The only answer against Miners Mafia is UASF

[franky1]

Thats exactly what BU is doing too. There is no activation code or threshold for BU. There is a suggested threshold of 75%, but that is not final and the current implementation has no activation code, so everyone will need to upgrade when that code is released. BU miners signalling is pretty much the same as the current uasf uacomment crap.

lol
all nodes that are ok with dynamics and REAL mainblock growth have the code there already. (my node has variable limit right now. i can change it at runtime and not need to download anything later)

no need to download a new implementation later for those that are already dynamic ready.. no need to play around with resyncing no need to change the network topology no need to get people to move to different keypairs.

its a simple. if there is a safe majority to not cause much fuss of orphans or node drop off.. pools just make bigger blocks. right at the point its safe to.

yet those wanting segwit WILL need to download something AFTER activation, ven if they have v0.14 they will still need to be spoonfed another version if segwit activates

blockstream made many foolish statements
"its ok sheep you dont need to upgrade, be happy to live in the cesspit"
"its ok everything is compatible if you accept the fact you become reliant on a tier network"
"when activated everything is fixed and utopia for everyone"

[1713507405]

1713507405

[1713507405]

1713507405

[1713507405]

1713507405

[wck]

do you even know what core is?

core is 2 things.

1) master of bitcoin
2) slave of blockstream

 

What!?!  I just looked at the blockstream site.  Most or all of the "core" devs seemed to be employed by blockstream.   Wow!   Huge blatant conflict of interest.   I'm even more out of touch than I realized.   I didn't realize that Bitcoin was being hijacked.    

look deeper down the rabbit hole about the new drama of segwit getting into litecoin
names to look out for
charlie lee - litecoin master.. employed by coinbase
bobby lee BTCC pool (charlies brother)

now check out
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
blockstream
BTCC
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c
coinbase

even another drama event of bcoin made by purse..
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#p
purse

all the segwit news buzz
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c
coindesk

the 'economic majority in favour of segwit'
http://dcg.co/portfolio they are all under the dcg VC list.

yep blockstream are IN DEBT to a tune of $70m+ and they are really needing segwit to be pushed to get controlling interest in bitcoin so that the debts can be repaid via trading and LN hub fee's (how else do you think blockstream will relay the "loan")

then ask yourself with segwits release in october. BTCC was first to jump on the band wagon without even giving themselves a couple weeks to even review the code. they jumped in full on instantly. and are now pushing the same for litecoin.

and let us not forget the unpaid spell check interns hoping to kiss ass by being blockstream loyal, for the dream of getting a blockstream job.. funny part is they think its a $70m pocket of money ready to hand out. reality is blockstream are in DEBT to a tune of $70m if they cant get control

and lastly.
if you think that novembr 2017 would be a give up and try somhing different and accept no mean no if not activated by then. pfft.
blockstream will just ignore the pool/user abstaining and just cause another year of delays and doing nothing more then re-pushing segwit as it all the way upto the end of 2018
so dont expect the drama to end this year
http://www.uasf.co/

Can BIP148 be cancelled?

Yes. In the event that the economic majority does not support BIP148, users should remove software that enforces BIP148. A flag day activation for SegWit would be the next logical steps and require coordination of the community, most likely towards the end of 2018.

please note all links and quotes are pulled from the sources of blockstream/DCG. they are not random opinions from unknown reddit script writers or just propaganda wrote by random people

Amazing and I thought the Trump drama was deep.   Maybe the best thing would be for BIP148 to be activated with too little mining power to pull it off.   Let them rot with with their own worthless chain.   

What I don't understand is why blockstream is so bullheaded.   They could easily provide a block size increase and still get their lightning network.  Yea it wouldn't be worth as much up front but it would be better than getting nothing.   

[jonald_fyookball]

What I don't understand is why blockstream is so bullheaded.   They could easily provide a block size increase and still get their lightning network.  Yea it wouldn't be worth as much up front but it would be better than getting nothing.   

They are incentivized to stall on chain scaling as long as possible so that the LN gets a competitive advantage.  One of their primary tactics to achieve this stalling has been to create a narrative that hard forks are bad (even if there's wide consensus).

[wck]

What I don't understand is why blockstream is so bullheaded.   They could easily provide a block size increase and still get their lightning network.  Yea it wouldn't be worth as much up front but it would be better than getting nothing.   

They are incentivized to stall on chain scaling as long as possible so that the LN gets a competitive advantage.  One of their primary tactics to achieve this stalling has been to create a narrative that hard forks are bad (even if there's wide consensus).

That makes sense and also explains the hard fork nonsense.   Having gone through a number of hard forks with altcoins it is pretty clear they don't end up destroying the coin. 

[franky1]

Amazing and I thought the Trump drama was deep.   Maybe the best thing would be for BIP148 to be activated with too little mining power to pull it off.   Let them rot with with their own worthless chain.  

What I don't understand is why blockstream is so bullheaded.   They could easily provide a block size increase and still get their lightning network.  Yea it wouldn't be worth as much up front but it would be better than getting nothing.  

blockstream removed many onchain fee control mechanisms..
- removed priority formulae
- removed reactive fee estimation (so fee's dont instantly drop in low demand)
- added average fee (so fee's stay up even in low demand)

funny how coders remove code rules and instead just scream "just pay more"

all so onchain fee's are now ~$0.80(160sat/b on average tx of 400byte) instead of $0.04(average fee a year+ ago)
so that when they control the LN DNS seed to grab fee's they can charge anything from 0.01-0.75(per route through them) and people will still think its "cheaper" than normal onchan transactions

so imagine $0.07 LN fee for 1m people a day - repay $70m in 3 years
so imagine $0.035 LN fee for 2m people a day - repay $70m in 3 years

so imagine $0.07 LN fee for 10m people a day - repay $70m in 4 months
so imagine $0.035 LN fee for 20m people a day - repay $70m in 4 months

[jonald_fyookball]

right..as long as we are bringing wck up to speed, the other narrative has been the 'we must have a healthy fee market now because block rewards are going to diminish later' narrative.  So they have been saying 'high fees are good!'   

[wck]

right..as long as we are bringing wck up to speed, the other narrative has been the 'we must have a healthy fee market now because block rewards are going to diminish later' narrative.  So they have been saying 'high fees are good!'   

Thanks, I missed a lot in two years.    The current high fees is a bit putting the cart before the horse.   20 years from now when the mining reward is less than 1 BTC / block, then maybe it will be all about the fees.   It sure isn't about technology limits anymore.   

I have a transaction stuck because I only paid 50 satoshi per byte.   I'll just have to wait a few days because it isn't important enough for me to double spend to cancel out the transaction in a hurry.   I just sent another transaction to cover it.   It is absurd that one has to use something like https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ to figure out what a reason fee might be.   If SegWit goes through my gut tells me the fees will be still be high.   That is really the reason for not allowing a larger block size.

[Wind_FURY]

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?

In Bitcoin, no. Bitcoin Unlimited is still fighting for their case right? No one can shut it down and make them stop. It is their right. So with them or against them we should respect that right.

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.

Yes and no. In the case with Bitcoin there are arguments it is both.

[Lauda]

lol i know your cencentration span is only 2 paragraphs. but please try reading more.

here.. even from the docs of your overlord
http://www.uasf.co/

A new “SegWit UASF” deployment would require all nodes to upgrade again which will take considerable time. For this reason, the shortened route to SegWit activation is to require blocks to signal for SegWit activation.

translation. instead of waiting for nodes to upgrade, they just need to signal desire (hence: UASF is just any random node throwing a comment)

No. You don't understand the idea of UASF nor the implications of it. Use your head and stop with your stupid assumptions and conspiracy theories.

by thinking its just core vs BU. shows your lack of understanding of BITCOIN NETWORK

Bullshit. You are promoting the BTU shitcoin and you know it.

many people have a bitcoin-core node but have set the consensus.h much higher than 1mb. they just dont advertise it to avoid DDoS by your clan
many people running bitcoin-core are not actually advocating for segwit.

Both statements are a lie since there is no way to back that up with data.

lol
all nodes that are ok with dynamics and REAL mainblock growth have the code there already. (my node has variable limit right now. i can change it at runtime and not need to download anything later)

Wrong, they are not.

[franky1]

many people have a bitcoin-core node but have set the consensus.h much higher than 1mb. they just dont advertise it to avoid DDoS by your clan
many people running bitcoin-core are not actually advocating for segwit.

Both statements are a lie since there is no way to back that up with data.

LOL
no way to back it up ??
LOL

have you seen how many people have grabbed the core code and made their own client after doing their own tweaks that are not actually part of 'core'

there are 8 'branches' (versions of core)
there are 7857 forks (people taking the code so they can do their own tweaks away from cores repo)

think about that logically

[Lauda]

LOL
no way to back it up ??
LOL

have you seen how many people have grabbed the core code and made their own client after doing their own tweaks that are not actually part of 'core'

there are 8 'branches' (versions of core)
there are 7857 forks (people taking the code so they can do their own tweaks away from cores repo)

That's not conclusive data, that is pure speculation. What people do or do not with their forks and whether they primarily download released binaries or compile themselves is not something that you can know. Stop spreading false information around this forum.

think about that logically

Speculation.

[XbladeX]

***
They are incentivized to stall on chain scaling as long as possible so that the LN gets a competitive advantage.  One of their primary tactics to achieve this stalling has been to create a narrative that hard forks are bad (even if there's wide consensus).

If you have business and someone will make soft forks than upgrades network and you don’t do anything is SUPER GREAT because as businessman your time is money.
Hard fork rise unnecessary costs to system . If you have custom security client you will pay HIGH price.

So backward compatible soft work is Highest quality standard worth king of crypto.
If solutions are based on HF and Couse problems then I don’t see that many will relay business on such unstable/unpredictable stuff.
Business hates rule changes.

[jonald_fyookball]

***
They are incentivized to stall on chain scaling as long as possible so that the LN gets a competitive advantage.  One of their primary tactics to achieve this stalling has been to create a narrative that hard forks are bad (even if there's wide consensus).

If you have business and someone will make soft forks than upgrades network and you don’t do anything is SUPER GREAT because as businessman your time is money.
Hard fork rise unnecessary costs to system . If you have custom security client you will pay HIGH price.

So backward compatible soft work is Highest quality standard worth king of crypto.
If solutions are based on HF and Couse problems then I don’t see that many will relay business on such unstable/unpredictable stuff.
Business hates rule changes.

Ok, there's that aspect of it, I'll grant you that.  Keep in mind a blocksize limit change is 1 line of code.

[classicsucks]

***
They are incentivized to stall on chain scaling as long as possible so that the LN gets a competitive advantage.  One of their primary tactics to achieve this stalling has been to create a narrative that hard forks are bad (even if there's wide consensus).

If you have business and someone will make soft forks than upgrades network and you don’t do anything is SUPER GREAT because as businessman your time is money.
Hard fork rise unnecessary costs to system . If you have custom security client you will pay HIGH price.

So backward compatible soft work is Highest quality standard worth king of crypto.
If solutions are based on HF and Couse problems then I don’t see that many will relay business on such unstable/unpredictable stuff.
Business hates rule changes.

Your claim is ironic, because Segwit requires updating hundreds of thousands of lines of code in business software, which STILL is not complete:
https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ , guaranteeing hundreds of bugs. (Source: bitcoin core site)

Hard fork to 2MB (or whatever) would require either one line of code or zero lines of code to be updated in this same software, depending on the function.