SegWit dying off in spite of all your efforts

[jonald_fyookball]

By nodes, do you mean mining nodes? 

remember:  Only miners get to vote in PoW.

[franky1]

By nodes, do you mean mining nodes?  

remember:  Only miners get to vote in PoW.

i mean ALL nodes

pools can if they wanted, push out a block in any funky fashion.. but if nodes dont accept it.. it gets rejected

look at the 2013 saga
although pools thought 1mb blocks were acceptable.. as soon as they made a block that went over 0.5mb
half of the network (non-mining) nodes were not accepting the block.

this caused lots of drama of merchants not seeing certain blocks, and many things. and lots of orphan drama occured.
pools learned a lesson to not just push forward unless the nodes would accept the blocks meaning the merchants would see the blocks for pools to be able to spend their rewards.

this caused decisions to be made to get the nodes to unanimusly upgrade to a version that would accept a certain block formation. and they even altered the DNS seed to only list nodes that would accept a certain block formation, which is why there is no DNS listing of <0.8 anymore and no nodes on the network running <0.8 anymore..

because (non-mining) nodes of <0.8 would reject blocks of over 0.5mb data

[jonald_fyookball]

By nodes, do you mean mining nodes? 

remember:  Only miners get to vote in PoW.

i mean ALL nodes

pools can if they wanted, push out a block in any funky fashion.. but if nodes dont accept it.. it gets rejected

But non mining nodes cannot vote on which chain is the longest PoW chain.  So, if the network introduces a new rule,
they don't get to vote.  They can only choose to go with a majority or minority split.

Anyway, I don't blame core for "giving pools the vote" -- it has to be that way.  But it's also dumb to blame ordinary users
for "worshipping the pool overlords" if miners are too lazy to switch pools or vote.

Bitcoin has to be based on PoW voting.  Any other way simply leads to Sybil attacks.

[franky1]

But non mining nodes cannot vote on which chain is the longest PoW chain.  So, if the network introduces a new rule,
they don't get to vote.  They can only choose to go with a majority or minority split.

Anyway, I don't blame core for "giving pools the vote" -- it has to be that way.  But it's also dumb to blame ordinary users
for "worshipping the pool overlords" if miners are too lazy to switch pools or vote.

Bitcoin has to be based on PoW voting.  Any other way simply leads to Sybil attacks.

there is a symbiotic relationship.

full nodes exist, not just as a data backup, but as rule checkers too
nodes(non-mining) do have a an important role to play too..

thats the beauty of bitcoin..

yes there is a risk of sybil attack.
hense the need for diverse decentralised nodes

yes there is a risk of 51% pool attack.
hense the need for diverse amount of pools

[jonald_fyookball]

But non mining nodes cannot vote on which chain is the longest PoW chain.  So, if the network introduces a new rule,
they don't get to vote.  They can only choose to go with a majority or minority split.

Anyway, I don't blame core for "giving pools the vote" -- it has to be that way.  But it's also dumb to blame ordinary users
for "worshipping the pool overlords" if miners are too lazy to switch pools or vote.

Bitcoin has to be based on PoW voting.  Any other way simply leads to Sybil attacks.

there is a symbiotic relationship.

full nodes exist, not just as a data backup, but as rule checkers too
nodes(non-mining) do have a an important role to play too..

thats the beauty of bitcoin..

yes there is a risk of sybil attack.
hense the need for diverse decentralised nodes

yes there is a risk of 51% pool attack.
hense the need for diverse amount of pools

Sure, but it seems to me that you don't really need that many 'rule checkers'...
An SPV client can connect to a few nodes, (miners or not) and
see if there is any disagreement on a block or a balance.

[Paashaas]

I detect heavy (chinese) mining centalization which has to be removed asap.

Same holds for the 5 core devs. Too central.

BU got max 5 devs...Core team got more than 100+, most of then are unpaid.

BU copied 98% and still failling hard...pathetic!

[franky1]

Core team got more than 100+, most of then are unpaid.

most are just grammar nazi's editing copyright dates or words in the documentation/comments/readme files..
and most are just hoping one day they can get a line of code in somewhere to get noticed enough to get paid by blockstream

but when you look at who is moderating the IRC/tech discussion forums/mailing lists/bips

those 100+ unpaid guys dont have much sway unless they kiss ass first

[U2]

Lets have a look how SW performes on LTC first..

Stay tuned, we all want bitcoin to succeed.

It's not going to change anything because Litecoins never had enough volume for segwit to ever matter. It's all just to create hype and buzz. Omg! Vertcoin is getting segwit!? Buy buy buy! Now where can I use these... Oh shit. Sell sell sell!

[Paashaas]

Core team got more than 100+, most of then are unpaid.

most are just grammar nazi's editing copyright dates or words in the documentation/comments/readme files..
and most are just hoping one day they can get a line of code in somewhere to get noticed enough to get paid by blockstream

but when you look at who is moderating the IRC/tech discussion forums/mailing lists/bips

those 100+ unpaid guys dont have much sway unless they kiss ass first

Thats irrelevant, it's only what they deliver. Segwitt is still the best possible update there is and Core is doing a great job at it.

They give trust and security, for the rest i dont care what they are doing.

[kiklo]

Core team got more than 100+, most of then are unpaid.

most are just grammar nazi's editing copyright dates or words in the documentation/comments/readme files..
and most are just hoping one day they can get a line of code in somewhere to get noticed enough to get paid by blockstream

but when you look at who is moderating the IRC/tech discussion forums/mailing lists/bips

those 100+ unpaid guys dont have much sway unless they kiss ass first

Thats irrelevant, it's only what they deliver. Segwitt is still the best possible update there is and Core is doing a great job at it.

They give trust and security, for the rest i dont care what they are doing.

Just take care of you, and they handle all of the thinking,
It is called Slavery.



 

[kiklo]

Who wouldn't trust this face? Jihan Wu is now in control we don't need to run full nodes any more. He will personally validate all our transactions. He is trusting he is good he is descended from gods and he does not shit.
Our dear leader Jihan Wu will lead us to a better future. Why can't you people see that?

Now get down and kneel before your god.

bastard mines empty blocks while calling for BU acting like he wants bigger blocks. He just wants to keep fucking the network for his personal gain.

If BTC Core Devs were worth an ounce of being Competent,

They would hard fork BTC with a minimum requirement of 1000 transactions per block if the mempools had over 10000 transactions waiting, that way no empty blocks when the mempools are overloaded.

But they are scare of hard forks, and not competent either, ergo all of the problem and stupid soft forks. 

 

[Lauda]

Hunh? I was always a BU shill.

FTFY.

I have also consistently (for about a year) pointing out that non-mining entities (which I had formerly been mistakenly been calling 'non-mining nodes') have essentially zero power to influence the network, and provide essentially zero value to the network at large. I have, though, stated that such non-mining entities are what allow their owners/users to transact in a trustless manner. Benefit to the owner, no benefit to the network.

Which is complete nonsense.

But what I have recently learned is that Satoshi's definition of 'node' is necessarily limited to entities that mine.

No.

So you know better than Satoshi?

The whole "satoshi" thing builds upon the assumption that miners are honest. We know today that this is not true (ASICBOOST, AntBleed, empty blocks, et. al.). Due to this, everything that you've quoted is nullified. The primary thing protecting the network from mining cartel abuse are the non-mining nodes. Do not get me started on Satoshi's failure to predict ASICs, and his 1 CPU = 1 vote does not mean 1 ASIC Miner = 1 vote. Otherwise you're basically saying that 1 Bitmain = Bitcoin (assuming they stopped shipping devices for a while and using all of them).

what is

UASF or a POW change is coming, whether you like it or not.

yep mandatory changes, nuking pools, dis-communicating with the natives, does very much sound like government agency talk.

User-activated-soft-fork. Do you even Bitcoin?

[kiklo]

Did the rest of you know lauda is a extortionist,

Funny thing is why does theymos protects lauda so much and not just perma ban her.

The reason is Lauda is Theymos favorite alt account to be an asshole.


 

[jbreher]

Hunh? I was always a BU shill.

FTFY.

Go fuck yourself. A 'shill' is an advocate for hire. Nobody but me pays me for my advocacy of BU. I have fat stacks of Bitcoin, and want what is best for the system. Addocrdingly, I advocate -- on my own dime, mind you -- for BU.

I have also consistently (for about a year) pointing out that non-mining entities (which I had formerly been mistakenly been calling 'non-mining nodes') have essentially zero power to influence the network, and provide essentially zero value to the network at large. I have, though, stated that such non-mining entities are what allow their owners/users to transact in a trustless manner. Benefit to the owner, no benefit to the network.

Which is complete nonsense.

Wallow in your ignorance. If it were not for the fact that your misunderstanding causes you to take a wrong-headed stance on architectural directions for Bitcoin, I wouldn't care.

But what I have recently learned is that Satoshi's definition of 'node' is necessarily limited to entities that mine.

No.

Care to refute what he clearly wrote? Or do you just know better then he/she?

So you know better than Satoshi?

The whole "satoshi" thing builds upon the assumption that miners are honest. We know today that this is not true

Orly? Bitcoin is irredeemably broken? Then why do you expend so much effort upon it?

(ASICBOOST,

Explain to me how this efficiency gain is 'dishonest'. Bear in mind that nothing stops a true attacker from using ASICBOOST against us.

AntBleed,

Explain to me how this misguided feature is dishonest. Bear in mind that there have been exactly zero reports of it being used.

empty blocks

Explain to me how mining empty blocks is 'dishonest'. Bear in mind that it has always been the miners' discretion to include in a block what the miner cares to.

Due to this, everything that you've quoted is nullified.

Bullshit. It would remain true regardless. External circumstances do not affect the veracity of an independent claim.

The primary thing protecting the network from mining cartel abuse are the non-mining nodes.

Bullshit. The primary thing protecting the network from mining cartel abuse is the ability of the users to abandon the chain, leaving it worthless.

Do not get me started on Satoshi's failure to predict ASICs

Your ignorance is showing again:

"At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node."
 - Satoshi Nakamoto

Otherwise you're basically saying that 1 Bitmain = Bitcoin.

...aaand you fail to understand capitalism. If everyone else abdicates their power by refusing to compete with Bitmain, that is not anything you can blame on Bitmain. Don't destroy one of the greatest innovations of our lifetime in order to tilt the playing field. Get in there and build something.

[cryptoanarchist]

Hunh? I was always a BU shill.

FTFY.

Go fuck yourself. A 'shill' is an advocate for hire. Nobody but me pays me for my advocacy of BU. I have fat stacks of Bitcoin, and want what is best for the system. Addocrdingly, I advocate -- on my own dime, mind you -- for BU.

I have also consistently (for about a year) pointing out that non-mining entities (which I had formerly been mistakenly been calling 'non-mining nodes') have essentially zero power to influence the network, and provide essentially zero value to the network at large. I have, though, stated that such non-mining entities are what allow their owners/users to transact in a trustless manner. Benefit to the owner, no benefit to the network.

Which is complete nonsense.

Wallow in your ignorance. If it were not for the fact that your misunderstanding causes you to take a wrong-headed stance on architectural directions for Bitcoin, I wouldn't care.

But what I have recently learned is that Satoshi's definition of 'node' is necessarily limited to entities that mine.

No.

Care to refute what he clearly wrote? Or do you just know better then he/she?

So you know better than Satoshi?

The whole "satoshi" thing builds upon the assumption that miners are honest. We know today that this is not true

Orly? Bitcoin is irredeemably broken? Then why do you expend so much effort upon it?

(ASICBOOST,

Explain to me how this efficiency gain is 'dishonest'. Bear in mind that nothing stops a true attacker from using ASICBOOST against us.

AntBleed,

Explain to me how this misguided feature is dishonest. Bear in mind that there have been exactly zero reports of it being used.

empty blocks

Explain to me how mining empty blocks is 'dishonest'. Bear in mind that it has always been the miners' discretion to include in a block what the miner cares to.

Due to this, everything that you've quoted is nullified.

Bullshit. It would remain true regardless. External circumstances do not affect the veracity of an independent claim.

The primary thing protecting the network from mining cartel abuse are the non-mining nodes.

Bullshit. The primary thing protecting the network from mining cartel abuse is the ability of the users to abandon the chain, leaving it worthless.

Do not get me started on Satoshi's failure to predict ASICs

Your ignorance is showing again:

"At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node."
 - Satoshi Nakamoto

Otherwise you're basically saying that 1 Bitmain = Bitcoin.

...aaand you fail to understand capitalism. If everyone else abdicates their power by refusing to compete with Bitmain, that is not anything you can blame on Bitmain. Don't destroy one of the greatest innovations of our lifetime in order to tilt the playing field. Get in there and build something.

Perfect spot on point-by-point refutation by jbreher of the long line of bullshit drama coming from Blockstream. If those guys spent half as much time actually doing some research and contributing as they do spreading FUD, they might feel better about themselves.

[jonald_fyookball]

Do not get me started on Satoshi's failure to predict ASICs

Your ignorance is showing again:

"At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node."
 - Satoshi Nakamoto
 

This has been pointed out to Lauda and others many times.  

Their argument by repitition is an indication of their desperate attempt at propaganda.

[Kprawn]

I think it says a lot about the Bitcoin protocol when even after all the manipulations to get SegWit added, its STILL FAILING:


LAST 1000 BLOCKS  (past 7 days)

Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 441  ( 44.1% )             
Classic blocks: 10  ( 1% )             
SegWit blocks: 321  ( 32.1% )       
BIP100 blocks: 93  ( 9.3% )

LAST 24 Hours

Unlimited + Classic hashrate is ~2088 PH/s (51.4%)


Even with the sockpuppet brigades, the bought off miners and manipulations, the non-stop stream of BS articles in mainstream-controlled media like 'CoinTelegraph', the outright lies from Core devs, the censorship on this sub and reddit, and all the other facets of this attempted takeover - YOU STILL FAILED!!

You had a good head start, but slowly but surely people are figuring out what SegWit is and they're saying 'No'.

Hey, at least you guys got Litecoin, right?

Yea, and LiteCoin will showcase what can happen when SegWit and later possibly the Lighting network is added. People like you might have to

swallow their words in the future, when everything is set in motion of LiteCoin to succeed. That is if the BU brigade and the miners would give

it a opportunity to succeed. They might just shift their attention to LiteCoin and bring that down too. 

[European Central Bank]

Yea, and LiteCoin will showcase what can happen when SegWit and later possibly the Lighting network is added. People like you might have to

swallow their words in the future, when everything is set in motion of LiteCoin to succeed. That is if the BU brigade and the miners would give

it a opportunity to succeed. They might just shift their attention to LiteCoin and bring that down too. 

the difference is that litecoin was fully prepared to do a uasf. that's how they got segwit. i'd love to see the bitcoin miners try to do something to litecoin. they'd get bitten straight back.

[jackg]

Yea, and LiteCoin will showcase what can happen when SegWit and later possibly the Lighting network is added. People like you might have to

swallow their words in the future, when everything is set in motion of LiteCoin to succeed. That is if the BU brigade and the miners would give

it a opportunity to succeed. They might just shift their attention to LiteCoin and bring that down too. 

the difference is that litecoin was fully prepared to do a uasf. that's how they got segwit. i'd love to see the bitcoin miners try to do something to litecoin. they'd get bitten straight back.

Miners do appear to start to be more accepting of litecoins. Hashnest now offer mining with them along with the regular ASICs for Bitcoin mining that they offer (and based on their website, it looks more profitible than the bitcoin mining). If Bitcoin moved slowly towards that way of working (with the faster blocks and smaller transaction fees) then there would be more poeple using bitcoin and more people sending transactions over the network.