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.

[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.