The only answer against Miners Mafia is UASF

[wck]

ASICBOOST is a serious problem and everyone even from big block camp must accept that bitcoin community something need to do
BU was not a movement to increase blocksize but to stall bitcoin from miners as he say and a former BU developer

https://medium.com/@heyrhett/why-im-leaving-bitcoin-unlimited-becbc5a149d9

Silly core sheep do not have any data showing asic boost has been used at any point.
Statistics show that bitmain pools are performing within 1% of other pools. And their empty blocks mined are in line with every other pool also.
Find a new imagined make believe reason.

It is amazing how little critical thinking is going on in this forum and with what is going on with Bitcoin.  From what I've seen there is little doubt that SegWit will happen at some point.   UASF isn't necessary for that to happen.  

[1714509474]

1714509474

[1714509474]

1714509474

[1714509474]

1714509474

[1714509474]

1714509474

[jonald_fyookball]

"Miner Mafia"?  please.

Bitcoin was always a miner vote system, if you read and understand
Satoshi's whitepaper, but somehow the miners
(70% of them) not signaling for Core's roadmap
is a now a mafia. right...

Bitmain would support Segwit WITH a HF block increase,
but Core will not compromise.  They would rather
not have segwit than increase the blocksize.
They are the obstructionists.

[chek2fire]

[Gyrsur]

*omg*

[wck]

"Miner Mafia"?  please.

Bitcoin was always a miner vote system, if you read and understand
Satoshi's whitepaper, but somehow the miners
(70% of them) not signaling for Core's roadmap
is a now a mafia. right...

Bitmain would support Segwit WITH a HF block increase,
but Core will not compromise.  They would rather
not have segwit than increase the blocksize.
They are the obstructionists.

I completely agree with your post.   After being outside of bitcoin for a while, I'm kind of shocked by the attitudes that now exist. 

[chek2fire]

https://twitter.com/LaurentMT/status/851173367759728641

bitcoin is not a miners world but a consensus system. Get use this.

[tournamentdan]

https://twitter.com/LaurentMT/status/851173367759728641

bitcoin is not a miners world but a consensus system. Get use this.

If you want to be a part of the foundation of bitcoin and have a vote. Get off of your cheap ass and buy some miners.

[jonald_fyookball]

https://twitter.com/LaurentMT/status/851173367759728641

bitcoin is not a miners world but a consensus system. Get use this.

Yes it is a consensus system, and it is true that users can vote with their dollars and not invest/use a coin
they don't like...

But that being said, how else do you think new consensus rules can be agreed on fairly?  

[franky1]

jonald_fyookball

miners AND nodes have a symbiotic relationship. in satoshi's day it was [siamese twins joined at the hip]. mining and being the node were the same single joined entity.
now its separate[un conjoined twins] it doesnt mean only miners[one twin] get the vote or only nodes get the vote[one twin].. they both[as siblings] have equal power and should learn to share the power not fight for it.

blockstream INTENTIONALLY ignored nodes[twin A] and gave pools[twin B] the vote. but now that [twin B] is refusing to eat what daddy blockstream wants to feed them. blockstream is the one having the angry tantrum blaming the [twin B] pools.
even as much as to now have daddy blockstream tell twinA to beat up and kneecap twinB

blockstream should have prepared a proper healthy [food] solution that both nodes and pools [both twins] can happily accept. or if not happy blockstream should not try forcing it down their throats, but go back to the kitchen and prepare a different healthier meal

[Wind_FURY]

"Miner Mafia"?  please.

Bitcoin was always a miner vote system, if you read and understand
Satoshi's whitepaper, but somehow the miners
(70% of them) not signaling for Core's roadmap
is a now a mafia. right...

I agree with you. But do you not think it is possible for the miners to collude and conspire behind the scenes to get what they want? Tin foil hat on. But I believe there is an argument that the developers of BU are supported and controlled by the Chinese miners.

Bitmain would support Segwit WITH a HF block increase,
but Core will not compromise.  They would rather
not have segwit than increase the blocksize.
They are the obstructionists.

A block size increase is inevitable in my opinion. Why not be patient and support Segwit now and get a block size increase later?

[franky1]

A block size increase is inevitable in my opinion. Why not be patient and support Segwit now and get a block size increase later?

to save repeating myself segwit is not the 'solution' its the bait for future debate to push an agenda.

devs are baiting the blocksize with stupid methods.
EG
v0.12 maxBLOCKsigops 20k maxTXsigops 4k 1mb baseblocklimit
v0.14 maxBLOCKsigops 80k maxTXsigops 16k (1mb baseblocklimit - 3mb arbitrary space if people opt-in)
that there alone is the devs letting more native quadratic spam continue.. and infact get worse[was 10 sec, soon 8min validation time]. they are literally causing the problem to try and say making bigger blocks 'just doesnt work' .. the devs are baiting the narrative yet not doing a proper job of solving the issue

you can literally hear the future echo's from their corporate chambers ripple back through time
"we the king overlord devs gave you 4mb[empty halfbaked gesture] weight, but still blocks are being filled by 5 insanely spammy tx's that now take 8minutes to validate instead of 10 seconds"

they are baiting the community, not solving the problem
their solution:
4mb weight: 1mb base, maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 16k
knowing corps making a point will spam baseblock - their echo chamber script "see validation times have got worse by giving you weight" (actually its txsigop increase that causes it)
knowing not everyone moves to segwit keypairs to use the 'weight'- their echo chamber script "see people dont want more tx's, the 4mb isnt even being used"

real solution
1mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 20k, maxTXsigops 2k
2mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 40k, maxTXsigops 1k
4mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 500
again not
4mb weight: 1mb base, maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 16k

real solutions reduce spammy validations times and allow more lean tx's over time. blockstream devs bait does the opposite

[jonald_fyookball]

"Miner Mafia"?  please.

Bitcoin was always a miner vote system, if you read and understand
Satoshi's whitepaper, but somehow the miners
(70% of them) not signaling for Core's roadmap
is a now a mafia. right...

I agree with you. But do you not think it is possible for the miners to collude and conspire behind the scenes to get what they want? Tin foil hat on. But I believe there is an argument that the developers of BU are supported and controlled by the Chinese miners.

Collude and conspire how exactly? Sure its possible, but you'd have to be more specific in the scenario you think they will do.  I think dynamic blocks (flexcap, etc) are even better than emergent consensus, as it would take it out of human hands completely.

Bitmain would support Segwit WITH a HF block increase,
but Core will not compromise.  They would rather
not have segwit than increase the blocksize.
They are the obstructionists.

A block size increase is inevitable in my opinion. Why not be patient and support Segwit now and get a block size increase later?

I think segwit is far from perfect, although it does have some unique benefits such as UTXO growth reduction.
I think other proposals are better.

But to answer your question as to why I don't support Segwit now and 'get' an increase later, well, I think
it would be more accurate to say 'hope to get'.

It comes down to not trusting the core development team.   They are openly saying 'blocks aren't full',
and then out of the other side of their mouth saying 'full blocks are good, high fees are good'.  They've
done their best to stall for years, spun up a false narrative about hard forks, broke the hong kong agreement,
censored dissent, and formed a corporation to profit from off-chain solutions.

They've completely, utterly lost my trust, and I do not believe for a second that we would get a satisfactory increase later,
and I believe this is why the miners will not follow their leadership either.

[DooMAD]

Things have reached the point now where we absolutely place far too much emphasis on trusting what developers might or might not do in the future.  It's the same warped human trait that generally leads to two-party political systems in so called democracies.  It's undeniable now, we have central planning instead of decentralisation and a power struggle over which central planning political party we elect.  We've lost all sight of what was supposed to be a trustless system because you're all so quick to worship or denounce one particular group of personalities or another, as if the decision was theirs to begin with.  I honestly thought we were above that here, but evidently that isn't the case.

Stop begging for an overlord and an antichrist to fight to the death and make your decisions for you.  Shame on you all. 

[tournamentdan]

"Miner Mafia"?  please.

Bitcoin was always a miner vote system, if you read and understand
Satoshi's whitepaper, but somehow the miners
(70% of them) not signaling for Core's roadmap
is a now a mafia. right...

I agree with you. But do you not think it is possible for the miners to collude and conspire behind the scenes to get what they want? Tin foil hat on. But I believe there is an argument that the developers of BU are supported and controlled by the Chinese miners.

Bitmain would support Segwit WITH a HF block increase,
but Core will not compromise.  They would rather
not have segwit than increase the blocksize.
They are the obstructionists.

A block size increase is inevitable in my opinion. Why not be patient and support Segwit now and get a block size increase later?

Your argument is hypocritical seeing how core is being supported by the people that own patents for off chain tech and will syphon a shit ton of money from miners.

[chek2fire]

UASF nodes has passed 300. I think everyone support the movement against a corrupt miners that want to control bitcoin ecosystem even from big block camp.
Jihan maybe is him that will unite bitcoin community again.

[jonald_fyookball]

blockstream INTENTIONALLY ignored nodes[twin A] and gave pools[twin B] the vote.

how so?

[Lauda]

blockstream INTENTIONALLY ignored nodes[twin A] and gave pools[twin B] the vote.

how so?

By going soft fork and not hard fork. That's the speech that was written for franky and he recites it in every second thread.

UASF nodes has passed 300. I think everyone support the movement against a corrupt miners that want to control bitcoin ecosystem even from big block camp.
Jihan maybe is him that will unite bitcoin community again.

Bitcoin would be @moon already had it not been for Jihan.

[chek2fire]

now Jihan try to block segwit to litecoin but the response from Litecoin devs was very fast.
They choose to UASF litecoin at 1 June with official release.
I think is time to everyone put aside our difference with big-small blocks.
Jihan is a big threat to bitcoin ecosystem and there is a serious reason for everyone in bitcoin community to unite against him to defeat him.

[manselr]

UAcomment seems like a great idea. I understand that people may not be comfortable running code that is not Core approved, so with UAcomment we are able to fight this war too while still using Core software, am I correct?

"Miner Mafia"?  please.

Bitcoin was always a miner vote system, if you read and understand
Satoshi's whitepaper, but somehow the miners
(70% of them) not signaling for Core's roadmap
is a now a mafia. right...

Bitmain would support Segwit WITH a HF block increase,
but Core will not compromise.  They would rather
not have segwit than increase the blocksize.
They are the obstructionists.

I completely agree with your post.   After being outside of bitcoin for a while, I'm kind of shocked by the attitudes that now exist. 

1 cpu = 1 vote

not

1 miner monopoly = 1 vote

[anonymoustroll420]

UAcomment seems like a great idea. I understand that people may not be comfortable running code that is not Core approved, so with UAcomment we are able to fight this war too while still using Core software, am I correct?

Simply setting a uacomment doesn't really do anything. It won't make your node enforce UASF, it simply shows your support for the proposal, but the problem is node counts can be faked.

But it's better than doing nothing. When we get closer to the activation date you should switch over to the UASF client, which will enforce the new rules. Doing this is very risky, as you could very well end up on a minority chain.

1 cpu = 1 vote

I always took that to mean voting on the order of transactions. Satoshi never had miner activation for any changes, those were all user activated. Miner activated forks didn't exist until 2012. Though none of the changes prior to 2012 were contentious, the community was smaller and everyone supported every change that had been made. Miner voting on economic policy seems like a bad idea, mining is afterall pay-to-vote. It's useful to use it to gauge miner support so that we know how safe a fork is, but if the economic majority supports the change and the miners don't, then we may have to take some risk.