The only answer against Miners Mafia is UASF

[chek2fire]

The only health reaction against Miners Mafia that threat not only the developer that maintain bitcoin for 8 years now but and the whole bitcoin community is UASF. Today after the expose of ASICBOOST and Jihan open threats for one more time against everyone, node that signal UASF had a huge spike

http://uasf.saltylemon.org/#oo





everyone must signal or comment to their nodes for UASF. To do this you need to simple add to bitcoin.conf this simple line and after restart the node

Code:

uacomment=UASF-SegWit-BIP148

[1714476853]

1714476853

[1714476853]

1714476853

[1714476853]

1714476853

[1714476853]

1714476853

[d5000]

I support the reasoning behind UASF, but it could be a dangerous experiment if the community is still divided. An UASF proposal should seek at least the support of the undecided miners (e.g. F2Pool).

With the current power distribution - 30-40% of the miners absolutely against Segwit, 20-30% undecided and a pretty strong Segwit-opposing /r/BTC community- it could lead to a situation where the miners of the BU-Fraction simply would decide to hardfork and we have the BTC/BTU scenario we normally would like to avoid.

[Viscount]

I support the reasoning behind UASF, but it could be a dangerous experiment if the community is still divided.

I don't think that the community is divided, all community is unanimous in supporting SegWit. I'd not call neither one corrupt chinese with his paid shills the part of the community, nor altcoiner Roger ver.
If we just disregard them, there's no consequence, even if they create their altcoin BTU, noone will support centralized rogercoin with president and secretary.

[d5000]

I don't think that the community is divided, all community is unanimous in supporting SegWit.

Sorry, I don't have this impression, and I'm not talking about the handful of members that post dozens of pro-BU posts/day  (these, probably are paid in some way for it). In the German and Spanish sub-forums some very high-profile members support BU, among them a former Bitcointalk moderator with an important Bitcoin blog. I think it's currently a 60/40 to 70/30 division with the majority being pro-Segwit. In my opinion, in the case of a hard fork, that's not enough to "kill a BTU chain instantly" what would be necessary to preserve Bitcoin's network effect.

[franky1]

blockstream script
1: "blockstream will avoid a hard fork because consensus need to be met by majority users, to avoid drama but a segwit solution thats empty of its promises wont get consensus"
2: "blockstream will avoid a hard fork because without consensus the only option is to split the network. without blockstream having majority, blockstream loses"
3: "splits are bad"
4: "anything not blockstream sanctions must split away so that blockstream rules supreme and wants a tier network"
5: "send out the deadlines, make manditory threats, make PoW crushing changes, do all you can to make blockstream kings


meanwhile other implementations just run for years letting the community decide or not decide in their own time, no threat no demands no destructive banning/splitting mechanisms. because non-blockstream implementations want a diverse decentralised open level playingfield PEER network

wake up to who the mafia is.. hint the ones with the demands and desires of a tier network

[Viscount]

Sorry, I don't have this impression, and I'm not talking about the handful of members that post dozens of pro-BU posts/day  (these, probably are paid in some way for it). In the German and Spanish sub-forums some very high-profile members support BU, among them a former Bitcointalk moderator with an important Bitcoin blog. I think it's currently a 60/40 to 70/30 division with the majority being pro-Segwit. In my opinion, in the case of a hard fork, that's not enough to "kill a BTU chain instantly" what would be necessary to preserve Bitcoin's network effect.

The reason those high profile members support BU is very simple - their money lay Not in bitcoins now, but in some altcoins like Eth, dash etc. Even Buterin (guy with some programming skills) mumbles something against Segwit and LN, he understands what it'd mean for his alt.
Consequently they don't want any good for Bitcoin, because if Bitcoin green all forks are red. It means they are not the part of Bitcoin community, even though they supported Bitcoin earlier like Ver. And they don't have bitcoins and they cant dump it, in case of Wu split scenario. (Ver bluffed something about dumping but jumped in the lake very fast, when was being suggested a deal with real bitcoiner)

[jonald_fyookball]

I support the reasoning behind UASF, but it could be a dangerous experiment if the community is still divided.

I don't think that the community is divided, all community is unanimous in supporting SegWit. I'd not call neither one corrupt chinese with his paid shills the part of the community, nor altcoiner Roger ver.
If we just disregard them, there's no consequence, even if they create their altcoin BTU, noone will support centralized rogercoin with president and secretary.

if that's true, then miners are signaling segwit less than BU because __________ ?

[Quickseller]

The number of nodes is meaningless. It is trivial for someone to spin up 100's (or thousands, or more) nodes with little to no cost. This is especially true when discussing short term trends.

[Carlton Banks]

I don't think that the community is divided, all community is unanimous in supporting SegWit.

Sorry, I don't have this impression, and I'm not talking about the handful of members that post dozens of pro-BU posts/day  (these, probably are paid in some way for it). In the German and Spanish sub-forums some very high-profile members support BU, among them a former Bitcointalk moderator with an important Bitcoin blog. I think it's currently a 60/40 to 70/30 division with the majority being pro-Segwit. In my opinion, in the case of a hard fork, that's not enough to "kill a BTU chain instantly" what would be necessary to preserve Bitcoin's network effect.

You're conflating 3 things

1. Miner support
2. Forum activity
3. Node support

When it comes to miners and forum activity, a division exists. Mining is hard to fake (although we now know that Bitmain's hashrate share is inflated by ASIC Boost). Forum activity is very easy to fake.


Node support is somewhere in between the 2, it can be faked (remember the NotXT nodes?). But still, it appears as if a growing majority of nodes support Segwit. I would argue this is the most important metric.

And further to that, miners signalling Segwit is beginning to grow again. A consistent >30% is now evident, and removing the ASIC Boost advantage will change that figure even more favourably. When we add to that the undecided miners, we could easily have close to or above 50% Segwit signalling. And that's all is needed, simply the fear of block orphaning by the majority faction has pushed previous soft fork activations over 95% very, very quickly after 50% is reached.

So there's no need to worry yourself so much.

[Amph]

I support the reasoning behind UASF, but it could be a dangerous experiment if the community is still divided.

I don't think that the community is divided, all community is unanimous in supporting SegWit. I'd not call neither one corrupt chinese with his paid shills the part of the community, nor altcoiner Roger ver.
If we just disregard them, there's no consequence, even if they create their altcoin BTU, noone will support centralized rogercoin with president and secretary.

the problem is that by creating an altcoin like you said, all the hash can go there while reducing the original fork nethash, which is dangerous, because then attack are possible

this si why miners have the upper hand in terms of decision, then you need to find a way to counter this, if you don't want bitcoin to be destroyed by the miners mafia

[wck]

I don't think that the community is divided, all community is unanimous in supporting SegWit.

Sorry, I don't have this impression, and I'm not talking about the handful of members that post dozens of pro-BU posts/day  (these, probably are paid in some way for it). In the German and Spanish sub-forums some very high-profile members support BU, among them a former Bitcointalk moderator with an important Bitcoin blog. I think it's currently a 60/40 to 70/30 division with the majority being pro-Segwit. In my opinion, in the case of a hard fork, that's not enough to "kill a BTU chain instantly" what would be necessary to preserve Bitcoin's network effect.

You're conflating 3 things

1. Miner support
2. Forum activity
3. Node support

When it comes to miners and forum activity, a division exists. Mining is hard to fake (although we now know that Bitmain's hashrate share is inflated by ASIC Boost). Forum activity is very easy to fake.


Node support is somewhere in between the 2, it can be faked (remember the NotXT nodes?). But still, it appears as if a growing majority of nodes support Segwit. I would argue this is the most important metric.

And further to that, miners signalling Segwit is beginning to grow again. A consistent >30% is now evident, and removing the ASIC Boost advantage will change that figure even more favourably. When we add to that the undecided miners, we could easily have close to or above 50% Segwit signalling. And that's all is needed, simply the fear of block orphaning by the majority faction has pushed previous soft fork activations over 95% very, very quickly after 50% is reached.

So there's no need to worry yourself so much.

Well around 780 nodes are Bitcoin Unlimited and they produce over 1/3 of the blocks.  That is a far cry short of unanimous.   Saying they aren't part of the community is disingenuous.

See: https://coin.dance/nodes

[Carlton Banks]

That's just stacking together as many positive statistics as possible for BU, isn't it? And the way you present it makes no sense.


780 BU nodes are not producing 1/3 of the blocks. Of those 780, less than 20 are the BU nodes actually creating blocks, the rest are non-mining relay nodes.

And even if 780 nodes were BU (and that figure is disputed, there's good evidence that a significant proportion of the 780 number is run by far less than 780 individual people), that's still little more than 11-12% of the 7000 nodes in total.

Do you understand what the word "unanimous" means? If you do, then you'll know that Bitcoin nodes are much much closer to unanimity at ~ 85% of the network than BU nodes are at ~ 12%.

[XbladeX]

USAF + 51% mining power man ^^

[Invincible]

I also like UASF, what can average bitcoiner do, to help it's progress?

[wck]

That's just stacking together as many positive statistics as possible for BU, isn't it? And the way you present it makes no sense.


780 BU nodes are not producing 1/3 of the blocks. Of those 780, less than 20 are the BU nodes actually creating blocks, the rest are non-mining relay nodes.

And even if 780 nodes were BU (and that figure is disputed, there's good evidence that a significant proportion of the 780 number is run by far less than 780 individual people), that's still little more than 11-12% of the 7000 nodes in total.

Do you understand what the word "unanimous" means? If you do, then you'll know that Bitcoin nodes are much much closer to unanimity at ~ 85% of the network than BU nodes are at ~ 12%.

You are really are being disingenuous.   How many of the 5700 nodes are producing blocks?   Not very many.   When one looks at which blocks are produced with which code sets SegWit was well behind BU. https://btc.com/stats/block-ver?bip_mode=SegWit.   SegWit accounts for less than 30% of the blocks produced out of the last 1000.

Most nodes are not involved in mining, but without mining there isn't any Bitcoin.   Well there are benefits of having more nodes, it is a much lower commitment to to set up node vs actually mining.    

It is disingenuous to discount the minority of nodes that is actually doing more beneficial work than the majority which is mostly just passive.   Clearly there isn't anything close to unanimous yet.   Maybe you should look up the definition of the word yourself.

I haven't made up my mind yet, although I find the lightening network concept rather vague and potentially dangerous.   It is too bad there there isn't more focus on the near term issues with SegWit.   Less long-term pie in the sky and more short term fixing the issues would have probably pushed SegWit to a quick success.  

[Carlton Banks]

Was it not you that implied 780 BU nodes produce blocks?


And what difference does it make, BU is floating face down

[topesis]

I think it is looking likely that USAF will be the way to go, if there is more revelations on the reasons why miners are opposing Segwit in coming days/weeks I think the community will support USAF and Miners will lose their total influence in the space. I know they are trying to protect their investment but it seems they have gone to far

[wck]

Was it not you that implied 780 BU nodes produce blocks?


And what difference does it make, BU is floating face down

The difference is in attitude.  Some people pushing SegWit basically present themselves very poorly.   They attack people that disagree with them.  Often throw out wild statements like "Bitcoin was never intended to pay for a cup of coffee" and make false claims to try to shore up their supposed support.   Where there is smoke there is is fire.   It is fine that a group wants to fundamentally change bitcoin, but they shouldn't villainize people that just disagree with them.

While you claim BU is dead, there are more BU blocks than SegWit blocks being produced.  That shows there is a clear problem and disagreement.

What I do like about SegWit is it lays a foundation for making progress.   What I don't like about it is that it is taking steps way beyond what is necessary and not really focused on the most immediate issue.   I think a prudent thing to do would be to hammer out a compromise.   However calling a group "Miners Mafia" is really absurd.    

Now the LTC is going with SegWit it would be wise to let that coin lead the way and prove the concepts are sound.   This is an opportunity for Bitcoin to take a smaller more prudent step and come up with something that both the miners and users can live with.  

Getting back on topic it seems like UASF is just a backdoor way to try and force SegWit.    Seriously if SegWit can't stand on its own then there is a problem.  

[Xester]

The only health reaction against Miners Mafia that threat not only the developer that maintain bitcoin for 8 years now but and the whole bitcoin community is UASF. Today after the expose of ASICBOOST and Jihan open threats for one more time against everyone, node that signal UASF had a huge spike

http://uasf.saltylemon.org/#oo





everyone must signal or comment to their nodes for UASF. To do this you need to simple add to bitcoin.conf this simple line and after restart the node

Code:

uacomment=UASF-SegWit-BIP148

This is a good news since the bitcoin holders such as us have a control on the nodes. If this continues then we will no longer mind the conflict between the core and the bitmain. But hope that someday the UASF will not also be controlled by greed and will not become problematic on the long run. Bitcoins success for this point of time will rely on UASF.

[Lauda]

I have to admit that this is the first time I'm seeing the 'uacomment' option. I was not aware of it's existence although I have long ago noticed the discrepancies in the client descriptions. That being said, I think that this is a very good idea to show support. I highly recommend spreading the exact command (as found in the main thread) along the main communication channels:

uacomment=UASF-SegWit-BIP148

I shall restart all my clients with this flag soon.

Now the LTC is going with SegWit it would be wise to let that coin lead the way and prove the concepts are sound.   This is an opportunity for Bitcoin to take a smaller more prudent step and come up with something that both the miners and users can live with.  

There is already 1 coin which has already activated SegWit.

Getting back on topic it seems like UASF is just a backdoor way to try and force SegWit.    Seriously if SegWit can't stand on its own then there is a problem.  

This statement is nonsense. UASF is a decent proposal; definitely not a backdoor. SW has near unanimous developer approval, supermajority of users and the economy approval; AntPool is holding the network hostage due to ASICBoost.
Comedy relief: