AsicBoost Probably the reason Segwit is being blocked.

[jonald_fyookball]

coindesk is a well known Blockstream mouthpiece.

partially agree.

They have investor ties... but even Coindesk still publishes big block articles (they recently did one on bcoin)
and many of the articles have a neutral stance. 

Even they have to go against Blockstream/Core if they want to remain credible.  That's how insane things are. 

[Alex.BTC]

coindesk is a well known Blockstream mouthpiece.

partially agree.

They have investor ties... but even Coindesk still publishes big block articles (they recently did one on bcoin)
and many of the articles have a neutral stance.  

Even they have to go against Blockstream/Core if they want to remain credible.  That's how insane things are.  

With Blockstream/Core fucking up left right and center, Coindesk had to put on an act from time to time to pretend they're not totally bias.

At this point we should be seeing articles like:
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-core-runs-trolling-campaigns-says-lightning-network-developer/
Bitcoin Core Runs “Trolling Campaigns”, Says Lightning Network Developer

But you'll never see those on Coindesk.

You also won't see theses, articles of Blockstream's enemy-of-the-week defending themselves:
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitmain-never-used-asicboost-production-says-jihan-wu/
“Bitmain Has Never Used AsicBoost in Production”, Says Jihan Wu

Bcoin supports SegWit, and as of a week ago you started hearing more sane voices out there, even from individuals in Blockstream/Core, they probably realized their old plans had no chance, and with the deadline looming, they're moving to plan B to find a way to launch SegWit as soon as possible.

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

1. (to address posts above) 30% of pools abstaining is really due to being smart and knowing nodes DO matter so no point flagging for something that a node wont fully validate/handle even if node can 'hotpotato game' a stripped block
solution: finally do a proper node+pool consensus and need 1 merkle. and while at it, go dynamic. = community happy

2. asicboost is not a harm its an efficiency gain. like ATI's openCL was. and the resulting hash is not fake but a valid hash that works and checks out. (ATI did not attack bitcoin in the GPU mining era, for analogy comparison)

3. mining hardware and asicboost predates segwit.. meaning miners didnt create an attack, segwit 'going soft' 2merkle tricks just isnt compatible
(a yet to be active bitcoin code failing due to ATI opencL incompatibility wouldnt of been blamed as a ATI openCL attack, for analogy comparison)
solution: segwit finally do a proper node+pool consensus and need 1 merkle. and while at it, go dynamic. = community happy

4. again miners hardware software efficiency 2015. segwit anyonecanspend backdoor exploit AFTER that. segwit code release october 2016.  feb-march 2017 gmax finds a flaw in segwit and goes full wetard to blame miners(facepalm illogic).

today
rather than give in and do a better job with only 6 month old inactivated segwit software,
rather than give in and finally do a real full bitcoin network upgrade of 1merkle and keep all diverse nodes on level playingfield of a peer network
gmax wants to double down.
mandatory activation, remove pool efficiency but keep his 2 merkle TIER network control agenda

issue with gmax plan:
some outsider can start building a 600k blockheight chain privately using the asicboost. to get better chainwork.. then in a few years when bitcoin moves to a 1 merkle, they plop in their chain and take over, due to bitcoin being less efficient than the outsider during the 2merkle period.

solution. do a full proper node+pool consensus, go dynamic, keep the community happy and just let pools use the most efficient hashing methods ther are.

dont break the pools kneecaps just to force segwit tier network in.

P.S segwit using the anyonecanspend opcode backdoor exploit (AKA 'going soft') and suggesting that blockstream can add more backdoors (aka 'even easier to go soft') is allowing more risks of outsiders using those backdoors to slide in their own trojans undetectable to native nodes.
(if people take off their dev devotion hats, they will see it)

The last part that says:
"P.S segwit using the anyonecanspend opcode backdoor exploit (AKA 'going soft') and suggesting that blockstream can add more backdoors (aka 'even easier to go soft') is allowing more risks of outsiders using those backdoors to slide in their own trojans undetectable to native nodes.
(if people take off their dev devotion hats, they will see it)"

Sounds like something that CIA, Ethereum foundation, elite hackers, and central banks would love to see. 

[alani123]

I don't see why any party would use such cryptic technology to block a solution on bitcoin's hottest issues. Would the creators risk the reputation of the technology by only providing access to it to people looking to divide bitcoin's progress? And if yes, what what's to gain out of something like that?

[franky1]

coindesk is a well known Blockstream mouthpiece.

partially agree.

They have investor ties... but even Coindesk still publishes big block articles (they recently did one on bcoin)
and many of the articles have a neutral stance. 

bcoin -> purse

Coindesk =DCG
purse.. guess what
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#p
purse = DCG

[franky1]

I don't see why any party would use such cryptic technology to block a solution on bitcoin's hottest issues. Would the creators risk the reputation of the technology by only providing access to it to people looking to divide bitcoin's progress? And if yes, what what's to gain out of something like that?

the issue is actually that blockstream by using the 'going soft' 2merkle backdoor (anyoncanspend opcode exploit), shot themselves in the foot. and gmax only realised it last month. now he is waving fingers at every direction but its own. still refusing to back down and fix his own flaws

segit is not even active, so instead of trying to ENDLESSLY push it through in every way possible under its current 2merkle approach right upto end of 2018

they shoud just rewrite it as a proper full node consensus 1merkle, then use that oppertunity to include other community requested features such as a LOWER maxTXsigop limit and also dynamic blocks (3birds, one stone) for an even playing field PEER network acceptance.


and not waste april 2017-late 2018* trying to push the no guarantee  '2merkle tier network segwit' half gesture

*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.

[HostFat]

http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin//public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf
https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2017/04/10/the-relation-between-segwit-and-asicboost-covert-and-overt/

[vapourminer]

http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin//public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf

thanks for the link. good read. helps a lot in understanding this mess.

[XbladeX]

http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin//public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf

thanks for the link. good read. helps a lot in understanding this mess.

So we are going revisit 50% area soon i believe.
http://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#btc-percentage

when ETH miners will get more $$$ bitmain BTC miners they will rethink strategy : )
Innovation or stagnation... Greed of missing $$$ will force changes.
New people to crypto seeing stagnating BTC vs innovating alts won't give a fuck to BTC to much.
If BTC will be lucky will be reserve currency for alts.

Ethereum is great becouse they threaten miners with POS so Bitmain won't move there.
If they will go for ETH=Vitalik will move to POS to fuck them up ^^ so Vitalik keeps bitmain in best chess move.
Same time people will see that BTC is "bad" becouse of mining centralization ruining it.
And at some point changes will be forced but i don't know how much market cap have to lose BTC 40%? 50%? 60%? 80%?
Greed is greed Jihad is nicely trashing BTC ^^ ...

There is nice bullshit of BTC maximalists that BTC will use everything that is best in alts but... life shows that they are TRULY wrong,
BTC cannot be everything for everybody.
If I would listen to those people i would NEVER make money in crypto.
Anyway i sold most of alts for BTC - if you want get some money don't follow MOB.

[squatz1]

It's horrid to have to think that someone who says they support the Bitcoin community, in this case Jihan is the same person who is just blocking the best solution out their based on the pure motive of greed and eyes of profits. I do understand it though, as money is usually the motive for many decisions being made when it comes to big decisions in the world.

This would also be the reason that they'd be losing around 30 percent in the leg up they have on everybody else so I guess that would mean 30 percent less profit and such?

Segwit does have its own problems but I really see it as the only viable solution that would really be following what Satoshi would've wanted. As I do highly doubt Satoshi would've wanted a centralized system run by King Ver.

[GreenBits]

It's horrid to have to think that someone who says they support the Bitcoin community, in this case Jihan is the same person who is just blocking the best solution out their based on the pure motive of greed and eyes of profits. I do understand it though, as money is usually the motive for many decisions being made when it comes to big decisions in the world.

This would also be the reason that they'd be losing around 30 percent in the leg up they have on everybody else so I guess that would mean 30 percent less profit and such?

Segwit does have its own problems but I really see it as the only viable solution that would really be following what Satoshi would've wanted. As I do highly doubt Satoshi would've wanted a centralized system run by King Ver.

Yeah, the suck in this is that we were mislead as an entire community, for the benefit of a few. We could have moves towards a compromise in a more informed manner if there wasn't someone putting up noise for the sake of distraction. And it severely undercuts the argument against segwit, given the ethical implications of this farce. We've lost time and trust, and gained nothing.

[alyssa85]

It's horrid to have to think that someone who says they support the Bitcoin community, in this case Jihan is the same person who is just blocking the best solution out their based on the pure motive of greed and eyes of profits. I do understand it though, as money is usually the motive for many decisions being made when it comes to big decisions in the world.

This would also be the reason that they'd be losing around 30 percent in the leg up they have on everybody else so I guess that would mean 30 percent less profit and such?

Segwit does have its own problems but I really see it as the only viable solution that would really be following what Satoshi would've wanted. As I do highly doubt Satoshi would've wanted a centralized system run by King Ver.

The "best solution" is in the eye of the beholder.

If Core really believe their solution is best, then they should invest in some mining pools in order to get them over the activation threshold. If they arn't prepared to put their money on the line like that, chances are, segwit is not the best solution.

[kiklo]

It's horrid to have to think that someone who says they support the Bitcoin community, in this case Jihan is the same person who is just blocking the best solution out their based on the pure motive of greed and eyes of profits. I do understand it though, as money is usually the motive for many decisions being made when it comes to big decisions in the world.

This would also be the reason that they'd be losing around 30 percent in the leg up they have on everybody else so I guess that would mean 30 percent less profit and such?

Segwit does have its own problems but I really see it as the only viable solution that would really be following what Satoshi would've wanted. As I do highly doubt Satoshi would've wanted a centralized system run by King Ver.

Satoshi would have just increase the blocksize not write some over complicated Trojan to screw BTC onchain transactions , where offchain is only thing that works.  
It is way too early in BTC development for the shenanigans that are happening to it.
If offchain was a direction Satoshi wanted, he would have just use FIAT banks and ignored crypto.

I mean really, if you have to go offchain for the majority of transactions, what the hell was the point to even starting Bitcoin.
Satoshi is rolling over in his grave, because of segwit.  


 

[-ck]

If Core really believe their solution is best, then they should invest in some mining pools in order to get them over the activation threshold. If they arn't prepared to put their money on the line like that, chances are, segwit is not the best solution.

Surely you must be kidding. The bitcoin mining network is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. How exactly does a team of predominantly volunteers, with a small group of paid coders only, fund taking control of enough hardware to direct power with such a network? 27% of the mining network has voluntarily signalled segwit so far, the funds to control something like 800PH of hashrate to bring the value to 95% would be astronomical. You're not understanding how the system works...

[HostFat]

Surely you must be kidding. The bitcoin mining network is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. How exactly does a team of predominantly volunteers, with a small group of paid coders only, fund taking control of enough hardware to direct power with such a network?

And this is the reason that there are now other implementations, with other devs.

If Core devs can't find deliver an implementation that reach consensus, some one else can do it.

[franky1]

Surely you must be kidding. The bitcoin mining network is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

lol
lets say we just think about:
600peta = ~44,000 S9 antminers(42857.14285714286 more precisely if your not factoring in slight hash variance)

now the antminer are retail $2k.. but manufactured at ~$500


$21,428,571(more precise asiccount) cost to make 600peta (~44k asics)
now using simple numbers (yep im gonna round them and not be as precise so dont knit pick, and just read the concept)

if blockstream started a manufactring company using its $70m
they could have made lets say 132,000 asics ($64m)

sold just 44,000 at $2k ($88m money back in pocket($94m including unspend $6m) AND kept 88,000 rigs for themselves..
Yep they could have 1.2Exahash running and now have $94m cash.

rinse and repeat
make 132,000 asics. sell 44,000 at retail.
keep 88,000(176k asics combined total) and then have another $88m($182m combined in pocket) (2.4exa)

rinse and repeat