The only answer against Miners Mafia is UASF

[jonald_fyookball]

Why would a miner who is not bitmain use ASICBOOST on antpool? I don't think it produces more shares, so anypool would pay out the same as if it was not being used, and additional investment would have to be made on the part of the miner.

Because you need a stratum server that supports ASICBOOST for it to work. Currently only antpool does, but there is rumours slush may add support for it. It doesn't pay out more shares but reduces power consumption.

I'm not saying bitmain is mining on antpool. I have no idea if they are nor have I any idea if they use ASICBoost for their farms. I'm saying normal joe bloggs has figured out how to turn on asicboost and is using it on antpool.

i'm confused... before i heard there is no pool that allows it... then someone else mentioned that : that would be overt mining, and this is covert asicboost... so does overt vs covert require the pool configuration??  You sound like youre somewhat knowledgeable, ... i still think its all a huge distraction from scaling and bigger blocks, but its interesting, so give us the gangster deets.

[wck]

Why would a miner who is not bitmain use ASICBOOST on antpool? I don't think it produces more shares, so anypool would pay out the same as if it was not being used, and additional investment would have to be made on the part of the miner.

Because you need a stratum server that supports ASICBOOST for it to work. Currently only antpool does, but there is rumours slush may add support for it. It doesn't pay out more shares but reduces power consumption.

I'm not saying bitmain is mining on antpool. I have no idea if they are nor have I any idea if they use ASICBoost for their farms. I'm saying normal joe bloggs has figured out how to turn on asicboost and is using it on antpool.

i'm confused... before i heard there is no pool that allows it... then someone else mentioned that : that would be overt mining, and this is covert asicboost... so does overt vs covert require the pool configuration??  You sound like youre somewhat knowledgeable, ... i still think its all a huge distraction from scaling and bigger blocks, but its interesting, so give us the gangster deets.

https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/

Bitmain admits they have used it on a test network but not for actual mining.    The only issue I see around asicboost is Bitmain holds a patent on it, at least in China.   Other than that, I all for whatever can be done to reduce the amount of work necessary to find a block.   However I'm in the process of writing my third miner and I may decide to build a hardware implementation of it.   These though are for my own use as I really dislike supporting software, that is what I do for a living I don't need to do it for my own personal business.   

[tournamentdan]

Why would a miner who is not bitmain use ASICBOOST on antpool? I don't think it produces more shares, so anypool would pay out the same as if it was not being used, and additional investment would have to be made on the part of the miner.

Because you need a stratum server that supports ASICBOOST for it to work. Currently only antpool does, but there is rumours slush may add support for it. It doesn't pay out more shares but reduces power consumption.

I'm not saying bitmain is mining on antpool. I have no idea if they are nor have I any idea if they use ASICBoost for their farms. I'm saying normal joe bloggs has figured out how to turn on asicboost and is using it on antpool.

i'm confused... before i heard there is no pool that allows it... then someone else mentioned that : that would be overt mining, and this is covert asicboost... so does overt vs covert require the pool configuration??  You sound like youre somewhat knowledgeable, ... i still think its all a huge distraction from scaling and bigger blocks, but its interesting, so give us the gangster deets.

https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/

Bitmain admits they have used it on a test network but not for actual mining.    The only issue I see around asicboost is Bitmain holds a patent on it, at least in China.   Other than that, I all for whatever can be done to reduce the amount of work necessary to find a block.   However I'm in the process of writing my third miner and I may decide to build a hardware implementation of it.   These though are for my own use as I really dislike supporting software, that is what I do for a living I don't need to do it for my own personal business.   

What a lot of people seem not relies is. Just because something is tested. And just because something is patented. Doesn't mean it will ever work.

[wck]

Why would a miner who is not bitmain use ASICBOOST on antpool? I don't think it produces more shares, so anypool would pay out the same as if it was not being used, and additional investment would have to be made on the part of the miner.

Because you need a stratum server that supports ASICBOOST for it to work. Currently only antpool does, but there is rumours slush may add support for it. It doesn't pay out more shares but reduces power consumption.

I'm not saying bitmain is mining on antpool. I have no idea if they are nor have I any idea if they use ASICBoost for their farms. I'm saying normal joe bloggs has figured out how to turn on asicboost and is using it on antpool.

i'm confused... before i heard there is no pool that allows it... then someone else mentioned that : that would be overt mining, and this is covert asicboost... so does overt vs covert require the pool configuration??  You sound like youre somewhat knowledgeable, ... i still think its all a huge distraction from scaling and bigger blocks, but its interesting, so give us the gangster deets.

https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/

Bitmain admits they have used it on a test network but not for actual mining.    The only issue I see around asicboost is Bitmain holds a patent on it, at least in China.   Other than that, I all for whatever can be done to reduce the amount of work necessary to find a block.   However I'm in the process of writing my third miner and I may decide to build a hardware implementation of it.   These though are for my own use as I really dislike supporting software, that is what I do for a living I don't need to do it for my own personal business.   

What a lot of people seem not relies is. Just because something is tested. And just because something is patented. Doesn't mean it will ever work.

That is also a valid point.

[Wind_FURY]

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. 

It is also undeniable that some central planning is good for the overall development of Bitcoin. The developers propose something then it is for the nodes and the miners to decide which ones they want or what they do not want. It is the centralization of mining or the possibility of miner collusion that is bad. They have gained much leverage on the network that now they have become like an enemy of the Core developers to impose what they want.

[anonymoustroll420]

It is also undeniable that some central planning is good for the overall development of Bitcoin.

No we should go for full anarchist decentralized development. We need to enable anonymous commits so anyone can push code into it without a PR so they don't need permission from a centralized authority for their code to make it into the binaries.

[Xester]

Why would a miner who is not bitmain use ASICBOOST on antpool? I don't think it produces more shares, so anypool would pay out the same as if it was not being used, and additional investment would have to be made on the part of the miner.

Because you need a stratum server that supports ASICBOOST for it to work. Currently only antpool does, but there is rumours slush may add support for it. It doesn't pay out more shares but reduces power consumption.

I'm not saying bitmain is mining on antpool. I have no idea if they are nor have I any idea if they use ASICBoost for their farms. I'm saying normal joe bloggs has figured out how to turn on asicboost and is using it on antpool.

i'm confused... before i heard there is no pool that allows it... then someone else mentioned that : that would be overt mining, and this is covert asicboost... so does overt vs covert require the pool configuration??  You sound like youre somewhat knowledgeable, ... i still think its all a huge distraction from scaling and bigger blocks, but its interesting, so give us the gangster deets.

https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/

Bitmain admits they have used it on a test network but not for actual mining.    The only issue I see around asicboost is Bitmain holds a patent on it, at least in China.   Other than that, I all for whatever can be done to reduce the amount of work necessary to find a block.   However I'm in the process of writing my third miner and I may decide to build a hardware implementation of it.   These though are for my own use as I really dislike supporting software, that is what I do for a living I don't need to do it for my own personal business.   

It is true that bitmain has released a statement that they have not used asicboost on actual mining but rather on a test network. But there was one person who said that he is going to attack the core developer and he is doing it by using asicboost. Thus if Jihan has already started using it on the actual mining does it mean that bitmain is lying or Jihan is not connected to bitmain. Which is true, any ideas guys?

[wck]

Why would a miner who is not bitmain use ASICBOOST on antpool? I don't think it produces more shares, so anypool would pay out the same as if it was not being used, and additional investment would have to be made on the part of the miner.

Because you need a stratum server that supports ASICBOOST for it to work. Currently only antpool does, but there is rumours slush may add support for it. It doesn't pay out more shares but reduces power consumption.

I'm not saying bitmain is mining on antpool. I have no idea if they are nor have I any idea if they use ASICBoost for their farms. I'm saying normal joe bloggs has figured out how to turn on asicboost and is using it on antpool.

i'm confused... before i heard there is no pool that allows it... then someone else mentioned that : that would be overt mining, and this is covert asicboost... so does overt vs covert require the pool configuration??  You sound like youre somewhat knowledgeable, ... i still think its all a huge distraction from scaling and bigger blocks, but its interesting, so give us the gangster deets.

https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/

Bitmain admits they have used it on a test network but not for actual mining.    The only issue I see around asicboost is Bitmain holds a patent on it, at least in China.   Other than that, I all for whatever can be done to reduce the amount of work necessary to find a block.   However I'm in the process of writing my third miner and I may decide to build a hardware implementation of it.   These though are for my own use as I really dislike supporting software, that is what I do for a living I don't need to do it for my own personal business.  

It is true that bitmain has released a statement that they have not used asicboost on actual mining but rather on a test network. But there was one person who said that he is going to attack the core developer and he is doing it by using asicboost. Thus if Jihan has already started using it on the actual mining does it mean that bitmain is lying or Jihan is not connected to bitmain. Which is true, any ideas guys?

Many more options exist for example:
1) You are lying
2) You are crazy
3) Someone else lied or made up crap and you are repeating it.

Seriously ... Asicboost or no asicboost really doesn't make a difference.   It is someone's imagination that asicboost will let Bitmain control the Bitcoin network.    I simple won't happen.  They need a lot more than 20% boost in performance to do that, and that is assuming asicboost actually works.  

[Wind_FURY]

It is also undeniable that some central planning is good for the overall development of Bitcoin.

No we should go for full anarchist decentralized development. We need to enable anonymous commits so anyone can push code into it without a PR so they don't need permission from a centralized authority for their code to make it into the binaries.

In a perfect world where everyone is benevolent and where everyone is looking out for the welfare of everyone else that would be good. But this is far from a perfect world where greed, politics and the need for control is always in the game. Anarchy is an impossible idea. There will always be a group who will take advantage of the sheeple.

[Lauda]

It seems that I was mistaken thinking that LTC is going to end up as a test-bed for UASF. BW has just started signalling Segwit over there, which puts it above the necessary 75% (unless Jihad tries to rent out more hashrate in an attempt to stop it).

-snip-
Seriously ... Asicboost or no asicboost really doesn't make a difference.   It is someone's imagination that asicboost will let Bitmain control the Bitcoin network.    I simple won't happen.  They need a lot more than 20% boost in performance to do that, and that is assuming asicboost actually works. 

It seems like you are really frustrated about ASICBoost being outed. I wonder why that is.

It is also undeniable that some central planning is good for the overall development of Bitcoin. The developers propose something then it is for the nodes and the miners to decide which ones they want or what they do not want. It is the centralization of mining or the possibility of miner collusion that is bad. They have gained much leverage on the network that now they have become like an enemy of the Core developers to impose what they want.

Decentralized planning doesn't work. Just use the plane analogy. Do you let you passengers decide the size and type of your engines?

[franky1]

It seems like you are really frustrated about ASICBoost being outed. I wonder why that is.

It is also undeniable that some central planning is good for the overall development of Bitcoin. The developers propose something then it is for the nodes and the miners to decide which ones they want or what they do not want. It is the centralization of mining or the possibility of miner collusion that is bad. They have gained much leverage on the network that now they have become like an enemy of the Core developers to impose what they want.

Decentralized planning doesn't work. Just use the plane analogy. Do you let you passengers decide the size and type of your engines?

lauda, your showing little to no understanding of bitcoin but high understanding to blockstreams control. i wonder why.

asicboost is no secret. in 2015 it was an efficiency boost. hardware and software was developed.
MONTHS LATER blockstream decided "wait we could implement segwit using the anyonecanspend backdoor exploit" thinking blockstream can have a easy life adding in code without node veto and thinking buying the pools a free lunch gets them segwit by christmas 2016..
so a year after asic hardware is designed. sgwit code is ready for testnet.
but the testnet tests are not thorough enough.
months later segwit gets a public release and starts having a deadline.
so thats a year of coding.. blockstream failed to realise their 2merkle backdoor version wouldnt be compatible with efficient hardware software.
they released the code.. 5 months of having the release blockstream had no clue their backdoor (going soft) would have issues.

then last month gmax hit the wall by realising that all the year and a half of trying to bypass node consensus by going soft would never have worked out right anyway.

so now gmax is having a temper tantrum and blaming pools.
please do something before replying to defend blockstream.
clear your mind of blockstream.. relax, take off the defender hat. and wear the logical thinking cap.
and imagine this.
its 2011 ATI have this snazzy feature that Geforce doesnt. is called openCL. it gives ATI an advantage.
now imagine 2012 some new bitcoin feature was needed, it was hoped to use some backdoor to implement it to not need full node consensus.
you have done lots of tests using Geforce and ATI non-openCL hardware.
near 2013 you realise your backdoor attempts hit a wall because openCL affects it.
do you
A. tell the world ATI is attacking bitcoin because of openCL
B. be honest and tell the world the node consensus bypass backdoor would never have worked as expected but you only just found the problem
C. do B but then raise your hands and say ok community, lets node consensus a new cleaner recoded version and this time lets include dynamics and other proper fixes.
D. do A and double down threatening ATI and insinuating people should hate ATI with racial rhetoric while you try killing off anyone thats using openCL

[Lauda]

lauda, your showing little to no understanding of bitcoin but high understanding to blockstreams control. i wonder why.

Mate, you have almost no idea how Bitcoin works. You have an extremely flawed understanding of it and the underlying technology. You keep repeating the same twisted story in every thread, even where it has no relevance.

asicboost is no secret. in 2015 it was an efficiency boost. hardware and software was developed.

It is an exploit.

MONTHS LATER blockstream decided "wait we could implement segwit using the anyonecanspend backdoor exploit" thinking blockstream can have a easy life adding in code without node veto and thinking buying the pools a free lunch gets them segwit by christmas 2016..

Anyonecanspend doesn't actually mean that 'anyone can spend'. It is not an exploit. Looks like your employer is mad that your results are weak.

so thats a year of coding.. blockstream failed to realise their 2merkle backdoor version wouldnt be compatible with efficient hardware software.

Covert exploit hardware*.
You are defending everything that is on the wrong side of the spectrum (BU, AsicBoost exploit, Jihad Wu, et. al). Yet you claim to be neutral and caring about decentralization.


https://twitter.com/prasosltd/status/852104011767566336

The community and the economy is rallying up for UASF. Your employer is going to be so pissed.

[franky1]

blah

lol
you have no clue.

next you will be telling me that the chinese do infact have a time machine went back and made hardware purely to attack software.

wake up to logic.
hardware came first,
new software came second
new software is not getting the appreciation
new software not active
new software has a flaw

you cant blame old hardware

TL:DR
how can summer 2015 hardware be exploiting autumn 2016 released software


secondly blockstream admit the going soft anyone canspend route was a backdoor to avoid node consensus

thirdly
actually you will find it is an anyonecanspend. which is why if segwit activates they have to PREVENT old nodes seeing unconfirmed segwit tx's and also prevent old nodes from mining blocks ontop of segwit,
and why the segwit keypair wallet is not active in any of the 0.13.X 0.14.x
and why even when segwit is activated the segwit keypair wallet wont be available instantly because they need to ensure the old nods are cut off from manipulating unconfirmed tx's by ensuring the network is tiered with segwit at the top.

atleast try to learn the finer details and stop just pushing the utopian 30 second sales pitch

[wck]

It seems like you are really frustrated about ASICBoost being outed. I wonder why that is.

It is also undeniable that some central planning is good for the overall development of Bitcoin. The developers propose something then it is for the nodes and the miners to decide which ones they want or what they do not want. It is the centralization of mining or the possibility of miner collusion that is bad. They have gained much leverage on the network that now they have become like an enemy of the Core developers to impose what they want.

Decentralized planning doesn't work. Just use the plane analogy. Do you let you passengers decide the size and type of your engines?

lauda, your showing little to no understanding of bitcoin but high understanding to blockstreams control. i wonder why.

asicboost is no secret. in 2015 it was an efficiency boost. hardware and software was developed.
MONTHS LATER blockstream decided "wait we could implement segwit using the anyonecanspend backdoor exploit" thinking blockstream can have a easy life adding in code without node veto and thinking buying the pools a free lunch gets them segwit by christmas 2016..
so a year after asic hardware is designed. sgwit code is ready for testnet.
but the testnet tests are not thorough enough.
months later segwit gets a public release and starts having a deadline.
so thats a year of coding.. blockstream failed to realise their 2merkle backdoor version wouldnt be compatible with efficient hardware software.
they released the code.. 5 months of having the release blockstream had no clue their backdoor (going soft) would have issues.

then last month gmax hit the wall by realising that all the year and a half of trying to bypass node consensus by going soft would never have worked out right anyway.

so now gmax is having a temper tantrum and blaming pools.
please do something before replying to defend blockstream.
clear your mind of blockstream.. relax, take off the defender hat. and wear the logical thinking cap.
and imagine this.
its 2011 ATI have this snazzy feature that Geforce doesnt. is called openCL. it gives ATI an advantage.
now imagine 2012 some new bitcoin feature was needed, it was hoped to use some backdoor to implement it to not need full node consensus.
you have done lots of tests using Geforce and ATI non-openCL hardware.
near 2013 you realise your backdoor attempts hit a wall because openCL affects it.
do you
A. tell the world ATI is attacking bitcoin because of openCL
B. be honest and tell the world the node consensus bypass backdoor would never have worked as expected but you only just found the problem
C. do B but then raise your hands and say ok community, lets node consensus a new cleaner recoded version and this time lets include dynamics and other proper fixes.
D. do A and double down threatening ATI and insinuating people should hate ATI with racial rhetoric while you try killing off anyone thats using openCL

Thank you!   I had no idea where the absurdity was coming from.   

[DooMAD]

Decentralized planning doesn't work. Just use the plane analogy. Do you let you passengers decide the size and type of your engines?

But at the same time, do you only allow one single entity to design all planes?  If another entity designs a plane, does that constitute a hostile takeover or a power grab in the aerospace industry?  Surely it's healthier if multiple entities come up with their own designs and then passengers decide which plane they want to board based on their own preference.

As a community, we still can't manage to square the circle that while we think open source software and users having a choice over which implementation they choose to run are good things, at the same time, anyone running or supporting a different implementation isn't a good thing?  It's completely contradictory.

We've clearly moved past the stage of "I think plane A has a superior technical design to plane B" and have now arrived at the "we're going to make everyone use plane A by threatening to change aviation rules to put Plane B out of business" stage, so I can't help but wonder if we still respect market freedom if we're willing to go to such lengths to enforce the status quo.  I'd like to see SegWit activated, but I'd rather it wasn't at the expense of healthy competition.  Moving the goalposts to obtain your goal is almost always considered poor form.

[Lauda]

But at the same time, do you only allow one single entity to design all planes?  If another entity designs a plane, does that constitute a hostile takeover or a power grab in the aerospace industry?  Surely it's healthier if multiple entities come up with their own designs and then passengers decide which plane they want to board based on their own preference.

There is no 'one single entity' in Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not ETH, therefore does not have a supreme high king. Bitcoin Core is not an entity, it's an open source software project. If you are indirectly talking about BU in this analogy, then by following it we can conclude that the plane crashed already once and all the passengers are dead (the massive exploit that crashed all the nodes, for those that don't remember or are trying to shove it under a rug).

We've clearly moved past the stage of "I think plane A has a superior technical design to plane B" and have now arrived at the "we're going to make everyone use plane A by threatening to change aviation rules to put Plane B out of business" stage, so I can't help but wonder if we still respect market freedom if we're willing to go to such lengths to enforce the status quo.  I'd like to see SegWit activated, but I'd rather it wasn't at the expense of healthy competition.  Moving the goalposts to obtain your goal is almost always considered poor form.

We have moved past that long ago considering that Segwit is clearly superior to EC, which is a radical and dangerous change. That said, the market is doing what the market wants. This is clearly visible by the super majority support by the users, nodes and economy (see all the signed statements either wanting to list BU as an altcoin (BTU) or in support of UASF). A vocal minority or a mining cartel is not to be in decision of what Bitcoin is or is not.

[franky1]

lauda the activation of segwit itself is meaningless..
if segwit is so 'compatible' then why even need deadlines, threats. bribes ans blackmails.. they could just turn it on right now, right.. because 'its fully compatible' -as they say

but segwit activation does not give the bitcoin network any positives..

what it does do. is for the people who have a segwit node (under100%) who THEN...
wait around for weeks.. and then later download yet another spoon fed implementation just to get the real segwit wallet functionality
and then. of those that download they future release voluntarily move funds to segwit keypairs WEEKS - MONTHS after activation(even lower amount of people).. disarm themselves from performing quadratics, malleation, etc.

but this is where your not comprehending BITCOIN as a whole network.

- does it eradicate malleability (emphasis: for the network).. no
- does it eradicate quadratics (emphasis: for the network).. no, infact it makes things worse (4ktxsigop becomes 16ktxsigops)
- does it ensure all full nodes are full nodes (emphasis: for the network).. no, infact it makes things worse

you live in the dream world of an only blockstream/DCG existance, you can only see the world from the point of view where only blockstream/DCG software is rnning

forget about defending blockstream/DCG,
when you come to this forum.. try real hard to look in the mirror and ask yourself what hat your wearing.. and if the answer is the blockstream/DCG defense cap.. then dont reply to any posts.

stop defending them as kings of the utopian castle. and realise that bitcoin is beyond your kings.

anyway.
back to the question at hand.
would you blame and call ATI an attacker for using openCL if a year after GPU mining started gmax found an issue in gmaxes code that caused gmaxes code to not be as 'compatible' and as he promised

try to learn about bitcoin. because you have subtly omitted you have wasted the last year not learning. but do try to learn about bitcoin beyond a 2 paragraph blockstream/DCG script. and then reply using the cap of bitcoin network understanding

you do realise bitcoin will and should be around for centuries but blockstream/DCG wont be. so vesting your entire mindset around defending blockstream/DCG is a temporary thing that wont last and you will regret it later once their experiment is over and they have moved on to hyperledger

[jonald_fyookball]

i would rather see a split network than one that buckled to UASF.  At least then I'd own both coins and we could see what the market really wants over time.
If segwit is forced, i'll still hold some bitcoin but i'll slowly sell it off for ethers or whatever is the main competitor.

[AngryDwarf]

Segwit is clearly superior to EC

You are comparing apples with pears. The two solutions don't have to be mutually exclusive, and could be used complimentary. What is the best technical method of implementing these solutions?

[AngryDwarf]

i would rather see a split network than one that buckled to UASF.  At least then I'd own both coins and we could see what the market really wants over time.
If segwit is forced, i'll still hold some bitcoin but i'll slowly sell it off for ethers or whatever is the main competitor.

I don't think we will get a bilateral split. The economic actors and mining actors will come to a consensus rather quickly. If Segwit as failed both a MASF and UASF, then it's time to call it deadwit and not waste any more time on it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1865966.20