The only answer against Miners Mafia is UASF

[Quickseller]

And: Let's have UASF. But let's try to bring more people on board. At least, F2Pool.

The founder of f2pool recently tweeted something that effectively said that he is not going to support SegWit. This was not long after Greg Maxwell made unfounded claims that Bitmain's miners were reverse engineered by himself, and that Bitmain was actively engaging in using ASICBOOST, and that this is why they are against SegWit.

Can you provide a link, very interesting...

https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/850053367988592642
https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/850060922349432833
https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/850061625059024896

The last one appears to effectively be a vote of no confidence for core

[1714138277]

1714138277

[1714138277]

1714138277

[pinkflower]

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.

Setting up a node today is not a joke. Have you tried setting one up at litte to no cost as you said? I think you havent tried to. The yearly bandwidth costs alone could set you back a decent amount.

[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.

Setting up a node today is not a joke. Have you tried setting one up at litte to no cost as you said? I think you havent tried to. The yearly bandwidth costs alone could set you back a decent amount.

Someone that wanted to setup, say 100 nodes would only need to download the blockchain once. They could then rent cheap VPSs in various datacenters, and set their blocks to 'blocksonly' and enable pruning to some very low number. If you really know what you are doing, you would not even need to send each of your VPSs the blockchain, as you could simply program your node to accept 0000000000000000001523891872bed55d9cfdb60702a47722fc016e503b9602 as the hash of block 460909 (or whatever other actual hash of whatever other block number).

These nodes would really not be *actual* full nodes, however no one from the outside would be able to tell the difference.

[wck]

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.

Setting up a node today is not a joke. Have you tried setting one up at litte to no cost as you said? I think you havent tried to. The yearly bandwidth costs alone could set you back a decent amount.

You must live in the internet backwaters, maybe the USA?   While I'm not running a node now, I did from my home and it wasn't a problem.   However my daily uploads are limited to 2GB, although I've never been shutdown for going over it.   Downloads are unlimited.   My upload speed is a little slow, typically 50Mb/sec, download speed typically greater than 120Mb/sec.   However I pay though the teeth for it, the fiber optic service with IP phone run around $45 / month.   Kind of middle of the road for Japan.  

Seriously how much bandwidth is needed now?  

However to spin up 100's?   Just one was a real pain in the butt.   I think it took over two days to get the whole blockchain at when I did it.   Of coarse one could clone.   If you use something like AWS ... It is going to cost a bit to run 1000's of nodes.

[Lauda]

AsicBoost is just an improved mining technique, it isn't about blocksize.  

1) Bullshit. AsicBoost is not an improved mining technique, it's abusing a weakness in the PoW function.
2) It is everything about Segwit. Segwit would prevent covert use of it, therefore Bitmain and mr. big child Jihan does everything to secure these profits.

The developer community is divided and no where near unanimous.  If what you claimed was true there wouldn't be so many competing Bitcoin forks.   Even the Bitcoin Core isn't unanimous if you listen to the devs that were kicked out.    

What developers? Hearn, Garzik, Andersen (bank sell out, unknown, CIA sell out)? None of them have made any real contributions in the past few years.

Again I stand by my claim, UASF seems only to function to try and force SegWit.    It is just more confusion being thrown out there.  

There's nothing wrong with USAF. If the supermajority of the ecosystem want it, then it is happening with or without North Korea Jihan.

[wck]

AsicBoost is just an improved mining technique, it isn't about blocksize.  

1) Bullshit. AsicBoost is not an improved mining technique, it's abusing a weakness in the PoW function.
2) It is everything about Segwit. Segwit would prevent covert use of it, therefore Bitmain and mr. big child Jihan does everything to secure these profits.

That is like saying multiplication is an abuse of addition.   Avoiding needless work is a basic optimization technique.   Also just exactly how can SegWit block AsciBoost?   Maybe you are just repeating random nonsense you'll heard from someone in the Bitcoin core that should know better.     Anyway Bitmain has stated they aren't using AsicBoost and are holding out for 2MB blocks with SegWit.   Which actually sounds like a reasonable compromise at this point.   https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/

As for the rest of you nonsense, it isn't even worth replying too.

[Quickseller]

Also just exactly how can SegWit block AsciBoost? 

The coinbase transaction in a SW block contains the hash of all the transactions in a block, forcing a miner employing ASICBOOST to spend more resources on calculations so that the advantage to employing ASICBOOST is removed.

Anyway Bitmain has stated they aren't using AsicBoost

But Greg said that he has proof that a miner has implemented ASICBOOST, and that this is why they are not signaling for SegWit.

Since Greg Maxwell is the posterchild for integrity, and has never tried to mislead anyone in his life, it is safe to take his word for it without any evidence. /s

and are holding out for 2MB blocks with SegWit.   Which actually sounds like a reasonable compromise at this point.   https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/

The problem with increasing the max block size at all is that doing so will create a precedent that the max block size will be increased once it needs to be increased (aka when blocks become full). However in order for LN and other settlement layers to be economically viable, tx fees need to be very expensive (prohibitively so), and if one option is to increase the max block size, then tx fees will never be prohibitively expensive. 

[Lauda]

That is like saying multiplication is an abuse of addition.   Avoiding needless work is a basic optimization technique.

False equivalency fallacy; as expected by the likes of you. An exploit is an exploit; that is an undeniable fact.

Also just exactly how can SegWit block AsciBoost?  

It does not block it entirely. It blocks the covert usage of it. Segwit changes the block header in a specific way, which prevents the covert usage of Asicboost. In fact, Asicboost as is implemented in current Bitmain devices is incompatible with a lot of potential upgrades (which change the block header).

Since Greg Maxwell is the posterchild for integrity, and has never tried to mislead anyone in his life, it is safe to take his word for it without any evidence. /s

He's certainly more trustworthy than the likes of Ver, Jihan, Peter R and the other charlatans.

[Quickseller]

Since Greg Maxwell is the posterchild for integrity, and has never tried to mislead anyone in his life, it is safe to take his word for it without any evidence. /s

He's certainly more trustworthy than the likes of Ver, Jihan, 

Both Roger Ver and Jihan Wu stand to each lose tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars if Bitcoin is harmed over the long run.  Greg Maxwell on the other hand stands to profit handsomely if Bitcoin becomes a settlement layer, regardless of the damage done to Bitcoin as a result of this. The financial incentives of Ver and Wu are clearly aligned with that of Bitcoin while those of Maxwell are not.

Greg Maxwell also has a fairly long history of dishonesty, deception and the use of sockpuppets to further his agenda. He was even caught vandalizing wikipedia pages maliciously in 2006 by his peers, and once he was temporarily banned for this, he used sockpuppets to do the same.

[franky1]

However my daily uploads are limited to 2GB,
My upload speed is a little slow, typically 50Mb/sec,

However I pay though the teeth for it,

50mbit/sec= 6.25mbyte/s = 375mbyte/min = 2gb/6min

6 minutes of uploading a video or any content of any kind(thats2gb+) and your blocked the rest of the day??
time for you to change your ISP

[Lauda]

Greg Maxwell on the other hand stands to profit handsomely if Bitcoin becomes a settlement layer, regardless of the damage done to Bitcoin as a result of this.

Prove it.

The financial incentives of Ver and Wu are clearly aligned with that of Bitcoin while those of Maxwell are not.

You are clearly very uninformed as to who is pulling the strings in this game. The incentives are everything but aligned with Bitcoin.

Greg Maxwell also has a fairly long history of dishonesty, deception and the use of sockpuppets to further his agenda.

I guess if you've ever been something 'imperfect' in your life, you are too remain so. I feel sorry for all the evil CEOs who were mischievous children.

[franky1]

Greg Maxwell on the other hand stands to profit handsomely if Bitcoin becomes a settlement layer, regardless of the damage done to Bitcoin as a result of this.

Prove it.

to correct quickseller and to get around lauda's word twisting mantra:
Greg Maxwell on the other hand stands to clear the $70m+ VC DEBT easily if Bitcoin becomes a settlement layer, regardless of the damage done to Bitcoin as a result of this.

[Quickseller]

Greg Maxwell on the other hand stands to profit handsomely if Bitcoin becomes a settlement layer, regardless of the damage done to Bitcoin as a result of this.

Prove it.

Blockstream, of which Maxwell is an officer of, stands to profit from Bitcoin becoming a settlement layer. Settlement layer solutions are literally Blockstream's only products.

The financial incentives of Ver and Wu are clearly aligned with that of Bitcoin while those of Maxwell are not.

You are clearly very uninformed as to who is pulling the strings in this game. The incentives are everything but aligned with Bitcoin.

Why don't you enlighten me?

However, the sums I quoted were each of their likely current Btcoin holdings, of which would be very difficult to liquidate, even at fire sale prices. In order for either of them to realize the value of their bitcoin holdings, Bitcon's adoption needs to increase substantially.
 

Greg Maxwell also has a fairly long history of dishonesty, deception and the use of sockpuppets to further his agenda.

I guess if you've ever been something 'imperfect' in your life, you are too remain so. I feel sorry for all the evil CEOs who were mischievous children.

He acted this way a decade ago, he behaved this way in Bitcoin's early days, he behaved this way 4 years ago, and there is evidence to support that he is still engaging in these behaviors today.

[anonymoustroll420]

Blockstream, of which Maxwell is an officer of, stands to profit from Bitcoin becoming a settlement layer. Settlement layer solutions are literally Blockstream's only products.

Do you have any proof to back up that claim?

From what I understand, the only products blockstream currently has are blockchain tech for banks, such as "confidential assets" and the work they did on IBM and Intel's "hyperledger".

They did not develop any lightning implementation, nor did they state they planned to run a lightning hub, and it doesn't make much sense for them to run one as the best businesses to run LN hubs are companies like coinbase and bitpay who already have a large base of users and merchants and are already doing offchain payments.

[Lauda]

Greg Maxwell on the other hand stands to profit handsomely if Bitcoin becomes a settlement layer, regardless of the damage done to Bitcoin as a result of this.

Prove it.

Blockstream, of which Maxwell is an officer of, stands to profit from Bitcoin becoming a settlement layer. Settlement layer solutions are literally Blockstream's only products.

That is no proof of any kind. You've just made a more definitive statement which comes to clarify the previous one.

Why don't you enlighten me?

Let's start with some basics. How exactly does communist China operate? Once you follow that trail, you will possibly reach a fine amount of evidence.

However, the sums I quoted were each of their likely current Btcoin holdings, of which would be very difficult to liquidate, even at fire sale prices. In order for either of them to realize the value of their bitcoin holdings, Bitcon's adoption needs to increase substantially.

There is no proof that either one of them have major Bitcoin holdings.

He acted this way a decade ago, he behaved this way in Bitcoin's early days, he behaved this way 4 years ago, and there is evidence to support that he is still engaging in these behaviors today.

Source for the latter 3?

[franky1]

They did not develop any lightning implementation,

??
rusty russell of blockstream employment
https://blockstream.com/team/rusty-russell/

Rusty Russell
Infrastructure Tech Engineer
..After 14 years as a senior developer at IBM, he took a six-month sabbatical to work on cryptocurrencies. ..
while devoting most of his time to exploring the emerging frontier of Bitcoin development.

is not making lightning network software??

https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/graphs/contributors

#1 rustyrussell 1,281 commits / 335,340 ++ / 71,321 --

[anonymoustroll420]

??
rusty russell of blockstream employment
https://blockstream.com/team/rusty-russell/

Rusty Russell
Infrastructure Tech Engineer
Rusty is a well-known Linux kernel maintainer, renowned for his foundational work on modules and iptables. After 14 years as a senior developer at IBM, he took a six-month sabbatical to work on cryptocurrencies. It was his top-notch work and writings during this period that brought him to our attention. Rusty has worked on a plethora of low-level code over the years, spoken at dozens of conferences around the world and also founded the first Australian Linux conference. He continues to maintain some Linux kernel parts as a hobby, while devoting most of his time to exploring the emerging frontier of Bitcoin development.

is not making lightning network software??

https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/graphs/contributors

#1 rustyrussell 1,281 commits / 335,340 ++ / 71,321 --

Ah. I didn't know that, I'd never heard of that implementation. Seems like eclipse is the go-to one right now.

[franky1]

and it doesn't make much sense for them to run one

if blockstream as a DNS seed maintainer set themselves up as just a 'spoke' 'routed hop' between hubs can make 1penny from 7million users a day each

they can repay their $70million VC DEBT in 3 years. especially seeing as how blockstream are VC partnered with coinbase and bitpay anyway
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
-bitpay
-blockstream
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c
-coinbase

so DCG get the blockstream debt paid and it also helps DCG get repaid by coinbase and bitpay. all due to the corporate partnership

[anonymoustroll420]

if blockstream as a DNS seed maintainer set themselves up as just a 'spoke' 'routed hop' between hubs can make 1penny from 7million users a day each

Can they do that using the DNS seed?

In any case few people deny that LN is the answer to instant microtransactions. Even Roger Ver is happy to implement it in BU, as one thing he really hates is the inability to accept unconfirmed txes safely and has stated he will implement LN to address this kind of problem. We still need onchain capacity though of course, but not at the expense of decentralization. Listening node count is down from 60,000 at it's height to 6,000, I can only see that getting worse with a constantly increasing blocksizelimit.

[Quickseller]

Blockstream, of which Maxwell is an officer of, stands to profit from Bitcoin becoming a settlement layer. Settlement layer solutions are literally Blockstream's only products.

Do you have any proof to back up that claim?

From what I understand, the only products blockstream currently has are blockchain tech for banks, such as "confidential assets" and the work they did on IBM and Intel's "hyperledger".

They did not develop any lightning implementation, nor did they state they planned to run a lightning hub, and it doesn't make much sense for them to run one as the best businesses to run LN hubs are companies like coinbase and bitpay who already have a large base of users and merchants and are already doing offchain payments.

Blockstream is officially testing Lighting on the testnet. They also consider themselves to be a "implementers" of Lighting protocol system(s).

The first product of Blockstream is licquid, which acts as a 2nd layer above Bitcoin. They have developed Strong Federations, which supplement Liquid.

Blockstream's sidechains also act as a 2nd layer.

I suspect that they will implement confidential assets into either LN or another 2nd layer solution. This is likely where the big money is as Banks spend a lot of money on back office work in settling trades, and have tried unsuccessfully in trying to streamline these processes with blockchain technology.

Further, LN (along with SW) will have so much technical debt, that consultants will likely be needed in order to properly setup LN nodes, and create LN compatible wallets, and the supply of qualified people who can advise companies on how to implement LN will be in short supply, however many of them will work for Blockstream, allowing them to sell their services at high rates -- they will essentially make Bitcoin and LN so complicated so that few people understand how it works.