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.

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?