it is Core, not Bitman blocking segwit

[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.

[1714257026]

1714257026

[1714257026]

1714257026

[1714257026]

1714257026

[1714257026]

1714257026

[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.