and comments I try to be fair, but I have made it public
that I support a decentralized validator node network at the expense of on-chain
scaling now. I think in a few more years we can go to 3MB on-chain. If I come off
as biased, I will admit that in that specific issue at the time, if you wish, I am not
unreasonable. I can not be truly full non biased, that would not be human. On
most issues I try to be unbiased, but on issues like blocksize debate, that is not
possible since that is about two polar opposite ideologies.

2) Jonald, as for the HK agreement, I am not making an excuse. You need to
understand that from my perspective, the agreement was induced and not how we
conduct ourselves in this community. Individual Core members can not go and meet
with other people to form an agreement on future implementations. That is wrong for
those Core members to do. There were wrong, they should have walked out.

You need all Core members to sign off and even if you could do that, that doesn't
mean the community will accept those changes. That is what the miners did not
understand and what you are missing here. Everyone was wrong. The HK agreement
was wrong before it was written. Core Devs have no right o do that. It was an error
at the time and will likely never happen again.

3) Jihan stated that he like Extension Blocks. At the time he made the comment, Ext
block was not patched yet. After the shit hit the fan, Poon agreed to patch it and did
supposedly. When I originally made that comment, it was made in that context. So
thus, "now that Ext Block has been patched Jihan will not support it". It was not
intended to be read as you are reading it. I guess I should have said "Jihan CAN not
support it".

In Bitmain's public statement about the ASICBoost issue, they argue against Maxwell's
proposed patch and argues that everyone should use ASICBoost (which Jihan owns
the rights to on his chips). If he is willing to still use the now patched Ext blocks, he
should go on the record and state such, since he originally stated he "Loves Ext Blocks",
he can easily tweet "I love the new patched Ext Blocks". Many issues would be resolved
then. It doesn't prove that he won't back down later, but it would be a powerful gesture,
in general, IMO.

[AgentofCoin]

If you acknowledge that it was just a gentlemen’s agreement between individuals
(and not representatives of Core with decision authority, which is impossible and a
oxymoron in a voluntary open-source community), why are you arguing about it?

It seems to me that the miners were attempting to pull a fast one. They were trying
to get a handful of people to decide the future of the Bitcoin Network. During that
meeting, all invited parties told the miners they had no actual authority and the
miners got mad because they are ignorant as to how the Bitcoin development
community actually works. They thought they could dictate the future.

Blockstream has no authority over the Core development. Maxwell and other
employees of Blockstream are Core developers, but they are separate entities.
If you think Blockstream breached, sue them. If you think Maxwell, as an employee
of Blockstream was a bad boy, ask Back to fire him. Ultimately, it is worthless since
all parties who signed the “agreement” had no power nor authority to guarantee or
implement a 2MB hardfork. That is the community's decision. Not any of theres.

You might consider the reason why you think there is a “Blockstream Circus” is
because you don’t really understand the full development system. If you or the
miners would have had your way, Bitcoin would have a dictator or CEO, it seems.

I love Bitcoin and the liberty it grants, you only love to control and strangle it

agent...
by you pretending Gmax is not the chief tech officer (boss) of development
by you pretending luke does not moderate bips(along with gmax)
by you pretending they are as powerless as a highschool janitor..

is you failing to understand.
many many many people have had dynamic proposals rejected even at mailing list level(blockstream moderated)
and at bip level(blockstream moderated)
and then even when just grabbing core code and independently adding tweaks and asking the core devs to help out.
again blockstream devs REKT that too by saying "its not core, its an alt".

core are not independent. they are follow the leader of 10 paid devs and 100 unpaid interns staying loyal in hopes of getting a job with blockstream

the HK agreement was where people who CAN CODE and CAN direct their employees were invited to write code...
if the HK agreement thought open community effort was possible then .... oh wait, that was tried and REKT..
so the HK agreement wanted the guys that could code to get core to open its gates and do something to be on the same playing field as other diverse nodes.
but luke JR, etc just wanted to act like unskilled janitors/floor cleaners, just turning up for a free lunch before returning to mop and wax the floor, because gmax didnt want to go that route.

i find it funny that one day you praise blockstream devs as kings that own bitcoin and deserve control.
then the next day, pretend they are just floor sweeping janitors and there is no control.

so.

either
man up and be ok with diversity and decentralisation (true independence).
or
man up and admit your preference of core dominance and control in a centralised one codebase dependant group

Franky, we have talked on many occasions and we both understand that we believe
Bitcoin should go in different directions, but we both respect each other and know
that we both want what is best for Bitcoin. We are not paid shills who are trying to
make a mess, we both want to learn and discuss, even if we fight sometimes.

With that in mind, I disagree with you only because I don't think it is right to make
agreements with miners or exchanges or whatever, unless it is brought to the whole
development team and all agree or disagree and those devs then form a working
document publicly for the miners to sign at a personal event maybe. I think it is
important also for community response prior to writing that document.

In this case that did happened, a few Core devs and Back from Blockstream went
and they wrote something up to try to make everyone happy. But the problem is
that no one could ever be happy here, since it wasn't organized and done properly
from the beginning. The scaling issue is too big for a few devs in a small room.

You are arguing that the truth is that certain Core devs and Blockstream actually
control the whole Bitcoin development process and that they are purposefully
restricting and denying possible proposals that do not fit into the "Blockstream"
frame work or plan. I personally do not believe the "conspiracy theory" and think
the reality is that Core devs as a whole have agreed on a certain path and any
opposition to that path is seen as wasting peoples time since they have determined
that slow and steady is the path.

Respectfully Franky, I do not believe in the theory that the development process
is a scam and is fully controlled by a small handful. That would mean that if those
people wanted to scale to the moon tomorrow, then the others would follow. I don't
believe that. I think those other devs have their own opinions and would then disagree
unless they were given some new data or facts.

You know that I admit when I am wrong and I don't claim to know more than I do. I
truly tell you now, in my heart, I don't believe it is the way that you think it is. But if
you must force me to take a stand, I will stand with Core since I sincerely believe they
want Bitcoin to remain a decentralized network. I think bitcoin's greatest threat is
governmental regulation first. You know that, because I say that all the time. My
concern is whether Bitcoin will be able to survive to get to 50 years from now. My
concern centers on its future use in a more restrictive and oppressive world.

Once again we disagree Franky, but it is ok, because one day I believe a solution will
be found that will make us both happy, possibly reunite the tribes, and we can move
on to the next problem we will need to face in the future, which I think will be related
to adding more fungability into network.

[Alex.BTC]

The fact was that agreement
was not bound to Maxwell nor to any other Core dev other than to who signed that
document. All signatory developers were not granted any authority to make future
development decisions by the Core dev group.

Then wtf was the point of the meeting? Just a few dev hanging around stroking each other's dicks?

There was a huge blocksize debate at the time, pressure was on Core to increase the blocksize limit, Blockstream/Core fucked everyone over by pretending to support 2MB block increase.
 
If nothing was agreed upon, then there would have been another meeting for the blocksize issue, but nope, Blockstream/Core played everyone, now nobody trust anything they say.

It seems to me that the miners were attempting to pull a fast one. They were trying
to get a handful of people to decide the future of the Bitcoin Network. During that
meeting, all invited parties told the miners they had no actual authority and the
miners got mad because they are ignorant as to how the Bitcoin development
community actually works. They thought they could dictate the future.

Now you're just shilling for Blockstream/Core.
The fact is the exact opposite. Blockstream/Core is still fucking everyone over by keeping blocksize at 1MB.

SegWit gets merged by Core without a word (and still have less support than BU).
Blocksize increase pull request instantly get closed by Blockstream co-founder on Github.

Why begin accusing me of being a paid troll or shill? The fact is you are the noob
who copies and pastes from other forums and websites and literally checks off
talking points as you go. Half the time your points have nothing to do with our
original conversation. Normal people do not resort to calling people shills or trolls.
But you do that to hide the fact that you likely are one.  Like I said in my original
post to Jonald, you are just here to “perpetuate the obfuscations”. But, if you are
not a paid shill or troll then you are prone to paranoid delusions.

That's the problem with you trolls, you spending too much time on personal attacks and too little on facts.

I just don't like watching people going around making idiotic statements with zero proof then act like they are some kind of know-it-all authority on the future. If you have a theory, post it as a theory, don't state it as a matter of fact, then go for bullshit gymnastics and personal attacks when someone ask you for proof.

I disagree with your analysis and conclusion.
In fact, it seems to have a major flaw.

According to my simple research chjj changed Ext Blocks code 1 hour and
21 minutes before Jihan commented that he loved Ext blocks. So, if that is true,
 that means Jihan likely got chjj to change the code and not Blockstream or
Maxwell.

So, you wrote a lot, and that is nice, but your time stamps do not match the
proper time line. If your conspiracy was to be correct then chjj should have
changed AFTER Jihan’s twitter posting, not BEFORE as he did.

This would also explain tany other issues and contradictions on the GitHub in
a reasonable way. In this case, chjj issued pull after Maxwell’s email to the
Core Devs could be seen as a “cover my ass” pull request. Either way, Jihan
twitter commented after the chjj change was made.

So as a non-technical person who hasn't gone deep into the details yet,
I think you are overall wrong due to timeline error.

I think I have shown simply that Jihan tweeted his love for Ext Block after chjj
change its code. Your facts were not complete and you jumped to conclusions.

If you play with timezones I am sure you can pull out different numbers.

But that is just more of the same nitpicking on trivial bullshit.

At the end of the day you just don't know what the exact time was when Jihan learned about Extension Block, and the exact time when he decided to support it, it could have been hours it could have been days.

The history of Extension Block is here:
https://medium.com/purse-essays/extension-block-story-619a46b58c24

The first commit of Extension Block was on Mar 23, 2017, it was a small commit, just a few lines, and it reads:
"This repository contains the specification for extension blocks with a BIP141 ruleset"

This proves Extension Block is base on BIP-141 right from the get go, so it was immune to ASICBoost right from the start, not hours or minutes ago.

I actually asked Christopher wtf was he doing on that botched edit, he said the edit was strictly within the context of the new stuff in extension block only, not the regular stuff, and he said he removed that line because it was redundant and overall the edit changed nothing.

Christopher wasn't aware of ASICBoost until Greg's proposal, he simply didn't know how it works, so he didn't know BIP-141 already implied ASICBoost immunity. His knee jerk reactionary edit later changed nothing, Extension Block was already immune to ASICBoost right from the start.

And it didn't matter what Chris knew, Jihan would know what BIP-141 means for ASICBoost.

This ASICBoost distraction is just a total bullshit, regardless of what Jihan did, if the code allow this shortcut, then any miners can build their own ASIC to use that shortcut, Jihan's patent only forbids others from selling it in China, not forbidding miners from building their own, so fix the damn code instead of blaming other people.

The blocksize increase is not the true issue since Jihan doesn’t even really care
about that either. He cares more about the potential loss of profits if ASICBoost
is restricted from the network. He basically said so in the Bitmain published
statement. He only cares about his patents while drapes himself in how he
doesn't want to harm the Bitcoin community, yet that is what he has been doing.

People who think that Jihan is a true believer of the blocksize increase is naïve
at best and a paid shill at worst. You have been used by a Chinese businessman
who thought he would use the blocksize issue as a pawn, including its adherents.
The very people Satoshi created the Bitcoin system to control, you are advocating
we should trust. The only thing you should trust is that they will try to find the
next block over their competitor.

The blocksize increase is the true issue, it has been for over a year, because it affects everyone's bottom line. It is ignorant for you to use tunnel vision and pin everything on ASICBoost when Jihan will also profit from a blocksize increase, there are many things in play here.

It doesn't matter who Jihan is, I expect him to do everything he can for his business, and right now he's speaking the truth and he's openly opposing BlockStream, and his words make sense, that's good enough for me.

That's what I don't like about you trolls, the blocksize limit is fucking up the network right now, it's already happening, and instead just acknowledging it, you idiots circle jerk around the issue then keep pointing fingers at someone else. Blockstream/Core is clearly the culprit here.

You twisted my words. So you are either not reading properly or doing it
intentionally. You are stating there is no evidence. Have you already looked into
this subject? Maybe you should publish your report on your findings, since you
claim there are no patterns or anything of any interest. I’m sure that would be
an interesting read, as much as your prior analysis ont chjj and the ext block
github was, Lol. You cited a "fact" that was based on only 3 months of data,
when the technology in question is over 2 years old.

You lack of imagination is remarkable.

You said Jihan have already used ASICBoost in production.
I asked you for proof.
You went for personal attack.
I out trolled you back.
Now you want a report?
What are you even on about?

You made the accusation.
I haven't seen any evidence.
So I asked you for them.
You talked shit.
So I dug a little, I found data that went against your claim.
So I showed that data to you, and asked you for evidence for your accusations again.
You tried to act like a smart ass, knowing full well you had nothing.
And instead of just man up and admit that.
You started 'lol'ing at the data I found.

It's like you have no idea how stupid you actually look.
And the funny part is you actually think people can't see through this shit.
Like at this point any of your insults actually do anything.

What's with the smartass teenager act anyway? Obviously you're not a teenager, who the fuck is going to respect some loud mouth finger pointing dumb fuck who can only ever talk shit.

[jonald_fyookball]

  So
thus, "now that Ext Block has been patched Jihan will not support it". It was not
intended to be read as you are reading it. I guess I should have said "Jihan CAN not
support it".
 

Thanks.

Gotcha.  Yeah , you made it sound that you were saying Jihan publicly stated that he
already changed his mind, which is not the case. 

We can agree to disagree on HK.  to me its just more evidence Core is full of BS.

 

[AgentofCoin]

The fact was that agreement
was not bound to Maxwell nor to any other Core dev other than to who signed that
document. All signatory developers were not granted any authority to make future
development decisions by the Core dev group.

Then wtf was the point of the meeting? Just a few dev hanging around stroking each other's dicks?
There was a huge blocksize debate at the time, pressure was on Core to increase the blocksize limit, Blockstream/Core fucked everyone over by pretending to support 2MB block increase.
If nothing was agreed upon, then there would have been another meeting for the blocksize issue, but nope, Blockstream/Core played everyone, now nobody trust anything they say.

I really don't understand why they went. I thought it was just to talk things over.
To explain their viewpoints and future goals/plans. Not to place anything in writing.
A few Core devs and Back of Blockstream do not have authority over the other Core
devs. I think it was a gigantic misunderstanding because of different issues.

It seems to me that the miners were attempting to pull a fast one. They were trying
to get a handful of people to decide the future of the Bitcoin Network. During that
meeting, all invited parties told the miners they had no actual authority and the
miners got mad because they are ignorant as to how the Bitcoin development
community actually works. They thought they could dictate the future.

Now you're just shilling for Blockstream/Core.
The fact is the exact opposite. Blockstream/Core is still fucking everyone over by keeping blocksize at 1MB.
SegWit gets merged by Core without a word (and still have less support than BU).
Blocksize increase pull request instantly get closed by Blockstream co-founder on Github.

I'm not shilling, that is my recollection at the time.

Yes, SegWit did get merged because the Core Devs agreed that is was worthy of
inclusion, but that doesn't mean it will be accepted, that is the community's choice.
That is what the miner's didn't understand at the HK meeting. The fact that SegWit
isn't already part of the protocol shows that the Core Devs during the HK meeting
were trying to be honest and reasonable. Devs are not all powerful. They can create
and propose, but if other devs, exchanges, miners, and users don't want that feature
it will not become the standard. In my opinion 2MB hardfork is more contentious in the
community than a SegWit softfork, but that is just my opinion. The expectations during
the HK meeting was way too high.

And yes, some BIPs about direct blocksize increases have been closed, but because the
plan is for optimizations first. The issue isn't about "trying to stop anything beyond 1MB",
since the whole community knows we will need to raise it eventually. A few small minority
of small blockers are "1MB 4EVAs!", but the rest of us want new ideas and optimizations
to the protocol that can increase TPS before we simply change the blocklimit with a hardfork.
It was always about optimizations and security, then onchain scaling. Bigblockers, like you I
presume, want that in reverse, which smallblockers think compromises security.

We, as a community, should request optimizations of the blockspace, before we increase
that space. If we can just bump it up all the time, there is no incentive to develop new
ideas and concepts to improve the protocol. SegWit may or may not be accepted as the
standard one day, but I accept that may be the reality and that should prove to you I am
not a shill for Core or Blockstream. I only want a decentralized and secure Bitcoin.
Though, I do support the current Core road map.

Why begin accusing me of being a paid troll or shill? The fact is you are the noob
who copies and pastes from other forums and websites and literally checks off
talking points as you go. Half the time your points have nothing to do with our
original conversation. Normal people do not resort to calling people shills or trolls.
But you do that to hide the fact that you likely are one.  Like I said in my original
post to Jonald, you are just here to “perpetuate the obfuscations”. But, if you are
not a paid shill or troll then you are prone to paranoid delusions.

That's the problem with you trolls, you spending too much time on personal attacks and too little on facts.
I just don't like watching people going around making idiotic statements with zero proof then act like they are some kind of know-it-all authority on the future. If you have a theory, post it as a theory, don't state it as a matter of fact, then go for bullshit gymnastics and personal attacks when someone ask you for proof.

The "facts" you listed at the time, was a combination of your opinions and issues
that haven't been fully understood yet. Your argument to me is like:

Alex.BTC: "FACT: Humans will never find aliens in the universe!"
AgentofCoin: "That is not a fact, that is yet to be determined."
Alex.BTC: "Oh yeah?! Then prove it! Find me an alien now!"
AgentofCoin: "What? I'm not even an astronomer or astronaut."
Alex.BTC: "You troll! See! I hate you trolls. You need to prove it now!"

That is why this is ridiculous because I'll let the experts prove me right or wrong.
But you were the one who was arguing there were no "facts". Which is backwards.
Either you are protecting Bitmain and Antpool, or you are just backwards here.

I disagree with your analysis and conclusion.
In fact, it seems to have a major flaw.

According to my simple research chjj changed Ext Blocks code 1 hour and
21 minutes before Jihan commented that he loved Ext blocks. So, if that is true,
 that means Jihan likely got chjj to change the code and not Blockstream or
Maxwell.

So, you wrote a lot, and that is nice, but your time stamps do not match the
proper time line. If your conspiracy was to be correct then chjj should have
changed AFTER Jihan’s twitter posting, not BEFORE as he did.

This would also explain tany other issues and contradictions on the GitHub in
a reasonable way. In this case, chjj issued pull after Maxwell’s email to the
Core Devs could be seen as a “cover my ass” pull request. Either way, Jihan
twitter commented after the chjj change was made.

So as a non-technical person who hasn't gone deep into the details yet,
I think you are overall wrong due to timeline error.

I think I have shown simply that Jihan tweeted his love for Ext Block after chjj
change its code. Your facts were not complete and you jumped to conclusions.

If you play with timezones I am sure you can pull out different numbers.
But that is just more of the same nitpicking on trivial bullshit.

At the end of the day you just don't know what the exact time was when Jihan learned about Extension Block, and the exact time when he decided to support it, it could have been hours it could have been days.
...

I looked online at twitter timezones and Githubs and according to my simple research,
twitter shows the time based on your timezone and GitHub is based on EDT. This means
that Jihan tweeted 1 hour and 21 minutes after chjj edited the Ext block code no matter
where you are in the world. That is all I was pointing out.

Everything you are writing now is irrelevant to your original posting to me. You claimed
that Jihan tweeted BEFORE chjj changed it as a blockstream conspiracy, when in fact, it
was the other way, which either means it is a Jihan conspiracy or just "coincidence".

This ASICBoost distraction is just a total bullshit, regardless of what Jihan did, if the code allow this shortcut, then any miners can build their own ASIC to use that shortcut, Jihan's patent only forbids others from selling it in China, not forbidding miners from building their own, so fix the damn code instead of blaming other people.

I don't know the patent laws in China, but in the West a patent doesn't only protect the
selling of the idea in product form, but also prevents you from construction and use. If for
example, Bitmain did patent ASICBoost and had the full rights to it, no one else in the
world is technically allowed to build, use, or sell a chip that uses the same configuration
without a license from Bitmain, otherwise that is patent theft. Maybe some will or could
do it, but bitmain could attempt to find them liable and get damages from that company.

For other miners not to be found liable, they need to create a new ASICBoost configuration
that is different from Bitmain's version and no miners are going to invest in R&D for that now,
IMO. Either Jihan opens up the rights to all parties for free or we need to patch the protocol.

Or its possible there could be a wind-down agreement where Jihan can use it for the next 3
years as long as he halves the usage every 1 year, in agreement to accept SegWit unpatched
now. Then in 3 years we patch ASICboost and have SegWit. Of course, Jihan might like that,
but bigblockers will not since they never get their blocksize increase. But it is just an idea for
fun for negotiation purposes. Maybe something along these lines could be negotiated.

The blocksize increase is not the true issue since Jihan doesn’t even really care
about that either. He cares more about the potential loss of profits if ASICBoost
is restricted from the network. He basically said so in the Bitmain published
statement. He only cares about his patents while drapes himself in how he
doesn't want to harm the Bitcoin community, yet that is what he has been doing.

People who think that Jihan is a true believer of the blocksize increase is naïve
at best and a paid shill at worst. You have been used by a Chinese businessman
who thought he would use the blocksize issue as a pawn, including its adherents.
The very people Satoshi created the Bitcoin system to control, you are advocating
we should trust. The only thing you should trust is that they will try to find the
next block over their competitor.

The blocksize increase is the true issue, it has been for over a year, because it affects everyone's bottom line. It is ignorant for you to use tunnel vision and pin everything on ASICBoost when Jihan will also profit from a blocksize increase, there are many things in play here.

It doesn't matter who Jihan is, I expect him to do everything he can for his business, and right now he's speaking the truth and he's openly opposing BlockStream, and his words make sense, that's good enough for me.

That's what I don't like about you trolls, the blocksize limit is fucking up the network right now, it's already happening, and instead just acknowledging it, you idiots circle jerk around the issue then keep pointing fingers at someone else. Blockstream/Core is clearly the culprit here.

I am not pinning everything on ASICBoost. It is just that it is an interesting puzzle piece
the community did not include in their mental equation as to why there is a stalemate.
When you add this ASICBoost element into it, things seem logical again.

It makes more sense that Jihan could block SegWit over an ASICBoost patch more than
truely wanting bigger blocks. Miners do not want bigger blocks. In the past, it took the Core
devs forever to get the miners to raise their soft caps. Weeks would go by and the miners
weren't paying attention. I think certain miners wanting bigger blocks now, is a myth.

Thinking that 1MB temporary cap is killing the network, is a large oversimplification of the
issues at hand. We need to balance the scaling with security over time. If we don't we could
both lose everything. We are trying to preserve the network and you wish to expand it in a
blind risk with fingers crossed that it works out and doesn't kill the golden goose. I do not
think Satoshi was all knowing. He was wrong sometimes and a piece of proof of that was
that Satoshi added the 1MB limit after Hal explained the logic of it. Satoshi changed his
mind sometimes and that is what must be kept in our minds as we go forward. If we
expand the blocksize, we can not do it on the logic of Satoshi from 2010, but data
and knowledge of 2017.

You twisted my words. So you are either not reading properly or doing it
intentionally. You are stating there is no evidence. Have you already looked into
this subject? Maybe you should publish your report on your findings, since you
claim there are no patterns or anything of any interest. I’m sure that would be
an interesting read, as much as your prior analysis ont chjj and the ext block
github was, Lol. You cited a "fact" that was based on only 3 months of data,
when the technology in question is over 2 years old.

You lack of imagination is remarkable.

You said Jihan have already used ASICBoost in production.
I asked you for proof.
You went for personal attack.
I out trolled you back.
Now you want a report?
What are you even on about?

You made the accusation.
I haven't seen any evidence.
So I asked you for them.
You talked shit.
So I dug a little, I found data that went against your claim.
So I showed that data to you, and asked you for evidence for your accusations again.
You tried to act like a smart ass, knowing full well you had nothing.
And instead of just man up and admit that.
You started 'lol'ing at the data I found.

It's like you have no idea how stupid you actually look.
And the funny part is you actually think people can't see through this shit.
Like at this point any of your insults actually do anything.

What's with the smartass teenager act anyway? Obviously you're not a teenager, who the fuck is going to respect some loud mouth finger pointing dumb fuck who can only ever talk shit.

No one should listen to me. I'm not here to get followers or something.
I came to learn and talk. We are talking now because we disagree about things.

You have provided no facts or data for anything you have stated prior, only opinion.
You want me, a noob, to analysis Antpool's block data in the blockchain and I don't
even know how to parse that data automatically with python code and all that. There
are more qualified members of this community who can do all forms of data mining
and also interpret that data correctly.

If you want me to cite some info from the community already I will:

 - Antpool's stratum has code for covert and overt ASICBoost implemented
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/dfy5o65/
 - Electrum Wallet dev(s) says AntPool blocks/txs consistent with ASICBoost
https://twitter.com/ElectrumWallet/status/849974808259559425
 - Four AntPool blocks that have the same Coinbase string data.
https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/dfydbca/

Those are just three different issues (I didn't include stuff about empty blocks).

Now, I will assume that you will say these people are biased or not trustworthy
because they are from Bitcoin reddit or they support Core or Blockstream and that
is fine, but once again I will advise you to be patient and eventually someone who is
independent and scientific will have pulled all the data and analyze it, and will
conclusively determine whether there is anything or there is nothing there.

By you arguing that it is my sole responsibility is ridiculous. That is like telling the
person who calls 911 to prove that there is an emergency before they will send the
police or ambulance. There are people who are experts who are working on this
issue and analyzing it right now. The Bitcoin world doesn't fall only on my shoulders,
but all of ours. Those who are capable will rise and help the community to determine
the truth.

You were the one who was prejudging the situation by telling people the facts were
that there is no evidence. I only said to you, that is currently still being determined.
Your the one who needs to prove that your original "facts" were facts, which I
disproved in my prior posting and determined to be 1 fact out of your 6 possible facts.

I want an investigation and you want no investigation. The question is, as a Bitcoiner,
why don't you want to know the result of an investigation? Maybe you will be proven
right. Why are you against that? That is the problem here. You don't seek truths.

[franky1]

?? blockstream devs have no control ??

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

People wishing to submit BIPs, first should propose their idea or document to the mailing list. After discussion they should email Luke Dashjr <luke_bipeditor@dashjr.org>. After copy-editing and acceptance, it will be published here.

luke JR.. oh look blockstream (p.s just a couple months ago it was gmax)

hmm who moderates the mailing list
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/bitcoin-dev-moderation

To post a message to all the list members, send email to bitcoin-dev-moderation@lists.ozlabs.org.
Bitcoin-dev-moderation list run by rusty at rustcorp.com.au
 

ozlabs... i wonder... oh look rusty russel

so thats LJR and RR of blockstream employment.
so whats next. hmm
oh the technical discussion category on this forum
oh look gmaxwell

so thats LJR,  RR and GM of blockstream employment.

separate matter..

have you then seen the segwit activation proposals
bip9, if gets no vote.. dont realise the community said no, do UASF

UASF, if gets no vote.. dont realise the community said no, dont give up, push harder until the end of 2018

Can BIP148 be cancelled?

Yes. In the event that the economic majority does not support BIP148, users should remove software that enforces BIP148. A flag day activation for SegWit would be the next logical steps and require coordination of the community, most likely towards the end of 2018.

seems blockstream can control what happens. and can only take no for an answer when its them saying no

[AgentofCoin]

  So
thus, "now that Ext Block has been patched Jihan will not support it". It was not
intended to be read as you are reading it. I guess I should have said "Jihan CAN not
support it".

Thanks.

Gotcha.  Yeah , you made it sound that you were saying Jihan publicly stated that he
already changed his mind, which is not the case. 

We can agree to disagree on HK.  to me its just more evidence Core is full of BS.

If Jihan publicly stated/tweeted that he is now against "Patched Ext Blocks", it would be
obvious to the community why, and it would hurt his credibility with big blockers, IMO.

But I would like to add that the fact that he hasn't tweeted "I love Patched Ext Blocks",
could also be equally as telling. If I was Jihan and truly innocent and being set up, I would
agree to using "Patched Ext Blocks" and tweet that and shove it up my enemies asses. Since
he has not it makes me wonder, since it would be to his advantage, IMO. Which then adds
to my increasing belief that Jihan may truly be against SegWit because it hurts an ASICBoost
future that he has already invested load of money into.

As for the HK agreement, we can agree to disagree. I wasn't there and I really don't know
what was going on. All I know is that the whole community was watching that event and
ultimately no one was going to be happy, since the situation is too complex for a spur of
the moment written napkin agreement.

[AgentofCoin]

?? blockstream devs have no control ??

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

People wishing to submit BIPs, first should propose their idea or document to the mailing list. After discussion they should email Luke Dashjr <luke_bipeditor@dashjr.org>. After copy-editing and acceptance, it will be published here.

hmm who moderates the mailing list
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/bitcoin-dev-moderation

To post a message to all the list members, send email to bitcoin-dev-moderation@lists.ozlabs.org.
Bitcoin-dev-moderation list run by rusty at rustcorp.com.au
 

ozlabs... i wonder... oh look rusty russel

so thats LJR and RR of blockstream employment.
so whats next. hmm
oh the technical discussion category on this forum
oh look gmaxwell

so thats LJR,  RR and GM of blockstream employment.

I will look into this further and later, since I don't have time now.

But superficially, I would think that if the Core mailing list is "gated" by a
core dev who is also a blockstream employee, then another non employed
voluntary Core dev should be given equal right to add new commenters to the
mailing list to prevent any biased situations or accusations of conflict(s). The
same would apply to mailing for BIP issuance. If Gavin was in that position
and still working with MIT, I would request that a voluntary Core dev was
co-mailer with Gavin. That would be a reasonable accommodation, IMO. It
would definitely alleviate a lot of issues and accusations outright.

When it comes moderators of Bitcointalk, I don't really care since Theymos
owns it and he can appoint anyone he wishes as a moderator. Thought obviously,
sections that deal with complex issues like technical and development should be
moderated by people who at least understand Bitcoin on a higher level. I think
Theymos added Achow now, which I think is appropriate.

Personally, as for the Core mailing list and BIP procedures, there should be
some adjustments and accommodations made, based on my simple understanding
and what you outlined. But remember Franky, I'm a noob with no power, so... I'm
only telling you what I would do, if I could.

[Alex.BTC]

I really don't understand why they went.

Yes you do, don't play dumb now.

Yes, SegWit did get merged because the Core Devs agreed that is was worthy of
inclusion, but that doesn't mean it will be accepted, that is the community's choice.
That is what the miner's didn't understand at the HK meeting. The fact that SegWit
isn't already part of the protocol shows that the Core Devs during the HK meeting
were trying to be honest and reasonable. Devs are not all powerful. They can create
and propose, but if other devs, exchanges, miners, and users don't want that feature
it will not become the standard. In my opinion 2MB hardfork is more contentious in the
community than a SegWit softfork, but that is just my opinion. The expectations during

LOL that's a new low even for you.

Like you're just going to sit there with a straight face and ignore the fact that SegWit is stuck in the mud because Blockstream/Core thought they could fuck over both miners and nodes at the same time.

Blockstream ignored nodes and went softfork because they thought they got miners in their pockets, even though they already fucked them over with the 1MB, that's how arrogant Blockstream/Core were, that's what fucked them.

That is why this is ridiculous because I'll let the experts prove me right or wrong.
But you were the one who was arguing there were no "facts". Which is backwards.
Either you are protecting Bitmain and Antpool, or you are just backwards here.

I am saying you talk a lot of shit but there were never anything to back it up.

After I bated you I now know for sure you're the kind of troll that looks into every detail trying to win an argument. But you just couldn't find any evidence to support your claims, that's why you had to play dumb all the time.

By the way, how does it actually feel to have to talk like a dumb fuck all the time, knowing everything that comes out of your mouth is bullshit and everyone else can see through it?

If I have to do that I'd probably quit within a week.

I looked online at twitter timezones and Githubs and according to my simple research,
twitter shows the time based on your timezone and GitHub is based on EDT. This means
that Jihan tweeted 1 hour and 21 minutes after chjj edited the Ext block code no matter
where you are in the world. That is all I was pointing out.

Everything you are writing now is irrelevant to your original posting to me. You claimed
that Jihan tweeted BEFORE chjj changed it as a blockstream conspiracy, when in fact, it
was the other way, which either means it is a Jihan conspiracy or just "coincidence".

I baited you, the edit was the bait, BIP-141 was the net, you still don't get it?

You're now trying to wiggle around by using the idiotic assumption that Jihan only learned about Extension Block the last minute and voiced its support immediately. That is, by making the assumption that the whole time since March, Jihan never learned about what Extension block was until the moment before he voiced his support.

But the bait was Extension Block had always been immune to ASICBoost. The github edit would throw you off because you're the kind of shill that play dumb and repeat bullshits, but secretly you're actually looking at all possible details for a rebuttal. That's how I exposed you as a paid shill.

You know exactly what bullshit you're talking about, you're intentionally talking like a dumb fuck all the time, because that's your job.

You don't have the technical understanding of BIP-141, that's why you fell for the edit. That is the long con you fell for, I gave you a detail you'd bite on, but once you bite on it, you're already inside the net.

The idea that a business man like Jihan wouldn't look over Extension Block at least a few times and think over it for a few days before voicing his support, is hilarious.

You've mistaken Jihan for some Blockstream troll where everything they say online is decided at the last minute, base on whatever they could see at the time.

I don't know the patent laws in China, but in the West a patent doesn't only protect the
selling of the idea in product form, but also prevents you from construction and use. If for
example, Bitmain did patent ASICBoost and had the full rights to it, no one else in the
world is technically allowed to build, use, or sell a chip that uses the same configuration
without a license from Bitmain, otherwise that is patent theft. Maybe some will or could
do it, but bitmain could attempt to find them liable and get damages from that company.

For other miners not to be found liable, they need to create a new ASICBoost configuration
that is different from Bitmain's version and no miners are going to invest in R&D for that now,
IMO. Either Jihan opens up the rights to all parties for free or we need to patch the protocol.

Or its possible there could be a wind-down agreement where Jihan can use it for the next 3
years as long as he halves the usage every 1 year, in agreement to accept SegWit unpatched
now. Then in 3 years we patch ASICboost and have SegWit. Of course, Jihan might like that,
but bigblockers will not since they never get their blocksize increase. But it is just an idea for
fun for negotiation purposes. Maybe something along these lines could be negotiated.

Irrelevant, putting patent in product helps win patent lawsuits, it's that simple.

The funny thing about you trolls is you guys keep assuming Jihan is the only guy on the planet who can build ASIC chips that use ASICBoost. Patent doesn't stop any nameless mining farm from building their own ASICBoost rigs, ASICBoost existed for years, anyone could have been using it for years. That's why this ASICBoost bullshit is just another obvious distraction.

If Blockstream/Core don't like ASICBoost, they should just change the fucking code.

I am not pinning everything on ASICBoost. It is just that it is an interesting puzzle piece
the community did not include in their mental equation as to why there is a stalemate.
When you add this ASICBoost element into it, things seem logical again.

It makes more sense that Jihan could block SegWit over an ASICBoost patch more than
truely wanting bigger blocks. Miners do not want bigger blocks. In the past, it took the Core
devs forever to get the miners to raise their soft caps. Weeks would go by and the miners
weren't paying attention. I think certain miners wanting bigger blocks now, is a myth.

Yeah, let's all just act like a bunch of dumb fuck again and just ignore the fact so many people is ditching SegWit because they are pissed at Blockstream/Core.

Let's all repeat ASICBoost in every paragraph and make accusations like a bunch of completely uninformed retards.

No one should listen to me.

This is the first time I am agreeing with you.

[franky1]

Theymos added Achow now, which I think is appropriate.

lol you think achowe is unbiased?

also a mod should only be moderating language/scams/virus risks.
no tech knowledge needed.

moderating message based on tech is censoring out tech.

P.S

But remember Franky, I'm a noob with no power, so... I'm
only telling you what I would do, if I could.

my comments to you were not in any way about thinking you had power. its more about correcting your rhetoric so that you dont
just turn into a blockstream puppet on a string.

but i am glad you are actually open minded enough to not just be spoon fed by the blockstreamists

[Lauda]

With Jihan now actively attacking Litecoin to prevent Segwit from being activated, the statement in the thread title is pretty much disproven. Bitmain is holding two networks hostage. It is time for a revolution.

-snip-
but i am glad you are actually open minded enough to not just be spoon fed by the blockstreamists

Do please comment how Blockstream is at fault for LTC too, even though there is zero relevance for that situation.
Comedy relief: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9O9bVQq1eY

[franky1]

With Jihan now actively attacking Litecoin to prevent Segwit from being activated, the statement in the thread title is pretty much disproven. Bitmain is holding two networks hostage. It is time for a revolution.

lol
proof?
oh. and dont make it a reddit post from some random guy or a tweet from a random guy

[Lauda]

With Jihan now actively attacking Litecoin to prevent Segwit from being activated, the statement in the thread title is pretty much disproven. Bitmain is holding two networks hostage. It is time for a revolution.

lol
proof?
oh. and dont make it a reddit post from some random guy or a tweet from a random guy

The hashrate on both pools from Jihan started severely increasing as soon as the network started going above 70% of the threshold (75% required). Due to this, Segwit is not likely to activate on Segwit anymore (as the combined hashrate of his pools is now >25%). FYI, statements like these are fine when you link up to several people as sources and just verify via recent mining data. It is also likely that LTC is going to test out UASF before Bitcoin, see here: https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/pull/300

[franky1]

FYI, statements like these are fine when you link up to several people as sources and just verify via recent mining data.

antpool litecoin less than 9%
yawn

[Lauda]

FYI, statements like these are fine when you link up to several people as sources and just verify via recent mining data.

antpool litecoin less than 9%
yawn

This is proof again, that you do not do enough research, but just spew bullshit. LTC1BTC and Antpool are owned by Jihan. The hashrate on both pools has grown exponentially ever since the other miners were about to activate Segwit.

[franky1]

This is proof again, that you do not do enough research, but just spew bullshit. LTC1BTC and Antpool are owned by Jihan. The hashrate on both pools has grown exponentially ever since the other miners were about to activate Segwit.

LTC1BTC = Jiang Zhuoer.... not jihan

have a nice day with yourself readdit reddit scripts that are meaningless & unbacked

[Lauda]

LTC1BTC = Jiang Zhuoer.... not jihan

My bad. I've improperly expressed myself. Jihan is pointing hashrate to both of those pools (of which 1 he owns). Besides, how hard is it to appoint *insert random name* as a pool *founder* in the name of decentralization? Jihan did it on Bitcoin with 3 or 4 pools anyways (see Antpool, ViaBTC, BTC.TOP).

have a nice day with yourself readdit reddit scripts that are meaningless & unbacked

You've read that Jiang Zhuoer is the founder from a news article. So much for your "backed" bullshit.

[Iranus]

FYI, statements like these are fine when you link up to several people as sources and just verify via recent mining data.

antpool litecoin less than 9%
yawn

Jihan's motives for blocking Litecoin SegWit are extremely strong.  If Litecoin's SegWit went through, all of his power would start crumbling in front of his eyes from the amount of miners that actually support SegWit - clearly a huge amount of BU's hashrate on Bitcoin is just Jihan Wu. So what's to stop him manipulating Litecoin, with a much lower total hashrate, so that it doesn't put pressure on him to give up with BU on Bitcoin?  Why wouldn't he do that?

All Jihan needs to do is control just enough mining power to stop Litecoin from going over the 75% threshold, and he can make a tidy profit in the process.  Why do you think Litecoin's SegWit has been hovering around 70% for ages?

[AgentofCoin]

Yes, SegWit did get merged because the Core Devs agreed that is was worthy of
inclusion, but that doesn't mean it will be accepted, that is the community's choice.
That is what the miner's didn't understand at the HK meeting. The fact that SegWit
isn't already part of the protocol shows that the Core Devs during the HK meeting
were trying to be honest and reasonable. Devs are not all powerful. They can create
and propose, but if other devs, exchanges, miners, and users don't want that feature
it will not become the standard. In my opinion 2MB hardfork is more contentious in the
community than a SegWit softfork, but that is just my opinion. The expectations during

LOL that's a new low even for you.
Like you're just going to sit there with a straight face and ignore the fact that SegWit is stuck in the mud because Blockstream/Core thought they could fuck over both miners and nodes at the same time.
Blockstream ignored nodes and went softfork because they thought they got miners in their pockets, even though they already fucked them over with the 1MB, that's how arrogant Blockstream/Core were, that's what fucked them.

I can sit here with a straight face because I believe it. If I didn't then I would
be arguing for the opposite position. Your interpretation of events are too simplistic
to be reality. If it was then the reality is boring and people didn't try hard enough
to do as you claim. If it really was a conspiracy, you wouldn't ever see it coming.

SegWit was set to 95% miner Consensus which is very high.
They did this because they understood it needs to be a high threshold for multiple
different issues and for overall network safety. The fact that they placed it that high,
shows they are not just ramming it in.

SegWit softfork was a compromise of the two separate issues, tps increase and  
retaining decentralization. If it doesn't go forward, it is because the community is not
ready for it or because certain miners are purposefully blocking it for their own self
interests that are not consistent with the interests of the community.

Core Developers didn't think they had miners in the pockets, they thought miners
were rational people who wanted security with value increase in the network. They
didn't think certain miners would risk the destruction of the network for simple 2MB.
That is illogical, and thus why people now think ASICBoost makes more sense. 2MB
bring no where near the amount of profit as ASICBoost 100 million USD extra profit
does.

If the miners are truly innocent, they are dumb for playing right into the
conspirators' hands. All they have to do it denounce ASICBoost and accept the patch.
Then they will eliminate their enemies, yet they do not. This is because they are not
innocent, but likely caught red handed. The miners are acting like bad politicians now.
Miners should make public statements as to their positions on a patch. Their silence
on this specific issue is telling and only fuels the communities doubts of them.

They are their own worse enemies. They do not seek correction, they double down.

That is why this is ridiculous because I'll let the experts prove me right or wrong.
But you were the one who was arguing there were no "facts". Which is backwards.
Either you are protecting Bitmain and Antpool, or you are just backwards here.

I am saying you talk a lot of shit but there were never anything to back it up.
After I bated you I now know for sure you're the kind of troll that looks into every detail trying to win an argument. But you just couldn't find any evidence to support your claims, that's why you had to play dumb all the time.
By the way, how does it actually feel to have to talk like a dumb fuck all the time, knowing everything that comes out of your mouth is bullshit and everyone else can see through it?
If I have to do that I'd probably quit within a week.

Every comment you say has some personal attack against me. That's a sign of a weak
argument and a bullshit artist. Looking into every detail is what people are supposed to
do. The fact that you consider that a negative aspect is bizarre to me. You are so simplistic
that your current statements contradict what it means to have critical thinking and
understanding.

In addition, your statements about me playing dumb: Where am I playing dumb? Has it
occurred to your little brain that I don't know everything, unlike how you conduct yourself,
and thus there are gaps in my full knowledge? I guess not since you are determined to
define me as a troll or something, so that your prior incorrect arguments could be salvaged
to be true to the ignorant reader. Your arguments only convey to those readers that you don't
really care about Bitcoin and the overall community, only your own interests and those of your
employers.

BTW, you just admitted that you are a paid shiller/troller, from your "I'd quite in a week"
if you had to "play the dumb fuck routine" comment. As I said before, no one can pay
enough to deal with you, I just do it to correct the record.

To any reader (which is not likely anymore) they can see I have not make any crazy claims.
My only major claim was to "wait till there is a proper investigation" before claiming there is
no ASICBoost issue here. But for some unknown reason, that is a threat or seen as inappropriate
to you and others, which only fuels that movement due to the defensive nature you take.

I looked online at twitter timezones and Githubs and according to my simple research,
twitter shows the time based on your timezone and GitHub is based on EDT. This means
that Jihan tweeted 1 hour and 21 minutes after chjj edited the Ext block code no matter
where you are in the world. That is all I was pointing out.

Everything you are writing now is irrelevant to your original posting to me. You claimed
that Jihan tweeted BEFORE chjj changed it as a blockstream conspiracy, when in fact, it
was the other way, which either means it is a Jihan conspiracy or just "coincidence".

I baited you, the edit was the bait, BIP-141 was the net, you still don't get it?
You're now trying to wiggle around by using the idiotic assumption that Jihan only learned about Extension Block the last minute and voiced its support immediately. That is, by making the assumption that the whole time since March, Jihan never learned about what Extension block was until the moment before he voiced his support.
But the bait was Extension Block had always been immune to ASICBoost. The github edit would throw you off because you're the kind of shill that play dumb and repeat bullshits, but secretly you're actually looking at all possible details for a rebuttal. That's how I exposed you as a paid shill.
You know exactly what bullshit you're talking about, you're intentionally talking like a dumb fuck all the time, because that's your job.
You don't have the technical understanding of BIP-141, that's why you fell for the edit. That is the long con you fell for, I gave you a detail you'd bite on, but once you bite on it, you're already inside the net.
The idea that a business man like Jihan wouldn't look over Extension Block at least a few times and think over it for a few days before voicing his support, is hilarious.
You've mistaken Jihan for some Blockstream troll where everything they say online is decided at the last minute, base on whatever they could see at the time.

Lol. I think this rant of yours is one of the better ones so far.

First, you told me you set a trap, then I "wiggled out" of it by proving your argument
wrong, and instead of admitting that and moving on, now you are saying you had a
secondary trap within the first trap, like this is the movie "Inception" or something, lol.
Now you can only explain your failures by saying I'm acting dumb and repeating bullshits
when in actuality all I did was showed your original conspiracy theory was based on incorrect
timeline information. You were wrong and now creating a misdirection. This is a clear tactic
not of someone with good faith.

You just keep doubling downing on falsehoods after falsehoods, and also with attacks on
myself to cover your own weak original argument. This is somewhat enjoyable because people
like you and hwat you are doing is proving to the community there are either a paid shill
campaign occurring or just a malicious intelligence agent causing confusion.

You have changed your original argument and can't admit that because you are a weak child
who needs to cover their flaws like a child who mistakenly shat their pants. Grow up and
admit that your Ext Block GitHub Conspiracy was proven wrong by one sentence from me.
Don't change the subject to how what a wonderful and rational businessman Jihan is and
how he thinks and what he did or did not do. You don't know jack shit about Jihan and if
you did its only because you are Jihan himself, or he pays you and tells you how to proceed.

I don't know the patent laws in China, but in the West a patent doesn't only protect the
selling of the idea in product form, but also prevents you from construction and use. If for
example, Bitmain did patent ASICBoost and had the full rights to it, no one else in the
world is technically allowed to build, use, or sell a chip that uses the same configuration
without a license from Bitmain, otherwise that is patent theft. Maybe some will or could
do it, but bitmain could attempt to find them liable and get damages from that company.

For other miners not to be found liable, they need to create a new ASICBoost configuration
that is different from Bitmain's version and no miners are going to invest in R&D for that now,
IMO. Either Jihan opens up the rights to all parties for free or we need to patch the protocol.

Or its possible there could be a wind-down agreement where Jihan can use it for the next 3
years as long as he halves the usage every 1 year, in agreement to accept SegWit unpatched
now. Then in 3 years we patch ASICboost and have SegWit. Of course, Jihan might like that,
but bigblockers will not since they never get their blocksize increase. But it is just an idea for
fun for negotiation purposes. Maybe something along these lines could be negotiated.

Irrelevant, putting patent in product helps win patent lawsuits, it's that simple.
The funny thing about you trolls is you guys keep assuming Jihan is the only guy on the planet who can build ASIC chips that use ASICBoost. Patent doesn't stop any nameless mining farm from building their own ASICBoost rigs, ASICBoost existed for years, anyone could have been using it for years. That's why this ASICBoost bullshit is just another obvious distraction.
If Blockstream/Core don't like ASICBoost, they should just change the fucking code.

No, your statement is incorrect, Patents are not to win but as a claim of ownership
and deterrent. If you willing violate the patent owner's rights or just unaware of them,
you are equally liable. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. You are ignoring whole
aspects of patent law and its different purposes, just to make your argument reflect
better upon ASICBoost patent holders. Patent holders not only created this legal issue,
but are also the only ones who can alleviate those legal issues.

I stated some patent theory and different possibles such as Jihan freely opening his patent
for any miner to use. Instead of agreeing with me, which you should have, you say I'm wrong
and think it is irrelevant. Then argue that miners should build their own chips, likely in
violation of those patent owners rights and patent laws. That is a joke. Next you are going
to argue that those miners should pay license fees to the ASICBoost patent holders, lol.

That will never happen not only for legal reasons but also because no non-ASICBoost miner
will do the R&D into this now or pay licensees fees. It is easier to patch this exploit and
everyone continues as is. Your suggestion overall creates a new paradigm within the Bitcoin
Mining community which condones cheating and exploiting the code as a new standard. Now
on one hand this is good since it helps discover exploitable aspects in mining that can be used
by attacking state actors, but if those discoveries are allowed to be the standard future mining
implementation, then that is bad for Bitcoin's future for many different reasons.
So it must be patched. If you are fine with that, then we can agree there.

I am not pinning everything on ASICBoost. It is just that it is an interesting puzzle piece
the community did not include in their mental equation as to why there is a stalemate.
When you add this ASICBoost element into it, things seem logical again.

It makes more sense that Jihan could block SegWit over an ASICBoost patch more than
truely wanting bigger blocks. Miners do not want bigger blocks. In the past, it took the Core
devs forever to get the miners to raise their soft caps. Weeks would go by and the miners
weren't paying attention. I think certain miners wanting bigger blocks now, is a myth.

Yeah, let's all just act like a bunch of dumb fuck again and just ignore the fact so many people is ditching SegWit because they are pissed at Blockstream/Core.
Let's all repeat ASICBoost in every paragraph and make accusations like a bunch of completely uninformed retards.

For the record, majority of the economies support SegWit and already implemented the
code into their systems. Majority of Exchanges and wallets are all waiting for the activation.
So, the only people who currently are "ditching" SegWit are the large miners who are holding
it hostage for certain "unknown" reasons. They want the community to think it is over a 2MB
HK Agreement which is too simplistic to take seriously. No normal person can believe that.

No one should listen to me.

This is the first time I am agreeing with you.

That's too bad because if you paid attention, you wouldn't have wasted your time trying to
fight someone who is probably one of the few real people in the community who stands by
Bitcoin for reasons that go beyond the lowly animalistic reasons. I think bitcoin will have
future importance that your brain has not anticipated yet. Bitcoin wasn't made for this century.
There is a higher purpose than just as a simple payment processor. That was trap you fell into.

[franky1]

have a nice day with yourself readdit reddit scripts that are meaningless & unbacked

You've read that Jiang Zhuoer is the founder from a news article. So much for your "backed" bullshit.

nope.
i actually went to the document where Jiang Zhuoer himself was writing.

the thing i do is if i see something.. i find the source. if someone says the source is a news article. i then look at a news article and find that news articles source. and i go right back to the real source.

sometimes these things are circle jerks where one "news" site is just quoting another news site which has quoted a reddit post from someone not involved, who then quotes another news site which has quoted another non-involved person.. and i just facepalm it.

but hey. maybe thats because my concentration span can last longer than 2 paragraphs and i dont just take things on face value, nor 'trust' something because 'it must be backed because 100+ people acknowledge it.

for instance i have yet to see any time that a release from core actually get 100 'Acks'
for instance i have yet to see any time that a release from core actually get 100 'Acks' and where those 100 people have read every single line of code.

for instance. there is a guy that put a pull request to mention gitian in a document to get himself named as 'one of the 100' contributors. but i know for sure he has not read every single line of code.. care to guess who im talking about, or am i being too subtle?

[Sadlife]

where did you read this, can you provide the link?
Im just confuse after they've been found out using an exploit called asicboost and was so against of segwit
And now they've decided to support it?

[AgentofCoin]

Theymos added Achow now, which I think is appropriate.

lol you think achowe is unbiased?
also a mod should only be moderating language/scams/virus risks.
no tech knowledge needed.
moderating message based on tech is censoring out tech.

Well, as for being unbiased, it doesn't matter. Moderators have a right to their
opinion too as long as they don't abuse their mod powers to prevent your opinion.
If you are not breaking any rules or anything and they maliciously delete your posts
or etc, then you should message Theymos or a higher mod with that evidence.

Whether anything will be done is unknown to me, but I think as long as a mod doesn't
step over certain lines, it should be fine.

But I do think Mods for the Development and Technical Sections need people who are
knowledgeable in such, since if I was a mod there and you started talking computer
programming nonsense that didn't actually mean anything, I wouldn't know the
difference. You wouldn't put an Spanish only speaker as the mod for the Korean
sub-boards, right? Lol. That is why I think Dev and Tech boards need fluent mods.

But remember Franky, I'm a noob with no power, so... I'm
only telling you what I would do, if I could.

my comments to you were not in any way about thinking you had power. its more about correcting your rhetoric so that you dont
just turn into a blockstream puppet on a string.
but i am glad you are actually open minded enough to not just be spoon fed by the blockstreamists

Yes. I want what is fair. I don't want imbalance in the Bitcoin network or the
community. Some problems are inevitable, such as the blocksize debate because
there is two separate ideologies vying for the single chain and future, but that
doesn't mean we should feed into the things that exacerbate some problems.

If fair accommodations could be made in some situations, they should be done.
It is better to do those to appease unhappy parties, than to inflame issues that
can spiral out of control and create future unknown problems.

[anonymoustroll420]

Read here to see one of the technical reasons why we can't increase the base blocksize.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1866275.0

[jonald_fyookball]

Read here to see one of the technical reasons why we can't increase the base blocksize.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1866275.0

Bitcoin classic claims to have the solution:

https://bitcoinclassic.com/devel/Quadratic%20Hashing.html

[Alex.BTC]

Since AgentofCoin made a lot of bullshit arguments and personal attacks base on a bunch of predictions.
I gave it a few more days so AgentofCoin have more time to solidify his 'false prophet' status.

I can sit here with a straight face because I believe it.

So not only am I dealing with a dishonest Blockstream shill, I am actually also dealing with a classic low information low IQ INFP.

INFP are very strong in emotion and imagination, but very weak in handling logic, facts and structure.

They think facts and logic should bend to imagination, not the other way around.

When they debate, they think it's a race of out-imagining the other guy, they also think if they can describe their imagination in detail, the other guy should agree, even if their delusion is base on complete bullshit.

Sometimes INFP knows they are bullshitting, but they're hoping by describing the bullshit in great detail, others will be distracted and won't be able to catch up.

I like to toy with shills and trolls that have an attitude.

So AgentofCoin, I am going to completely and utterly expose your strategy, and point out exactly where you tried to bullshit people.

If you've just tuned in and this is the first time you read AgentofCoin's post, keep in mind AgentofCoin is a classic INFP so his tactic would be 1. Create a false reality in his head. 2. Describe the false reality in detail to confuse and distract you.

AgentofCoin, the reason you keep doubting the fact that I baited you all along
was because this is probably the first time you've met people like us.

People like us like challenges, but we play the players, not the game, because we like to understand how things work.
Once we got the facts and logic straight, we know when people are lying, that doesn't concern us.
We are more interested in what you are, how you work and why you do what you do, more than what you actually say.
We see talent in people, we are always looking for new talents and new challenges.

When you present yourself as a challenge,
we treat everything like chess, we place baits, we set traps.
By the time you wiggle out of one there is another one waiting.
We toy with our opponents like a cat toy with a mouse.
From the way they react, we analyze their strengths and weaknesses.
Map out their logic, understand their patterns, absorb all their tactics for future use.
Once we lose interest, we press the kill switch that was created right at the start.

I am losing interest, so here is the kill switch you never saw coming.

Remember, you asked for this when you mentioned my name in page 1. I never asked for you.

[Alex.BTC]

Part 1 - AgentofCoin's delusions.

AgentofCoin's delusional began right from the start, so let's go back to the beginning, when he tried to bullshit jonald_fyookball with his own delusion on page 1.

You are assuming that when the miners signed the HK agreement,
they already knew what the final SegWit implementation would be.

The reality is that they did not perform their due diligence until after
SegWit was released. When the miners signed the "agreement" they
signed a promise based on a design that was still being worked out.

It is very likely that when ASICBoost Miners learned that the
coinbase is altered in SegWit, they would never follow through with
the full terms of the HK "agreement".

ASICBoost Miners, in theory, can never support new coinbase
references. The issue is not SegWit, it is the Coinbase data.

1. Jihan supported before understanding the final SegWit Implementation code.
After learning the Coinbase references are used, he would obviously retract that support.

Notice how:
1. AgentofCoin defines a new reality right from the get go.

2. AgentofCoin then began to describe that delusion: When the miners signed the HK agreement, they had no idea ASICBoost wouldn't work. Miners would never support SegWit if there is a 'new coinbase reference' ('new coinbase reference' is AgentofCoin's way of discribing the 'witness root hash', the thing in the coinbase that makes ASICBoost useless.)

3. AgentofCoin also claimed Jihan only pulled support from SegWit after he realized ASICBoost would not work on SegWit.

In short, AgentofCoin is claiming miners would not agree to any proposal that makes ASICBoost useless.

Note that this argument is what AgentofCoin insisted to the end, it is the main argument that all his other delusion/sub-argument/prophecies/personal-attacks are base on, if this is proven false, at least 80% of the bullshit he posted after is also false.

Now let's do a reality check:
1. The 'Hong Kong Agreement' was signed on 21st Feb 2016. (Source).

2. The 12th Jan 2016 version of BIP-141 (SegWit), is already incompatible with ASICBoost, because the coinbase has something call the 'witness root hash'. Quote BIP-141:'The new commitment in coinbase transaction is a hash of the witness root hash' (Link).

3. This is further clarified on the 24th Jan 2016 'Clarify txid and wtxid' update of BIP-141 (SegWit), in which it stated the 'witness root hash' contains a list of 'wtxid', when witness is not used, wtxid value is the same as normal txid. So, the 'witness root hash' contains a list of transaction id, this is what makes ASICBoost incompatible.

4. I repeat: SegWit has been factually proven to be incompatible with ASICBoost since 24th Jan 2016. (So is Ext Block, because it is base on BIP-141 aka SegWit)

5. Miners had almost a month to find out that ASICBoost wouldn't work with SegWit, before the signing of the agreement.

6. Miners continued to support SegWit long after the agreement was signed.

7. The one thing that made ASICBoost useless, the 'witness root hash', was already defined in 24th Jan 2016, 28 days before the signing of the agreement. The 'witness root hash' hasn't changed much since.

8. Jihan, as one of the agreement's signatory, had plenty of time to learn that ASICBoost wouldn't work on SegWit.

9. Remember, AgentofCoin is a guy who kept arguing over Jihan could learn about SegWit changes in 1hr or 2hr, so 28 days should be plenty for Jihan to learn that SegWit wouldn't work for ASICBoost.

'witness root hash'
'witness root hash' is what makes ASICBoost meaningless, this is common knowledge to those familiar with the basics of SegWit and ASICBoost.
A quote from the Dev & Tech forum mod will prove this:

Re: just out of curiousity, why would segwit impact asicboost
This is due to the witness root hash which must be included in the coinbase transaction.

So now we know that:
1. AgentofCoin is delusional or dishonest.
2. AgentofCoin likes to make statements that are simply not true.
3. AgentofCoin likes to argue with people using his delusion/dishonesty.
4. AgentofCoin likes to pretend to understand how miners think.
5. AgentofCoin likes to think he knows more than the miners.
6. AgentofCoin does not have the basic knowledge required to talk about ASICBoost and SegWit.
7. AgentofCoin likes to describe his delusion/lies in more details that are completely made up, instead of keep quiet when he doesn't understand what is being discussed.
8. AgentofCoin is the kind of guy that'll bullshit to the end unless you utterly expose him, even then, he might still continue his bullshit.

We also know that:
At least 80% of AgentofCoin's argument is this thread is now proved to be false, because AgentofCoin based those arguments on:

1. Miners would not have known that SegWit was incompatible with ASICBoost when they signed the agreement.
2. Miners would not support any proposal that support ASICBoost.

When you stack one bullshit on top of another, all people need to do is crack open the first one, and the entire bullshit structure falls apart like a house of cards.

Now we've established AgentofCoin is a delusional lying retard who likes to talk shit.
Let's move onto part 2 and talk about his 'prophecies'.

[Alex.BTC]

Part 2 - AgentofCoin's prophecies

One thing I like about AgentofCoin is his energy.

He believed in his own delusions so much he probably didn't even know he's lying. (A classic INFP trait)

He repeatedly dived head first into his own delusion, made false statements, correct others, launched personal attacks, even created prophecies, all base on something that is completely false.

He was completely oblivious to how stupid he'd look when his bullshit is exposed.

It takes talent to do that, I like people with talents,
If he didn't troll me by name I probably would have just let him do his thing. But he did, so here we are.

Let's look at AgentofCoin's prophecies:

In time, all will be revealed.

within the next two months or less, someone will publish a full scientific report

Jihan will no longer support that Ext Block proposal.

See that definitive and authoritative attitude?

That's the kind of talent you need when you want to act like a prophet.

You have to act like you've already seen the future.

Now let's look at what he said about acting like a prophet:

Talking about me acting like a cult prophet is laughable. Anyone can go back through my
post history and take a look if I have spoken like a prophet, alluding to communication with
God (or Satoshi, in this case), used people, attacked people, purposefully misconstrued info,
shilled positions that are unreasonable, fallen in line with "party" positions, or whatever. My
only allegiance is to the Bitcoin network and it's unencumbered unrestricted unregulated
future. The community can decide between both of us, who seems more reasonable and
genuine, and who is the bullshit artist.

See that talent in bullshitting? It just oozes out nonstop, one after another.
It really takes talent to bullshit so often in so many details.
Even my ass is jealous of the amount of bullshit that came out of his mouth.

Oh and one more juicy prophecy nugget from AgentofCoin, way back in 2014:

"I'm confident that the Satoshi Nakamoto that "programmed and started the actual transaction/mining process", will contact the community sometime in the near future." - AgentofCoin, March 06, 2014

Two of AgentofCoin's paragraph style in this thread was exactly like Greg's, it got me curious for a while.
So I checked his first page of post to see how much his posts would resembled Greg's. Turned out the first things he did after coming to this board was to make prophecies.

If I can find 3 prophecies in this thread and another prophecy in his first few posts ever on this board, I am sure he made plenty of others prophecies, but showing 4 prophecies is enough, I can't be fucked looking for more.

I was going to write Part 3 - AgentofCoin's sensual side.
Once INFP realize their tactics don't work, they play emotional guilt trip.

But I got bored. Once I knew what AgentofCoin is, what his tactics are, I realize I've already learned them before, so he's no longer a challenge or interest. Even more so after I've made him look like an ass.

AgentofCoin's Weak Logic

If AgentofCoin relied less on delusions and apply stronger logic, I might have played for longer, but these type of low logic replies just make people lose interest quickly:

BTW, you just admitted that you are a paid shiller/troller, from your "I'd quite in a week"
if you had to "play the dumb fuck routine" comment.

If I say to the president of any country:"If I have to lie like a dumb fuck on tv all the time, I'd quit in a week", AgentofCoin's logic is that I have the same job as that president. I don't know what to tell you, but these arguments are just too retarded, they're not even fun to rebut.

By the way, I placed a trap door in INFP, but it doesn't matter, at this point AgentofCoin is no longer a challenge.

Oh btw, If we wait long enough, I am sure AgentofCoin's prohecy of "Jihan will no longer support that Ext Block proposal." will come true, maybe after 50-100 years.

Thanks for playing.

[AgentofCoin]

Since AgentofCoin made a lot of bullshit arguments and personal attacks base on a bunch of predictions.
I gave it a few more days so AgentofCoin have more time to solidify his 'false prophet' status.

My arguments are more valid than any of yours. Mine attempt to explain the
situations rationally, whether they are correct or not. Also, I admit being
wrong if I think I was wrong. Majority of yours are conspiracy and paranoia,
and must always be correct since your ego seems invested. You have never
admitted to being wrong once and have constantly deflected onto new issues
with claims of trying to bait, trap, and outmaneuver me. This is a blatant sign
that you don't care about anything other than you ego, which is boring.
Ego is major league boring and usually leads to self destruction.

This overall conversation has become boring since it is not about specific
Bitcoin related issues anymore. You have devolved this discussion now into
a more base level. Your following statements shows how low you are willing
to go to prove me wrong in any way possible.  

I can sit here with a straight face because I believe it.

So not only am I dealing with a dishonest Blockstream shill, I am actually also dealing with a classic low information low IQ INFP.
INFP are very strong in emotion and imagination, but very weak in handling logic, facts and structure.
They think facts and logic should bend to imagination, not the other way around.
When they debate, they think it's a race of out-imagining the other guy, they also think if they can describe their imagination in detail, the other guy should agree, even if their delusion is base on complete bullshit.
Sometimes INFP knows they are bullshitting, but they're hoping by describing the bullshit in great detail, others will be distracted and won't be able to catch up.
I like to toy with shills and trolls that have an attitude.
So AgentofCoin, I am going to completely and utterly expose your strategy, and point out exactly where you tried to bullshit people.
If you've just tuned in and this is the first time you read AgentofCoin's post, keep in mind AgentofCoin is a classic INFP so his tactic would be 1. Create a false reality in his head. 2. Describe the false reality in detail to confuse and distract you.
AgentofCoin, the reason you keep doubting the fact that I baited you all along
was because this is probably the first time you've met people like us.

This is great! I'm really proud of you now. You are working too hard on a
noob who only arrived in Late 2013 and has admitted on numerous occasions
that I have no programming, higher end computer knowledge, or knowledge
in most of the fields that Bitcoin encompasses in general. You are wasting your
time in a monumental way, but it is enjoyable because I like to see how far you
will go in efforts to discredit or attack someone who has admitted to being
fallible and not fully knowledgeable. It is like you are blind, deaf, and dumb
and marching forward into the fire. Nothing matters to you, except yourself.

There is an aspect of delusion and madness that is normally worrisome in
person, yet fascinating when at a safe distance. This is one of those enjoyable
moments for me. All of your current comments are entirely not necessary if
your original facts were indeed correct. Remember when I outlined each of your
six factual points and why I though they were not facts? Oh how far you have
fallen. None of your current statements have anything to do with that. So I must
assume you have now acquiesced that those facts were not facts and thus on this
new topic.

The fact that you are attacking me in such a manner now must mean that for
some reason I am a threat to you (or likely your ego), which is sad for two
reasons; (1) you are accusing me of being a "classic low information low IQ INFP",
yet you were arguing with me about conspiracies and non-facts and attempting to
argue that they were indeed facts or truths, which are usually done by those
who have "low information low IQ", and (2) according to the standard, I would
be aligned to the "INTP" scale, though unlike you, admit it is overall worthless
since personality types are irrelevant in most real world cases and are usually
combinations of all and not a strict adherence to one.

You using "personality types" which are subjective and less science, are a cop out
argument that weak debaters need to resort to. By saying my words are capable
of blinding people's ability to understand the truth is remarkable. Either you are
saying the majority of people are stupid and can not think for themselves and
have agreed with me already (yet there are not any other comments in this
thread other than us), or you are saying you are stupid and somehow when I
talked plainly, it was confusing to you.

In addition, since you are attempting to pigeonholed me into a box of
classification, I will take that as a badge of honor since you have now resorted
to attributing an incorrect caricature of myself in order to preserve your own
identity and beliefs. In my world, that is a great success and failure. It is a
success since you have now done more harm to yourself and understating than
I could have ever done intentionally, and a failure, since if you listened to my
words prior, you would not have needed to go down this road since I was being
sincere and plain. You willingly went down this road of escalation and self
destruction, because in reality you had no other recourse.

People like us like challenges, but we play the players, not the game, because we like to understand how things work.
Once we got the facts and logic straight, we know when people are lying, that doesn't concern us.
We are more interested in what you are, how you work and why you do what you do, more than what you actually say.
We see talent in people, we are always looking for new talents and new challenges.

When you present yourself as a challenge,
we treat everything like chess, we place baits, we set traps.
By the time you wiggle out of one there is another one waiting.
We toy with our opponents like a cat toy with a mouse.
From the way they react, we analyze their strengths and weaknesses.
Map out their logic, understand their patterns, absorb all their tactics for future use.
Once we lose interest, we press the kill switch that was created right at the start.

I am losing interest, so here is the kill switch you never saw coming.
Remember, you asked for this when you mentioned my name in page 1. I never asked for you.

Yes, you have discovered my major weakness.
Talking in the first person plural gets me hot. You figured it out!
I have become moderately aroused and look forward to reading the kill switch.
I will respond after I have fully absorbed your kill switch posts.

[Alex.BTC]

You are working too hard on a
noob who only arrived in Late 2013 and has admitted on numerous occasions
that I have no programming, higher end computer knowledge, or knowledge
in most of the fields that Bitcoin encompasses in general.

If I've told you once I've told you a thousand times.
You got burned because you acted like a know-it-all authority and trolled me by name, here:

It would likely be best for you to stop quoting Alex.BTC since it is obvious that he
is not interested in learning anything, but perpetuating the obfuscations.

You then continued to act like an authority with bullshits like:

So, I'll give you 0.5 points for your first "fact". (0.5 out of 1.0)
So, I'll give you 0.0 points for your second "fact". (0.5 out of 2.0)
So, I'll give you 0.0 points for your third "fact". (0.5 out of 3.0)
...etc

There were pages of these, but you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about the whole god damn time.

Here, this little nugget of yours really takes the cake:

Your interpretation of events are too simplistic to be reality. If it was then the reality is boring and people didn't try hard enough to do as you claim.

I dont understand why the most uninformed and delusional noob on this forum is acting like some kind of authority of past, current and future reality.

Here is an idea, if you know you're a noob, why don't you just shut the fuck up.

I've never seen anyone on here who know so little but talk so much bullshit.

None of this would have happened if you didn't stick your head so far up your ass.

[AgentofCoin]

Part 1 - AgentofCoin's delusions.
AgentofCoin's delusional began right from the start, so let's go back to the beginning, when he tried to bullshit jonald_fyookball with his own delusion on page 1.

You are assuming that when the miners signed the HK agreement,
they already knew what the final SegWit implementation would be.
The reality is that they did not perform their due diligence until after
SegWit was released. When the miners signed the "agreement" they
signed a promise based on a design that was still being worked out.
It is very likely that when ASICBoost Miners learned that the
coinbase is altered in SegWit, they would never follow through with
the full terms of the HK "agreement".
ASICBoost Miners, in theory, can never support new coinbase
references. The issue is not SegWit, it is the Coinbase data.

1. Jihan supported before understanding the final SegWit Implementation code.
After learning the Coinbase references are used, he would obviously retract that support.

Notice how:
1. AgentofCoin defines a new reality right from the get go.
2. AgentofCoin then began to describe that delusion: When the miners signed the HK agreement, they had no idea ASICBoost wouldn't work. Miners would never support SegWit if there is a 'new coinbase reference' ('new coinbase reference' is AgentofCoin's way of discribing the 'witness root hash', the thing in the coinbase that makes ASICBoost useless.)
3. AgentofCoin also claimed Jihan only pulled support from SegWit after he realized ASICBoost would not work on SegWit.
In short, AgentofCoin is claiming miners would not agree to any proposal that makes ASICBoost useless.
Note that this argument is what AgentofCoin insisted to the end, it is the main argument that all his other delusion/sub-argument/prophecies/personal-attacks are base on, if this is proven false, at least 80% of the bullshit he posted after is also false.

Now let's do a reality check:
1. The 'Hong Kong Agreement' was signed on 21st Feb 2016. (Source).
2. The 12th Jan 2016 version of BIP-141 (SegWit), is already incompatible with ASICBoost, because the coinbase has something call the 'witness root hash'. Quote BIP-141:'The new commitment in coinbase transaction is a hash of the witness root hash' (Link).
3. This is further clarified on the 24th Jan 2016 'Clarify txid and wtxid' update of BIP-141 (SegWit), in which it stated the 'witness root hash' contains a list of 'wtxid', when witness is not used, wtxid value is the same as normal txid. So, the 'witness root hash' contains a list of transaction id, this is what makes ASICBoost incompatible.
4. I repeat: SegWit has been factually proven to be incompatible with ASICBoost since 24th Jan 2016. (So is Ext Block, because it is base on BIP-141 aka SegWit)
5. Miners had almost a month to find out that ASICBoost wouldn't work with SegWit, before the signing of the agreement.
6. Miners continued to support SegWit long after the agreement was signed.
7. The one thing that made ASICBoost useless, the 'witness root hash', was already defined in 24th Jan 2016, 28 days before the signing of the agreement. The 'witness root hash' hasn't changed much since.
8. Jihan, as one of the agreement's signatory, had plenty of time to learn that ASICBoost wouldn't work on SegWit.
9. Remember, AgentofCoin is a guy who kept arguing over Jihan could learn about SegWit changes in 1hr or 2hr, so 28 days should be plenty for Jihan to learn that SegWit wouldn't work for ASICBoost.

What your fatal flaw in your reasoning is that your timeline of events does not
expound upon anything other than what the community already knows. My
original comment to Jonald was pointing out that Jonald was taking the situation
at face value. You yourself have done so as well. You do not attempt to understand
why things occurred as they did. You use what superficially did occur, as evidence
of miners individual innocence and good faith. That is an incorrect connection and
cannot be found in your outline.

What you are accusing me of, is exactly what you are now doing. What your current
argument really is, is that “since a person came to the police station and willingly
gave some information about a murder, that person must not be the murderer”.
That is your whole argument in its simplest form and does not prove that the person
who willingly went to the police station is NOT the murderer. Your timeline has lots
of points and time aspects, but has no deductions or actual analysis to fit your final
belief.

You wanted to attack my passing statement to Jonald so strongly that you were
blinded to the fact that your explanation doesn’t disprove what my opinion was
intended to convey. You nitpicked my wording to Jonald, which in the past you
accused me of doing incorrectly. You are a big hypocritical mess. My statement
to Jonald was intended to point out that he was assuming good faith of some
miners during the HK meeting and that was his only basis of belief.

I concluded that Antpool likely did not do their due diligence, because then why
would they willingly sign an agreement that broke their chip’s advantage? But, it
is possible they did do their due diligence, as you are arguing here, but then that
conclusion is that they went to the HK meeting knowing this important detail,
never telling other miners or devs about this detail, signing a document to use a
protocol change that damages this detail, and now you want the community to
believe that they always intended to follow through with the agreement and
disband future use of detail, only because they say they would have?

If we take your belief that they did know it breaks their ASICBoost aspect why
would they sign that agreement? They create hundreds, maybe thousands of chips
that contain that design for the purpose of current or future use. You want to
community to believe they did that to waste money and they were willing to take
that as a financial loss with the SegWit activation and future. That is naïve. Either
Antpool is dumb or you are. When I commented to Jonald, I assumed AntPool was
negligent, now due to your timeline, I think they were intentionally deceptive. That
is what you missed in your outline and glossed over. You never came to any possible
answers. You whole posting is designed to make me look like a “bullshitter”, but yet
you never prove my point wrong, just my phraseology.

Ultimately, your simplistic belief makes no sense over all. So the true motive and
answer is still missing and that is what the HK agreement/ASICBoost/SegWit current
debate is all about. It’s about trying to understand what may be the deeper issues
here. Not the superficial that you outline and any person can do. Your kill switch so
far is lacking in the kill part. If anything it adds to my argument because you unwilling
or willing omitted elaborations or discussion into the inconsistencies.

So lets now talk about what you like to talk about: conspiracies. So here is an
interesting one that came from your superficial timeline. Without your timeline, I would
not have been able to articulate this, thank you. Please explain where I am wrong
in this as well:

If we assume you are correct about Antpool knowing SegWit broke their ASICBoost,
how could they look like they agree to use SegWit in the future when they do not
actually want to, and prevent any agreement from being fully fulfilled so they can
claimed the devs did not uphold their part of the agreement later? The only way I can
think of right now is to place a clause in the agreement that could have never been
performed or implemented because it is so contentious in the community. And what
clause was in the agreement that the devs stated they couldn’t do, but the miners kept
pushing the issue for inclusion? The 2MB hardfork clause. The ASICBoost miners used
the 2MB hardfork clause as a mechanism to dissolve the HK agreement at a later date,
knowing full well it could never have been done. In addition, Antpool would hold out
many months after that fact, when other miners were already calling fail, because they
wanted to cover their true motives of ASICboost. They waited so long after the deadline
because they wanted to portray themselves as you are now doing, as a victim of the big
bad devs. So you are doing their dirty work by helping protect their conspiracy from
the beginning. You are a part of their plan to dissolve the HK agreement thus freeing
them from needing to use SegWit. That is why your timeline does not expand on any
issues or deductions and jumps to an incorrect conclusion that AntPool wanted SegWit
and would have always used it, even though it voided their patents.

So, if my conspiracy conclusion is right, you are either a moron or working for obfuscation,
which I stated to Jonald on page 1. You can never prove your stand point of this issue from
what you provided. If anything, it shows problems and inconsistencies with Antpool’s
overall argument.

'witness root hash'
'witness root hash' is what makes ASICBoost meaningless, this is common knowledge to those familiar with the basics of SegWit and ASICBoost.
A quote from the Dev & Tech forum mod will prove this:

Re: just out of curiousity, why would segwit impact asicboost
This is due to the witness root hash which must be included in the coinbase transaction.

So now we know that:
1. AgentofCoin is delusional or dishonest.
2. AgentofCoin likes to make statements that are simply not true.
3. AgentofCoin likes to argue with people using his delusion/dishonesty.
4. AgentofCoin likes to pretend to understand how miners think.
5. AgentofCoin likes to think he knows more than the miners.
6. AgentofCoin does not have the basic knowledge required to talk about ASICBoost and SegWit.
7. AgentofCoin likes to describe his delusion/lies in more details that are completely made up, instead of keep quiet when he doesn't understand what is being discussed.
8. AgentofCoin is the kind of guy that'll bullshit to the end unless you utterly expose him, even then, he might still continue his bullshit.

We also know that:
At least 80% of AgentofCoin's argument is this thread is now proved to be false, because AgentofCoin based those arguments on:
1. Miners would not have known that SegWit was incompatible with ASICBoost when they signed the agreement.
2. Miners would not support any proposal that support ASICBoost.

When you stack one bullshit on top of another, all people need to do is crack open the first one, and the entire bullshit structure falls apart like a house of cards.
Now we've established AgentofCoin is a delusional lying retard who likes to talk shit.
Let's move onto part 2 and talk about his 'prophecies'.

Wonderful. Your attacks on me once again make you look like a horse’s ass.
Nothing you stated prior proved you right. All that you did was say you think
miners had one month to test on SegWit and I said I didn’t think they did yet.
Wow wee you are a genius. How many days did it take you to write this crap
again?

Your whole argument to prove me wrong is based on one of my comments to
Jonald taken to an extreme that I never argued as an absolute and then you apply
it to every comment I made after the fact, like a robot. Because you say or believe
something doesn’t make it so. Too bad for you, your simple mind is stuck in your
self created box.

Hey everyone, look Alex.BTC got me because I said miners didn’t do their due
diligence. Onh no, he says they did, So I’m wrong about everything I ever said
about numerous and separate issues. Oh no..

Please Alex.BTC, if this was part 1 of the “Kill Switch” I really hope Part 2 is better.
Your whole argument against me is based on a single sentence with phraseology
you don’t like. Meanwhile I crafted a conspiracy theory from your timeline that is
more likely then AntPool agreeing to willing break their chips and patents.

You try so hard to cover the miners asses you might as well kiss them instead.

[jonald_fyookball]

you guys are getting into a pissing match over stupid details
of who said what to this argument and that argument
which was in reference to something else that was said
about an aspect of something that isn't even central
to the scaling debate anyway.

It's like 4th generation "dont give a fuck".

I still want bigger blocks, I still don't like
segwit, i still think core is a bunch of
dishonest obstructionists, but hey
if bitcoin wants to die because
everyone is falling for the propaganda
instead of a 1 line code change for
bigger blocks, well, so be it.  I'll be fine. I have
some ethers too.

[AgentofCoin]

you guys are getting into a pissing match over stupid details
of who said what to this argument and that argument
which was in reference to something else that was said
about an aspect of something that isn't even central
to the scaling debate anyway.

It's like 4th generation "dont give a fuck".
...

If you notice Jonald, Alex.BTC bumped up the thread with his
"Kill Switch" posts that are intended to outmaneuver me into such a
position that I would be defeated indefinitely or something. I should
respond to such a thing at least.

So don't lump me into this mess. I only wanted to correct the record
and Alex.BTC went crazy and started flailing all over and just attacks
personally. As proof, and like sprinkles on a cake, in his most recent
posting has now accused me of being Greg Maxwell. Lol.

Come on, this is good stuff. Next Alex.BTC is going to accuse me of
being his alt and manufacturing this whole debate to confuse people.
Then I will accuse him of being Craig Wright. Or maybe I will accuse
myself of that. Lol. Fun times.

[Alex.BTC]

10 paragraphs of crying.

LOL like I said, I like your endless bullshit energy.

I don't think you understand, once you get caught bullshitting like this what you say no longer matters.
You're now just a fucking whiny clown who talk bullshit and make bullshit prophecies.

Where is the news on Jihan dropping support on Ext Block anyway?
Can we have an ETA on that, Mr. all-will-be-revealed Jihan expert?

[AgentofCoin]

10 paragraphs of crying.

LOL like I said, I like your endless bullshit energy.
I don't think you understand, once you get caught bullshitting like this what you say no longer matters.

Come on bro, put some effort in it.
Whats wrong, your employer won't pay you anymore to engage with me?
Don't worry, you can do it on your off time.

Where is the news on Jihan dropping support on Ext Block anyway?
Can we have an ETA on that, Mr. Jihan expert?

Yeah, my crystal ball says he will never make such a statement publicly since
that would expose his true intention. Go tweet Jihan and have him prove me
wrong by saying he supports "Ext Blocks with ASICBoost patched". He already
admitted he would not want to do that since it hurts the patent holders. So you
are wasting everyone's time with your strawman.

[jonald_fyookball]

you guys are getting into a pissing match over stupid details
of who said what to this argument and that argument
which was in reference to something else that was said
about an aspect of something that isn't even central
to the scaling debate anyway.

It's like 4th generation "dont give a fuck".
...

If you notice Jonald, Alex.BTC bumped up the thread with his
"Kill Switch" posts that are intended to outmaneuver me into such a
position that I would be defeated indefinitely or something. I should
respond to such a thing at least.

So don't lump me into this mess. I only wanted to correct the record
and Alex.BTC went crazy and started flailing all over and just attacks
personally. As proof, and like sprinkles on a cake, in his most recent
posting has now accused me of being Greg Maxwell. Lol.

Come on, this is good stuff. Next Alex.BTC is going to accuse me of
being his alt and manufacturing this whole debate to confuse people.
Then I will accuse him of being Craig Wright. Or maybe I will accuse
myself of that. Lol. Fun times.

Well I actually agree.

Alex, I really appreciate you being on the board,
and your earliest posts against the core team
and about the spam issue have been brilliant.

You may know more than anyone else here
about the Asicboost issue but you've gotten
a little obsessive about "winning the argument"
and "making him wrong"... no real need for it,
you made your points
 
I actually don't think AgentofCoin is
a paid shill.  He's one of the few small
blockers that can hold a conversation,
even if we disagree with him.

[Alex.BTC]

Well I actually agree.

Alex, I really appreciate you being on the board,
and your earliest posts against the core team
and about the spam issue have been brilliant.

You may know more than anyone else here
about the Asicboost issue but you've gotten
a little obsessive about "winning the argument"
and "making him wrong"... no real need for it,
you made your points
 
I actually don't think AgentofCoin is
a paid shill.  He's one of the few small
blockers that can hold a conversation,
even if we disagree with him.

Now I don't think he's a paid shill either, I think he's a paid fortune teller.

[Alex.BTC]

Yeah, my crystal ball says he will never make such a statement publicly since
that would expose his true intention. Go tweet Jihan and have him prove me
wrong by saying he supports "Ext Blocks with ASICBoost patched". He already
admitted he would not want to do that since it hurts the patent holders. So you
are wasting everyone's time with your strawman.

Sure, call your own previous prediction a straw man and make a new one that's the complete opposite, that's one way to back track, I am sure no one would notice the screeching noise.

[AgentofCoin]

Yeah, my crystal ball says he will never make such a statement publicly since
that would expose his true intention. Go tweet Jihan and have him prove me
wrong by saying he supports "Ext Blocks with ASICBoost patched". He already
admitted he would not want to do that since it hurts the patent holders. So you
are wasting everyone's time with your strawman.

Sure, call your own previous prediction a straw man and make a new one that's the complete opposite, that's one way to back track, I am sure no one would notice the screeching noise.

My prediction was that if this whole issue was true, Jihan would no longer be
able to accept a patched Ext Blocks. Anyone can go back and look at the
context of my statement.I never said, "Jihan will make a public statement to
the community announcing he will no longer accept the patch Ext Block proposal".
That is the strawman you are now portraying and I am referring to.

But hey, thanks for not addressing my 10 paragraph response and changing
the subject like you always do. Your "Kill Switch" against me was lacking.

But that's ok, here is my response to your part 2 Kill Switch, which I assume
you will ignore as well.

[AgentofCoin]

Part 2 - AgentofCoin's prophecies

One thing I like about AgentofCoin is his energy.
He believed in his own delusions so much he probably didn't even know he's lying. (A classic INFP trait)
He repeatedly dived head first into his own delusion, made false statements, correct others, launched personal attacks, even created prophecies, all base on something that is completely false.
He was completely oblivious to how stupid he'd look when his bullshit is exposed.
It takes talent to do that, I like people with talents,
If he didn't troll me by name I probably would have just let him do his thing. But he did, so here we are.

Everything you just said is about yourself and anyone stupid enough to read
this worthless thread would know that by now. You just say any crap over and
over and over. No one cares friend. You look more stupid each time. I’m only
stupid for engaging you each time.

Let's look at AgentofCoin's prophecies:

In time, all will be revealed.

within the next two months or less, someone will publish a full scientific report

Jihan will no longer support that Ext Block proposal.

See that definitive and authoritative attitude?
That's the kind of talent you need when you want to act like a prophet.
You have to act like you've already seen the future.

You are so simplistic it is sad now. Either you think anyone reading this thread
now is as stupid as you or you really are crazy. By your definition everyone who
thinks SegWit or BU will be the future protocol must also be prophets. In fact,
everyone on the internet who is talking about any future tense must all be
prophets too. That is so stupid it is not worth anyone’s time to address. This is
like a 13 year olds argument style. Why did you bother to continue this
conversation and attack?

Now let's look at what he said about acting like a prophet:

Talking about me acting like a cult prophet is laughable. Anyone can go back through my
post history and take a look if I have spoken like a prophet, alluding to communication with
God (or Satoshi, in this case), used people, attacked people, purposefully misconstrued info,
shilled positions that are unreasonable, fallen in line with "party" positions, or whatever. My
only allegiance is to the Bitcoin network and it's unencumbered unrestricted unregulated
future. The community can decide between both of us, who seems more reasonable and
genuine, and who is the bullshit artist.

See that talent in bullshitting? It just oozes out nonstop, one after another.
It really takes talent to bullshit so often in so many details.
Even my ass is jealous of the amount of bullshit that came out of his mouth.

Its pretty obvious to anyone still reading this thread you have serious issues,
not only jealousy issues. But exactly where is the bullshit? I advised you to go
find quotes from the past where I act as if I’m a prophet. What you have
provided so far is not Prophetic material. Those are simple statements that
anticipate a future event.

Prophecies would mean that I’m in communication with God. Where have I
stated I’m in communication with God or Satoshi? I know what your problem
is now. You are scared. You are scared that I may be a prophet I guess or that
my prediction about ASICBoost is correct. You are questioning yourself and thus
need to attack me for it. That is why you are on some sort of bender about
prophecies and such. You must be scared of something.

Oh and one more juicy prophecy nugget from AgentofCoin, way back in 2014:

"I'm confident that the Satoshi Nakamoto that "programmed and started the actual transaction/mining process", will contact the community sometime in the near future." - AgentofCoin, March 06, 2014

Satoshi contacted the community to do exactly as I stated the next day.
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source?commentId=2003008%3AComment%3A52186

Take it as coincidence or not. It was not a prophecy, it was a prediction. Next you are
going to argue I’m Satoshi. But that doesn’t matter since no one is reading this. Good
thing you are bad at your job and no one cares. You just go on to your next irrelevant
point, never acknowledging the past, and shaking your head like a child in denial.

Your "juicy prophecy nugget" only proves that my prediction was right, not that I am
claiming or acting like a prophet by being in communication with Satoshi or am Satoshi.

Two of AgentofCoin's paragraph style in this thread was exactly like Greg's, it got me curious for a while.
So I checked his first page of post to see how much his posts would resembled Greg's. Turned out the first things he did after coming to this board was to make prophecies.

Oh wait, You don’t think I’m Satoshi, but Greg Maxwell?. Oh of course, it is always
Maxwell. He is behind everything. This is fantastic! I think that calling someone Greg
Maxwell should be the new Godwin’s Law, because that is what it has essentially
become. If you disagree with someone, you accuse them of being secretly Maxwell as
a way of discrediting them, yet only discredit yourself. Lol! So, now that you accuse
me of being Maxwell, I win the whole argument automatically, right?

If I can find 3 prophecies in this thread and another prophecy in his first few posts ever on this board, I am sure he made plenty of others prophecies, but showing 4 prophecies is enough, I can't be fucked looking for more.
I was going to write Part 3 - AgentofCoin's sensual side.
Once INFP realize their tactics don't work, they play emotional guilt trip.
But I got bored. Once I knew what AgentofCoin is, what his tactics are, I realize I've already learned them before, so he's no longer a challenge or interest. Even more so after I've made him look like an ass.

Major Lulz.

AgentofCoin's Weak Logic
If AgentofCoin relied less on delusions and apply stronger logic, I might have played for longer, but these type of low logic replies just make people lose interest quickly:

BTW, you just admitted that you are a paid shiller/troller, from your "I'd quite in a week"
if you had to "play the dumb fuck routine" comment.

If I say to the president of any country:"If I have to lie like a dumb fuck on tv all the time, I'd quit in a week", AgentofCoin's logic is that I have the same job as that president. I don't know what to tell you, but these arguments are just too retarded, they're not even fun to rebut.
By the way, I placed a trap door in INFP, but it doesn't matter, at this point AgentofCoin is no longer a challenge.
Oh btw, If we wait long enough, I am sure AgentofCoin's prohecy of "Jihan will no longer support that Ext Block proposal." will come true, maybe after 50-100 years.
Thanks for playing.

*Waves goodbye*

Oh no. Why you going? Your arguments were pretty lousy as usual and you need
to come back and clean them up. This is the worst ending to a discussion I have
ever been witness to. Why did you even bother responding?

If this whole thing was the Kill Switch I am very disappointed. Nothing you stated
has any real substance and is clearly intended to attack me individually while also
distracting any possible readers to the obvious issue that is some miner may have
been using ASICBoost and that explains why there could be a block to SegWit
(not the simple 2MB issue) and that they may not have ever intended to follow
through with the HK agreement because they knew that Core devs would never
implement a 2MB hardfork. It may have been crafted before the core devs walked
into the door. The miners wanted something the devs said wasn't likely and the
miners still wanted it in writing for some reason. Why want the impossible?

The whole situation is likely created and exploited by miners who have invested
millions of dollars on a bet that was called out to be a wrong choice. Instead of
agreeing it may be a possibility, you have chosen to side with the miners,
which means he is likely incentivized by those miners to come to this forum and
troll and shit post. I was hoping for more of a challenge. Instead, this user
continues with children’s games. This user believes the conspiracies and lies
because that is all they have left now.

Your whole issue is not with facts, but with me directly, not only because you
have ego issues but because you also sees me as a threat, either because what I am
saying is closer to the truth then most people are currently aware of, or because
you really are worried I am a prophet and is slightly filled with self doubt. Lol.

Due to your lack of understanding certain statements and interpret common things
incorrectly, I have to assume you are likely one of the Chinese miners who speak
decent English or one of their paid employees and that would explain why you do
not understand simple English phrases. Your only job is to obfuscate important
issues and guide people in dead end directions. You are of a few amount of people
who believe the current ASICBoost issue is a fabricated distraction.

So, to rate the totality of your “Kill Switch” I give it 30 points out of a possible 100.
It was not good enough for me to waste my time. But unfortunately, I only found that
out now.  Your “Kill Switch” was more like a “Death Throe” it seems.

[jonald_fyookball]

 Oh of course, it is always
Maxwell. He is behind everything.  

yeah but its sort of true lol...

case in point:  Last week, everybody and their grandma was talking about UASF on r/bitcoin... there was literally a dozen or 2 dozen threads about it.
Then Greg comes out and says he doesnt support BIP 148 UASF and overnight, all of those threads disappear.

[Alex.BTC]

more whining and personal attacks

All I asked is when will your predictions come true.
Why the big reaction? Are you embarrassed? That's good enough for me.

[AgentofCoin]

more whining and personal attacks

All I asked is when will your predictions come true.
Why the big reaction? Are you embarrassed? That's good enough for me.

Lol. No all you did you shown your inability to continue in any reasonable way.
You really have a hard time letting go, huh?
So now you are just going to resort to brief statements and word games?

Boring. Do everyone a favor and address my replies to your Part 1 and Part 2
"Kill Switch" comments to me. I wish to see how you are going to tap dance
and shuck and jive in those responses too. Each time you change the subject,
my spine gets a little tingle of pleasure.

Oh, I can feel it already.

[Alex.BTC]

Lol. No all you did you shown your inability to continue in any reasonable way.
You really have a hard time letting go, huh?
So now you are just going to resort to brief statements and word games?

Boring. Do everyone a favor and address my replies to your Part 1 and Part 2
"Kill Switch" comments to me. I wish to see how you are going to tap dance
and shuck and jive in those responses too. Each time you change the subject,
my spine gets a little tingle of pleasure.

Oh, I can feel it already.

It doesn't matter what you think, it's all in the evidence.

Evidence have proven ASICBoost was never an issue, it never would have worked on SegWit, Ext Block was base on SegWit so ASICBoost never would have worked on that either. The key is in the 'witness root hash', it's in both SegWit and Ext Block right at the start.

You're just having a hard time accepting that.
That's why you still think you can troll your way back.

As long as you continue to ignore the evidence that has been there the whole time, even if you continue to troll 10 more pages, you will still be as clueless about ASICBoost as you were on page one.

You thought you were a good troll so I had a little fun with you, while I was pointing out the fact that ASICBoost never would have worked. ASICBoost is just a red herring Blockstream used to distract people.

How long you are going to take to accept that, depends on the size of your ego.

[AgentofCoin]

Lol. No all you did you shown your inability to continue in any reasonable way.
You really have a hard time letting go, huh?
So now you are just going to resort to brief statements and word games?

Boring. Do everyone a favor and address my replies to your Part 1 and Part 2
"Kill Switch" comments to me. I wish to see how you are going to tap dance
and shuck and jive in those responses too. Each time you change the subject,
my spine gets a little tingle of pleasure.

Oh, I can feel it already.

It doesn't matter what you think, it's all in the evidence.
Evidence have proven ASICBoost was never an issue, it never would have worked on SegWit, Ext Block was base on SegWit so ASICBoost never would have worked on that either. The key is in the 'witness root hash', it's in both SegWit and Ext Block right at the start.
You're just having a hard time accepting that.
That's why you still think you can troll your way back.
As long as you continue to ignore the evidence that has been there the whole time, even if you continue to troll 10 more pages, you will still be as clueless about ASICBoost as you were on page one.
You thought you were a good troll so I had a little fun with you, while I was pointing out the fact that ASICBoost never would have worked. ASICBoost is just a red herring Blockstream used to distract people.
How long you are going to take to accept that, depends on the size of your ego.

I could accept that as a possibility if you can explain the following:

You are missing my major point as usual, either intentionally or not.
If you read what I wrote prior and weren't so superficial and stuck in your box,
then you would understand my argument is based on a simple premise:

My simple premise all along:
"If Antpool/Bitmain currently states (the Bitmain public statement) that they do
not think patching ASICboost is appropriate and think it should be opened to all
miners to use now and into the future, and patching it will "hurt their patent
holders", why did they originally agree to and in good faith sign the HK agreement
which would have done what they currently do not want?"

You have never addressed this simple issue. There are many possible answers to
this question. Some are reasonable and possible and some are conspiracy. I have
attempted to understand why throughout this thread, with one possibility that the
miners did not do their due diligence before agreeing. You disagree and think they
did so and still went forward. Yet I do not recall you ever addressing this or providing
your theory as to this aspect. You keep going around in circles without directly
providing a possible puzzle piece to my simple premise.

So now, prove me wrong and explain a rational reason why they were for SegWit
Softfork originally, when you admit it would hurt their ASICboost use? Is your
argument that AntPool/Bitmain was willing to gimp or outright brick their chips
and any future possibility of use, in exchange for the 2MB hardfork bump? Is that
you belief? Was Antpool/Bitmain going to "take one for the team"? Is that your
explanation? Please elaborate on this aspect.

I never said you were entirely wrong throughout this thread, I only stated that
your current explanation and outline never addresses the important issues, one
being my simple premise. Your disagreement with me centers around you never
addressing this aspect.

You have not explained your reasoning or addressed my simple premise. Please
explain to me your nonconspiratorial reasoning as to this specific issue.

[Alex.BTC]

I could accept that as a possibility if you can explain the following:

You are missing my major point as usual, either intentionally or not.
If you read what I wrote prior and weren't so superficial and stuck in your box,
then you would understand my argument is based on a simple premise:

My simple premise all along:
"If Antpool/Bitmain currently states (the Bitmain public statement) that they do
not think patching ASICboost is appropriate and think it should be opened to all
miners to use now and into the future, and patching it will "hurt their patent
holders", why did they originally agree to and in good faith sign the HK agreement
which would have done what they currently do not want?"

You have never addressed this simple issue. There are many possible answers to
this question. Some are reasonable and possible and some are conspiracy. I have
attempted to understand why throughout this thread, with one possibility that the
miners did not do their due diligence before agreeing. You disagree and think they
did so and still went forward. Yet I do not recall you ever addressing this or providing
your theory as to this aspect. You keep going around in circles without directly
providing a possible puzzle piece to my simple premise.

So now, prove me wrong and explain a rational reason why they were for SegWit
Softfork originally, when you admit it would hurt their ASICboost use? Is your
argument that AntPool/Bitmain was willing to gimp or outright brick their chips
and any future possibility of use, in exchange for the 2MB hardfork bump? Is that
you belief? Was Antpool/Bitmain going to "take one for the team"? Is that your
explanation? Please elaborate on this aspect.

I never said you were entirely wrong throughout this thread, I only stated that
your current explanation and outline never addresses the important issues, one
being my simple premise. Your disagreement with me centers around you never
addressing this aspect.

You have not explained your reasoning or addressed my simple premise. Please
explain to me your nonconspiratorial reasoning as to this specific issue.

Ok let's say for a moment I explore your conclusion that 'Miners (especially Jihan) were using ASICBoost, ASICBoost was an important part of their businesses, they would like to see ASICBoost continue to work, they would also reject any proposals that may affect ASICBoost'.

When I explore this possibility, a few issues pop up:
1.
There is still no evidence that miners have been using ASICBoost.

(That's why I kept asking you for evidence to support your claim).

2.
SegWit was incompatible with ASICBoost right at the beginning.

(Even if I entertain your idea that Jihan simply overlooked in the beginning, I believe he would have pulled out much sooner.)

3.
If I am Jihan, one of the most experienced miner in existence, I have patened ASICBoost, and I have been using ASICBoost and I want to continue using it.

Then I am someone with clear understanding of the internals of the entire mining operation, someone who knows better than anyone else what would make ASICBoost work better, and what would make ASICBoost stop working.

Since ASICBoost directly affects my profit, when I look at new proposals, one of the first thing I look at will be how this proposal will affect ASICBoost, it is very unlikely for me to suddenly become a newbie and overlook obvious changes, such as the coinbase now has a 'witness root hash', which changes every time transactions are reordered, rending my ASICBoost useless.

(I find it hard to believe that if other devs can see ASICBoost doesn't work on SegWit, an experienced miner who depends on ASICBoost would miss it)

4.
Blockstream/Core have been intentionally stalling on blocksize increase, Luke Jr later even suggested changing it to 300kb, they also made changes to the code so that tx fee would remain high for longer, some of them were flat out insulting the miners, they clearly have been acting in bad faith all year long. SegWit's design is also problematic, it does not offer true blocksize increase.

After a year of stagnation, 1M blocks are full all the time, if miners continue to do nothing about the blocksize, the situation is going to hurt Bitcoin's growth, stalling for another year means losing a year's worth of potential extra fee from new growth tx.

If miners give in and support SegWit's fake blocksize increase, it'll also hurt their profit, miners were expecting 2MB HF non-witness blocksize increase when they signed the agreement, Blockstream/Core later turned it into a fake 1.7MB increase that'll take a long time to reach.

Plus, they simply don't trust Blockstream/Core at this point, remember, some miners wanted 4M or 8M blocks.

All these are realistic reasons for miners to switch their support to something else that has real blocksize increase and no strings attached.

BU is not a superior alternative, but miners are going for it because they really want the blocksize increase.

At the end of the day, what miners really want is just bigger blocks.

(To entertain your idea, I have to overlook all these reasons as if they don't exist, I have to pretend nothing much has happened in the past year)

5.
Bitmain's suggestion is that instead of making a big deal out of ASICBoost, a win-win situation would be to talk to the patent owners so everyone can use ASICBoost together.

If everyone is using ASICBoost, then no one has an advantage over others, but everyone saves electricity. The keyword here is 'everyone'.

If you read Bitmain's announcement, the entire paragraph reads:
"Gregory Maxwell’s recent proposal suggests changing 2^32 collision to 2^64 collision to make ASICBOOST more difficult. The result of this would be a loss for the patent owners and the Bitcoin protocol. The patent owners will get nothing and Bitcoin protocol will become more complicated. The only beneficiary will be the technical bureaucrats who are engineering it. The more complicated the protocol is, the higher the cost and barrier to have multiple implementations become. We confirm that we support multiple implementations because they will bring more innovation and better security to the network, while threatening the monopolistic position of certain developers."

But here you only focus on "hurt their patent holders" and ignored the other part.

(So I don't understand why you kept trying to turn an idea that can benefit everyone, into an idea that only benefits Jihan himself, then use it for another argument.)

6.
Let's say I am now exploring the idea that anything is possible in this universe, after all nobody can be certain what the miners were really thinking, unless they are the miners themselves.

So I ignore all the reasons above, I ignore everything Blockstream/Core have been doing, and play logic gymnastics to narrow down onto a single possibility, for example, your conclusion.

The problem then is, when I do that, I have to overlook so many things that I am accepting it only because nothing is impossible.

That means I also have to believe in infinite other fringe possibilities, including all the plausible as well as nut job conspiracies.

And this is what puzzled me with your conclusion, your conclusion requires such an extreme open mind to explore or accept, yet, you weren't offering it as a possibility, you were using your conclusion to attack other people's conclusions, conclusions that had more evidence and reasoning than yours.

For example when I offered the link that someone on twitter looked into recent blockchain activity and found no evidence of ASICBoost usage, that was just to indicate my conclusion had more supporting evidence than yours.

But you didn't take that evidence with an open mind, you went for insults, when your conclusion had even less evidence.

You were also dismissive to more probable possibilities, such as Jihan signed an agreement that would work against ASICBoost simply because he didn't care to use ASICBoost at all.

It seemed to me that you have already decided what the reality was, and you were on a mission to ignore all evidence and reason that would contradict your reality.

Ignoring all the trolling, it wasn't so much about 'proving something or someone wrong', but more about which conclusion has more evidence and reasoning behind it, it was more about not willing to narrow down on one fringe possibility, while ignoring more obvious and evidence supported possibilities.

[cellard]

Raising the blocksize before enabling segwit is a technical mistake due the problems derived from doing so such as the quadratic hashing problem.

Enable segwit or enjoy your 1MB blockchain bitcoin for life.

[Quantus]

Anyone who thinks Core is to blame for blocking Segwit is ether a shill or a fool.

[jonald_fyookball]

Raising the blocksize before enabling segwit is a technical mistake due the problems derived from doing so such as the quadratic hashing problem.

Enable segwit or enjoy your 1MB blockchain bitcoin for life.

Nah, there's many ways to fix QH.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012145.html

[franky1]

Anyone who thinks Core is to blame for blocking Segwit is ether a shill or a fool.

segwit 2merkle soft. is just a half baked gesture that does not live upto promise.

segwit still allows qadratics.
native key users can still quadratic spam the base block and cause hassle for everyone.
infact segwit makes it worse by allowing a tx to have 16,000 sigops instead of 4000

the EASIEST solution is to have sigops per tx limited BELOW 4k and ALWAYS kept below 4k no matter what the blocksize/weight or whatever become

core just dont want proper onchain scaling via diverse nodes and dynamics. so are happy to waste years delaying crap.. yep even up until the end of 2018

http://www.uasf.co/

Can BIP148 be cancelled?
Yes. In the event that the economic majority does not support BIP148, users should remove software that enforces BIP148. A flag day activation for SegWit would be the next logical steps and require coordination of the community, most likely towards the end of 2018.

dont expect blockstream to give up and finally listen to the community if the result is no by november.. they will just push delay push again. not change to a different solution that can unite the community

[AgentofCoin]

...

I have been away for awhile and am not really interested in continuing this discussion
especially since it seems the community has moved forward, but I wish to make two points.

First, as I read your 1 through 5 sections, I didn't see where you explained a scenario where
Jihan would in good faith agree to implementing SegWit Softfork followed by a simple 2MB
hardfork knowing he would be sacrificing his ASICBoost potential, which would have been the
HK agreement's end result.  

The logic doesn't make sense to me that Jihan would be arguing for everyone to use it now,
when he was a party to an agreement originally that would have damaged it outright.
You didn't provide a reasonable example (that I saw). So my premise question
is still unaddressed. But that no longer matters now since the community has dropped the
ball here and has taken no action, that I see so far.

Second, I really only want to comment about Section 6 of your reply since I think it highlights
the actual issue this this discussion and the difference between us.

...
6.
Let's say I am now exploring the idea that anything is possible in this universe, after all nobody can be certain what the miners were really thinking, unless they are the miners themselves.
So I ignore all the reasons above, I ignore everything Blockstream/Core have been doing, and play logic gymnastics to narrow down onto a single possibility, for example, your conclusion.
The problem then is, when I do that, I have to overlook so many things that I am accepting it only because nothing is impossible.
That means I also have to believe in infinite other fringe possibilities, including all the plausible as well as nut job conspiracies.
And this is what puzzled me with your conclusion, your conclusion requires such an extreme open mind to explore or accept, yet, you weren't offering it as a possibility, you were using your conclusion to attack other people's conclusions, conclusions that had more evidence and reasoning than yours.
For example when I offered the link that someone on twitter looked into recent blockchain activity and found no evidence of ASICBoost usage, that was just to indicate my conclusion had more supporting evidence than yours.
But you didn't take that evidence with an open mind, you went for insults, when your conclusion had even less evidence.
You were also dismissive to more probable possibilities, such as Jihan signed an agreement that would work against ASICBoost simply because he didn't care to use ASICBoost at all.
It seemed to me that you have already decided what the reality was, and you were on a mission to ignore all evidence and reason that would contradict your reality.
Ignoring all the trolling, it wasn't so much about 'proving something or someone wrong', but more about which conclusion has more evidence and reasoning behind it, it was more about not willing to narrow down on one fringe possibility, while ignoring more obvious and evidence supported possibilities.

This is the para I only really wanted to address because I think it is the most important.
Though we disagree as to the reality of this overall issue and any conclusions that can be
reasonably determined, there is one thing I want to point out that you are overlooking.

You are trying to come to an answer that can not be answered without a final in depth
report on AntPool's or other miner's past block work. You take the standpoint that since
there is no evidence, then it doesn't exist. That line of reasoning is not appropriate here,
especially within the Bitcoin space where we must assume all internal parties are untruthful.

Bitcoin was designed in an attempt to "tame the untamable, while anticipating the
unanticipatable". When you say "your conclusion requires such an extreme open mind to
explore or accept" what you are really saying is that you will not anticipate the possibilities
and attempt to account for those before it becomes a reality. You will only react after
there is a revelation or problem.

Satoshi designed this system and attempted to anticipate every possible flaw
that he could before releasing the Whitepaper. After the fact, some were found and he
attempted to correct those unanticipated issues, but he did not say things like "I will
only fix that until there is evidence it is a problem" nor portrayed the mind frame of
such. The 1MB Cap is an obvious fix to something that wouldn't have occurred if
"Nakamoto Consensus" did not fail. When Satoshi added the 1MB Cap, it's purpose
was to prevent an unfavorable future outcome. It was an anticipation derived
on no evidence, yet based on the realization of something unanticipated originally.

When you make the argument that my conclusions are based on less evidence then your
conclusions, I would normally agree in any other average discussion. But since we
participate in this type of system where the true purpose is to survive attacks from those
who wish to destroy us, whether internally (miners, nodes, bugs, exploits) or externally
(devs, banks, govs, economies), then evidence in such a manner is not necessary. This
is not plain dry science, this is anticipations and extrapolations for the purpose of
uncovering possible failures or pitfalls that may be used against the system in the future.
Anticipations without evidence are like vaccines. It may or may not be an issue now, but
if it is later, you are protected from that attacking strain (in theory).

That is your misunderstanding of my statements. You are trying to prove that AntPool/
Bitmain/Jihan/etc are innocent by claiming there is no evidence of wrongdoing, but in
our reality within the Bitcoin system, that is not appropriate evidence. When new
possible exploits come to light, whether actually occurring or not, if they are in theory
possible, they are equivalent and should be dealt with asap, as if they are or have occurred.

I'm not saying AntPool is covert ASICBoosting, what I am saying is that they have the
capability and we are now aware it is possible to do, so thus we should all agree to patch
this. When BitMain/AntPool, says to do otherwise and open for all miners, though there is
no direct evidence of their use, it does not follow the normal course that all true Bitcoiners
should follow to protect the security of the network. In a plain sense, their response was
inappropriate and thus suspicious due to its irregularity.

You are arguing for a reactionary Bitcoin development, when the system and the community
really needs to be proactive. In this Bitcoin proactive sense, the only evidence that proves
something can not be done is what is important and true.  If we can not determine it can
not be done, it must be assumed to be occurring now or soon to be doable and we must take
steps to prevent such. Since Bitcoin is essentially a new form of encased circular security for
money tokens, that would be the logical action. Reacting after evidence exists does not prevent
failure, it almost ensures it. When Japan was publicly bombed with atomics, it was too late for
them to make any anticipations or corrections. The deed was done and the evidence caused
their defeat and surrender.

Anything that is conceivable and is programmatically possible that can exploit certain aspects
of the system, should be patched prior to those exploits full effect. I advocate for changes
now that may help prevent Quantum Computing affecting Bitcoin in different areas. Many
experts in the community and users on this forum have stated multiple times that there is
no issue now and that it is decades away. This is reactionary and based on assumptions of
publicly disclosed material for the masses to intentionally consume. I disagree with their
conclusions, just as I disagree that ASICBoost is not an issue. In my belief, both are
anticipatable and thus possible now, so action should be taken asap, if possible to do so now.

If we were properly proactive, ASICBoost would have been patched and prevented as soon
as it was known. Instead, we are now reactionary. Due to this issue languishing for so long,
it has exacerbated to the point in which it could be performed in a covert manner that
has the secondary effect of preventing specific future protocol changes. In theory, any miners
actually using ASICBoost in this manner is enforcing a "Temporary Soft Fork" directly to the
Coinbase Data.

If all miners begin to use ASICBoost, they have effectively created a new protocol limitation
and restriction for future protocol ideas and changes. This is the first time, that I am aware of,
that a miner's motivation grew so out of whack, that they decided that since mining tech will
soon slow or stop with chip innovations, they will exploit the PoW algo directly, in order to
continue their growth. So for example, it is like when playing the game "monopoly" and there
are no more properties and the game is going into a form of stagnation that takes many turns
till a winner is declared, so instead, a few players decide to bend or break the rules that made
the game worthy of playing originally.

That is now a new game, with new rules, created by the rule breakers. The only reason the
game doesn't end outright or linger on, is that the rule breakers request that everyone
breaks the rules with them. This mentality leads the future of mining into code and algo
exploitation instead of technological innovation. Instead of Bitcoin leading the world in new
tech potentially, it decided (through the miners) that we will attack ourselves internally till
there is nothing left. That is the anticipated future that Bitmain/Antpool advocates for by
allowing ASICBoosting as common practice. Eventually, an unpatched exploitable PoW will
not be much of a security mechanism. The rules are rules for a reason. Everything can be
exploited till there is nothing left to exploit. This precedent should not be allowed to fully
manifest and this is why Bitmain/AntPool's response is shortsighted and only derived to
protect the patent holders. If it was for the betterment of the community, they wouldn't
be advocating it. At best, it brings an end to the PoW system faster than through a natural
evolution of time and innovation.

That is what you are missing from my statements. Either way, I do not wish to re-argue
all the separate issues and points that we have discussed prior. I only wanted to address
that when you say that "... it wasn't so much about 'proving something or
someone wrong', but more about which conclusion has more evidence and reasoning
behind it, it was more about not willing to narrow down on one fringe possibility, while
ignoring more obvious and evidence supported possibilities." my point was that
you want a "conclusive answer" that could never be known unless you are Jihan. My
answers or "fringe possibilities" are protectionary to the whole system and not for a single
entity. In comparison, your argument, which is an argument that there is no evidence, risks
the community and the future system on the word of a human being (Jihan) and a
corporate press release.

When you disagree with my reasoning and decide that you will be lead by human assurances
and "no evidence is proof of nonexistance" in this space, you are doing the opposite of what
Satoshi and Bitcoin was created for. You are not supposed to trust the miners, only their
collective independently verified work. If you need to trust a single party or their word,
then it is automatically an incorrect answer. It is always a lie, since it must be. That is the
lesson of the Byzantine Generals problem. Trusting any entity, whether human or corporation,
outside of the decentralized independently verified ledger is always a lie and has no place within
the true Bitcoin community. Encouraging the opposite is an insult to what Satoshi's Bitcoin system
was attempting to correct and instruct. The lesson is, all humans are bad and will destroy, unless
we bind ourselves to common rules of good, that we can independently confirm are being upheld
by all participating parties. When something is revealed, like covert ASICBoost, it is a breach of
our binding oaths of common rules of good. Someone has gone astray with the potential to
destroy the whole over the long run.

This is what you have failed to recognize in my statements. I'm advocating for a balanced
system secured by trustlessness and you are advocating that certain people can be taken
at their word. Your concern is too evidence based when the important issue is not proving
it has occurred or not or what is likely or not. The true issue is whether it is possible or not.
And if it is possible, should we patch it now, or suffer the anticipated consequences later?
I advocate we patch it now before it gets out of control. Unfortunately, in my absence,
nothing has occurred along those lines, that I have found/read so far. UPDATE: I have
found no movement of community members who are publicly organized and lobbying for
a patch. Though, I have been advised that Jihan has made a statement recently saying he
is open to accepting a patch that would prevent ASICBoost.

(I took the time to write all this to explain my reasoning to the best of my layman ability,
on the basis of the statements in section 6. I thought it was important to explain why I
disagreed with it and have no intention of bumping this thread to continue the overall
argument. I feel that Section 6 is not an appropriate viewpoint that users/devs/ or
miners should be using when thinking about Bitcoin and it's future. In fact, I think
that form of thinking prevents innovation and new avenues of thought.)

Edit: Some spelling errors and Update in last para.