Why Bitcoin Core Developers won't compromise

[Sr.Urbanist]

It's called compromise and the lesser of two evils.

Bitcoin is not evil.

 So taking this to the conclusion...that there will NEVER be a solution between the various flavors of devs on
block size and other issues in the future....

It turns out nobody owns bitcoin and it's difficult.  This is a feature of Bitcoin.  It's not a bug.

[mindrust]

 So taking this to the conclusion...that there will NEVER be a solution between the various flavors of devs on
block size and other issues in the future....

What is the outcome? Bitcoin just fades away as those same entrenched whales simply move BTC to another coin to fight over?

No, you are wrong. There will be a solution eventually. Both sides will push their luck to the end but one of them will not be able to endure anymore and retreat at some point.

This will most likely to happen when transaction fees become 20-30$ average and there are 400-500k unconfirmed transactions on the blockschain.

When all the hopes are lost, when everybody starts to dump bitcoin, when bitcoin heads back to 200$, when WU realizes that he is losing his job and then out of nowhere... The solution will arrive.  

We need to see the bottom first before we can jump to the moon again.

[Sr.Urbanist]

... when WU realizes that he is losing his job and then out of nowhere... The solution will arrive.  

We need to see the bottom first before we can jump to the moon again.

Miners have sunk costs.  They are invested and can't simply pull out their $3000, $6000 or $6000000 invested into sunk costs.  Mining is what makes BTC different than past efforts like PayPal and RipplePay.  I think it's very smart because those who have the most invested - and at stake - are those who guide the long-term solutions. 

If you hold $3000 in BTC, it'd be fairly easy to dump at $2200 and get some money back.  Mining operations would simply either turn off their miners if the price gets too low, which would reduce security, or start mining another SHA256 coin with lower difficulty and greater returns.  Mining is how you vote.

I am mining BU because the slow transaction times and high fees are reducing the quantity demanded, which keeps price down.  Bitcoin Unlimited is the *only* choice for that.  SegWit is to stop double spends and fix hash issues.  They've since said it can be 1.2MB, 2MB, 3MB ... 4MB.

At some point we will get to layer two, but we need to get layer one right and it's going to take time.  That's okay.

[Wintersoldier]

The Lightning Network can take a huge amount of transactions largely offchain.  The idea of having all transactions fully onchain is not a matter of principle, it's a matter of control from miners so that they can receive transaction fees more often.  SegWit allows a slight increase in onchain capacity which is enough for the short term while this offchain scaling can also be implemented.

I agree on the perspective that network within the technology bring a huge or a big impact in regard to the transaction mostly offchain. Thinking that the core developers will think beyond the line in regard to transaction may be on the fact that most of transaction is been made in the principle of onchain because the control is the priority of the community or the developers wants to develop on bitcoin. So the scaling is sure to be implemented because it is much more needed for the users of bitcoin to used bitcoin in a daily basis.

[mindrust]

 Mining operations would simply either turn off their miners if the price gets too low, which would reduce security, or start mining another SHA256 coin with lower difficulty and greater returns.  Mining is how you vote.  

Yep. You got it.

That's how you gonna end up when the shit hits the fan.

Bunch of worthless shitcoin miners or unemployed masses who hold thousands of worthless mining equipment in their garages. And one day, one of y'all BU supporters gonna say fuck it i'm going with SegWit.

Then two of y'all

Then four of y'all

Then ten of y'all

Then all of y'all will be mining Segwits.

[minhlong357200]

As others have explained, there is no security provided to the network by non-mining ‘full nodes’.

[favila]

 So taking this to the conclusion...that there will NEVER be a solution between the various flavors of devs on
block size and other issues in the future....

What is the outcome? Bitcoin just fades away as those same entrenched whales simply move BTC to another coin to fight over?

No, you are wrong. There will be a solution eventually. Both sides will push their luck to the end but one of them will not be able to endure anymore and retreat at some point.

This will most likely to happen when transaction fees become 20-30$ average and there are 400-500k unconfirmed transactions on the blockschain.

When all the hopes are lost, when everybody starts to dump bitcoin, when bitcoin heads back to 200$, when WU realizes that he is losing his job and then out of nowhere... The solution will arrive.  

We need to see the bottom first before we can jump to the moon again.

That's the thing crisis will force a compromise. Miners are happy with moderate rises in price as is happening now because they can continue profiting from their mining operations while the difficulty doesn't take a sharp increase.

As soon as the shit hits the fan and prices start to plunge miners will have a choice either exit the market or compromise and it doesn't take a genius to realize compromise is their only choice.

[Sr.Urbanist]

As others have explained, there is no security provided to the network by non-mining ‘full nodes’.

Mining and "full nodes" are two different things.

Mining = https://shop.bitmain.com/ or https://canaan.io/

Full node = https://bitcoin.org/en/download or https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/download

Many who mine run full nodes.  One solves the puzzle and the other holds a copy of the blockchain. Both are security, but in different ways.

EDIT:  If people want to be paid for running a full node, there is a coin for that: DASH.

Bunch of worthless shitcoin miners or unemployed masses who hold thousands of worthless mining equipment in their garage. And one day, one of y'all BU supporters gonna say fuck it i'm going with SegWit.

Maybe.  Or going from shitcoin to shitcoin and finding the best exchange into BTC, LTC or USD.  It'd take monitoring of the markets daily.  

[Sr.Urbanist]

... miners will have a choice either exit the market or compromise and it doesn't take a genius to realize compromise is their only choice.

SegWit only has one year and there are many other proposals, including BIP100, BIP101 and others.  The default is BIP9 and it will stay that way until most miners are satisfied with a solution.  Nobody owns nor controls Bitcoin.  That is the feature of it.  

Only BTC and LTC did not involve a pre-mine, that I know, and some central authority who owns tons of tokens.

[jbreher]

As others have explained, there is no security provided to the network by non-mining ‘full nodes’.

Mining and "full nodes" are two different things.

Under newspeak, perhaps so. But according to Satoshi, nodes were miners.

[dinofelis]

Full nodes undertake a "UASF" and only accept blocks from the miners that are signaling for segwit and thus bring about a fork.

Well, then these nodes will stop if the block chain has a single block on it not signalling segwit.

That's based on the assumption that at least some of the miners that are currently signaling for segwit would not "switch" (at some point at least)  to build the "segwit" blockchain.

?

The current chain is a succession of blocks that are signalling and not signalling Segwit.   All miners are still building the same block chain, one block on top of the other, some with a segwit signal, others without.  

For instance,
480 000 SW
480 001 SW
480 002 no SW
480 003 no SW
480 004 SW
480 005 SW
etc...

If you run a non-mining node that considers non-SW blocks as invalid, starting from 480 000, then that node will:

accept 480 000 (it is a SW block)
accept 480 001 (it is a SW block)

refuse 480 002: it is a non-SW block.

So it will wait until it finds a SUCCESSOR to block 480 001, but with SW signalling.

That block will never come.

Block 480 004 is the first SW block that comes along, but is not a successor to 480 001.  So it is rejected.  And all others following are rejected, because they are not a successor to 480 001.

The node stops.

That's about it.

When the unique chain is at 497 807, your node is still waiting for the block 480 001 with SW signalling.

[dinofelis]

As others have explained, there is no security provided to the network by non-mining ‘full nodes’.

Mining and "full nodes" are two different things.

Mining = https://shop.bitmain.com/ or https://canaan.io/

Full node = https://bitcoin.org/en/download or https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/download

Many who mine run full nodes.  One solves the puzzle and the other holds a copy of the blockchain. Both are security, but in different ways.

A mining full node is a full node that not only holds a block chain, accepts other blocks from others according to its protocol rules, accepts broadcast transactions that come along but also constructs a new block from its mem pool on top of it according to his own rules, and broadcasts that new block.

This is actually the job of mining POOLS.  Individual "miners" are most probably hardware owners, that sell their hash rate to mem pools, to mine on the blocks that the mining POOL constructed according to its very own rules.

These nodes are the only "source of block chain".  They send out the originals.

EDIT:  If people want to be paid for running a full node, there is a coin for that: DASH.

Every PoS coin is like that.  DASH is half PoW, half PoS.  Peercoin, for instance, is full PoS.  That's the big difference between PoS and PoW: in PoS there's an intimate relationship between user and block chain builder ; in PoW, both notions are totally separated.

[Viper1]

Full nodes undertake a "UASF" and only accept blocks from the miners that are signaling for segwit and thus bring about a fork.

Well, then these nodes will stop if the block chain has a single block on it not signalling segwit.

That's based on the assumption that at least some of the miners that are currently signaling for segwit would not "switch" (at some point at least)  to build the "segwit" blockchain.

That block will never come.

Again, you're basing that on an assumption. It will never come if all miners stop mining their current block when they receive the next one, i.e. they accept the next one no matter what. A miner that joins in the UASF will reject the next one if it's not signaling for segwit and continue mining his block.. So as far as he's concerned, he starts producing 100% segwit blocks. His chain never contains blocks from those that aren't signaling for segwit. And since he's broadcasting his blocks to the the nodes, those full nodes will take them and continue on. So of course it will come.

[dinofelis]

Full nodes undertake a "UASF" and only accept blocks from the miners that are signaling for segwit and thus bring about a fork.

Well, then these nodes will stop if the block chain has a single block on it not signalling segwit.

That's based on the assumption that at least some of the miners that are currently signaling for segwit would not "switch" (at some point at least)  to build the "segwit" blockchain.

That block will never come.

Again, you're basing that on an assumption. It will never come if all miners stop mining their current block when they receive the next one, i.e. they accept the next one no matter what. A miner that joins in the UASF will reject the next one if it's not signaling for segwit and continue mining his block.

Ah, you mean, when the miner pools fork ?  So again, this has nothing to do with Joe running his UASF in his basement, but that miner pool deciding to fork.  We're back in the scenario where the miners fork: some build the classical chain, others build the Segwit chain.  If miners don't decide to fork, like right now, whether you run your blocked UASF node in your basement or not, will not change anything.  If on the other hand, miners do fork, whether you were running your node or not, didn't matter either.  And you don't even need to have such a node around: you can connect your wallet to one of the pure-segwit miners, and you have your coins on the segwit chain, or you can connect your wallet to one of the non-segwit miners, and you have your non-segwit coins.

So we have now two coins: the BTC-segwit coin, and the BTC-non-segwit coin.  Maybe exchanges will list the two coins.  If you want to transact, you will need the two kinds of chains.  But the two kinds of pools have them.  No worry.

And, AGAIN, the non-mining node wasn't involved in this split: it were the segwit miners that decided to fork, and gave rise to two different block chains.

And, again, this will be determined in the market.

[Viper1]

Full nodes undertake a "UASF" and only accept blocks from the miners that are signaling for segwit and thus bring about a fork.

Well, then these nodes will stop if the block chain has a single block on it not signalling segwit.

That's based on the assumption that at least some of the miners that are currently signaling for segwit would not "switch" (at some point at least)  to build the "segwit" blockchain.

That block will never come.

Again, you're basing that on an assumption. It will never come if all miners stop mining their current block when they receive the next one, i.e. they accept the next one no matter what. A miner that joins in the UASF will reject the next one if it's not signaling for segwit and continue mining his block.

Ah, you mean, when the miners fork ?  So again, this has nothing to do with Joe running his UASF in his basement, but that miner deciding to fork.  We're back in the scenario where the miners fork: some build the classical chain, others build the Segwit chain.

So we have now two coins: the BTC-segwit coin, and the BTC-non-segwit coin.  Maybe exchanges will list the two coins.  If you want to transact, you will need the two kinds of chains.

And, AGAIN, the non-mining node wasn't involved in this split: it were the segwit miners that decided to fork, and gave rise to two different block chains.

And, again, this will be determined in the market.

Without the full nodes rejecting the non signaling segwit blocks, the miner would not have decided to forked. Without him forking, the market would not be able to determine the outcome.

[dinofelis]

Without the full nodes rejecting the non signaling segwit blocks, the miner would not have decided to forked. Without him forking, the market would not be able to determine the outcome.

So essentially your proof of power of full nodes is: full nodes have power over miners, because full nodes have power over miners.
No, seriously.  You talk about a "proof of power" and you assume in your proof what you need to prove

In fact, you *don't even need a UASF node* !  If miners decide to fork with a minority segwit chain, and they do this long enough, then this particular minority chain will be 100% segwit signalling.  If you force your core node to connect ONLY to these miner nodes and refuse to have it connect to any other peer in the network, then after a while, your node, not learning about any other block chain on the network, will see as the only chain, one which has been signalling segwit at 100% for long enough, and will ACTIVATE segwit.  From that point on, your node will reject non-segwit blocks, and you can now connect it to the whole network, it will refuse the longest chain as invalid, and continue to consider only the segwit minority chain.

Now suppose that I play a joke.  I launch 8000 UASF nodes (nodes don't cost much).  The minority of miners fork.  I let them mine for a while.   And now I switch off my UASF nodes.  Bam.  They have been mining on a short chain.  All transactions gone.  They've been wasting their hashing rate because some dude started many nodes and they believed it mattered.

IF miners think that it is in their advantage that there is a fork, they don't need to wait for UASF nodes.  And if they think it is risky to leave the main chain, then they will still think it is risky, even if many nodes appear that signal being a UASF.  Again, what matters to them only, is that they can get listed on an exchange as a separate coin.  Whether you run your node in your basement or not doesn't matter.  So the decision to split depends not on that node.  It depends on what they think the market will do, and if they should take the risk to leave the main chain.

[Viper1]

Without the full nodes rejecting the non signaling segwit blocks, the miner would not have decided to forked. Without him forking, the market would not be able to determine the outcome.

So essentially......

Is the full nodes "influencing" some miners to do something they weren't going to do, i.e. to fork, which brings about the situation of the market deciding the outcome them having power or not. And if you say it isn't, why do you not define it as such. Nothing else in your response had anything to do with this question nor has any bearing on an answer to that question.

[AgentofCoin]

Without the full nodes rejecting the non signaling segwit blocks, the miner would not have decided to forked. Without him forking, the market would not be able to determine the outcome.

So essentially your proof of power of full nodes is: full nodes have power over miners, because full nodes have power over miners.
No, seriously.  You talk about a "proof of power" and you assume in your proof what you need to prove
...

Full nodes have the power to accept or deny the miners work.
If majority of the Full Node network denies a certain block, that
block is considered invalid and other miners will ignore that invalid
work. It is essentially a "Veto Power". The miner's work is not always
correct (though they try to be, otherwise they lose their reward). When
the block is propagated, it is spread throughout the network to
determine if a "Veto" is needed. Majority of the time, it is not needed.

If miners choose to ignore what the full node network consensus is
saying and choose to continue to build upon the invalid block, thus
creating an invalid chain, that would be an attack (or a mistake
because miners are not checking other miners work, but trusting
them) on the network and the markets could react by selling, since
Bitcoin's Consensus Mechanism has been proven to be faulty.

This is why any large mining pool with a high to majority hash is
an attack/threat to the network, and Satoshi wrote about it in the
whitepaper. If that mining pool comes to fruition, they singularly
could ignore the full node network and violate the rules. That is
why decentralized mining and decentralized verifying nodes are
important. Without those two decentralized aspects, Bitcoin
becomes a lie and transforms into an average ponzi game.

Simply, Full Nodes today keep the Miner Nodes from unilateral
protocol breaking actions that the blockchain would always accept
without them. Full Nodes hold the miners to the rules. Without them,
the rules aren't enforceable and exist by handshakes and honor.

The fact is, if Full Verifying Nodes (that are real) had no power, than
the miners who wish to hardfork to 2MB could do so right now. Yet,
they do not since they are waiting for the Economic verifying nodes
and a large group of regular verifying nodes to support their cause.
Most miners understand the true significance of Full Nodes, but may
be playing it down since they originally didn't understand the full
importance and power until recently. Many of the miners in China
still believe that Miner Nodes, as outlined by Satoshi, are the only
nodes. They are ignoring 8+ years of evolution within our system
and holding to a document that became outdated within 1.5 years.
If there was "zilch" significance, they should hardfork already and
stop the "scaling debate" cyclical bullshit.

[Sr.Urbanist]

... accepts broadcast transactions that come along but also constructs a new block from its mem pool on top of it according to his own rules, and broadcasts that new block.

This is actually the job of mining POOLS.  Individual "miners" are most probably hardware owners, that sell their hash rate to mem pools, to mine on the blocks that the mining POOL constructed according to its very own rules.

It is really difficult to find a block.  It is really, really difficult to find a block.  It is the individual miner that finds the block.  My miner could find a block.  In fact if you check out https://kano.is/, the pool broadcasts who finds the blocks.

Bolck by bapir with 78TH/s!  Welcome to the Acclaim Board with your 1st Kano block!  

That's number 3 for BLOCK FRIDAY!  

S9v2

Note the S9v2.   That means it is a newer S9.  A person who bought one of the miners found a block and shared it.  S/he could have kept the entire block reward.  People solo mine with older equipment, like S3s and such.  Whenever it is "unknown" it's probably a solo miner.  Good on them!  Most of the time is a larger farm though that has the ability to game.

Meanwhile, the more hashpower = more security = larger market investment = Bitcoin.

It is genius.  Nobody can force their will on others. It takes multiple agents.  

These nodes are the only "source of block chain".  They send out the originals.

Yup.  That's why I run one, but I don't solo mine because the odds are so small of finding one block.  It would maybe take 6 years. It is the individual miner, computer, that finds the blocks.  Because the odds are so small, people pool their hashpower and work together.  It is genius to have division.  

[Sr.Urbanist]

If majority of the Full Node network denies a certain block, that
block is considered invalid and other miners will ignore that invalid
work.

Yeah.  It sucks when that happens or sometimes two blocks are found within miliseconds of each other and one is orphaned. Both stink because you lose your money and, on occasion, it's been 72 hours without a computer pointing to the same pool as you finding and sharing a block reward, which means you haven't covered electricity costs.