Why it's the right time to compromise with a 2MB HF (by Core, not the Barry one)

[BillyBobZorton]

The last hours have been extremely interesting.

We have seen the narrative shift from if segwit had to be activated, to how. This is a sign UASF is working.

We've seen the Barry Shillbert agreement, with the frankenstein 2mb+segwitHF coded by Rootstock devs nonsense. Thanks to ASICBOOST and PBOC money, he has enough money to bribe several companies such as Bitpay and the RSK devs.

It all is clear to me now: He has went for segwit as a HF because if segwit gets deployed through a HF, his ASICBOOST scam continues indefinitely. Meanwhile if it's activated with a SF, the ASICBOOST scam is killed forever.

He also got RSK devs on board, which even if I like their smart contracts project, cannot be trusted since they got caught trying to sneak in ASICBOOST crap at a protocol level:

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/866511081463828480

It's just all obvious now. Jihad couldn't care less about segwit, all he wanted was to keep his ASICBOOST scam active, and he found a way by doing it through a HF.

If he does indeed want the best for bitcoin, he will not reject a proposal by Core, with a proper HF to 2MB and not rushed garbage developed by amateurs. This is why Core now must take action, and present a proposal of an immediate MAST segwit SF activation, with an eventual HF blocksize increase to 2MB. The date has to be defined because otherwise it will get rejected. I know Core cannot guarantee anything, but they can show the will to do it at a certain date, it will not depend on them but on the economical majority reacting to it, but if the intention of Core is clear to do it a certain date, Jihad couldn't blame them for not proposing a date.
I think a year from now is enough time to prepare a proper HF, and possibly add in some of the cool technology that is missing and would need a HF to be included. We are going to need a HF eventually anyway, and this is an emergency to get segwit ASAP.

If its accepted, we avoid the possible clusterfuck of a failed UASF, with 2 coins on exchanges which is always confusing and gives bad publicity, and it's definitely rushed to expect all big exchanges to add UASF coins by august.

But if the Core 2MB HF proposal is rejected by miners, then Jihad will show his true face, and UASF will gain even more force, nodes will skyrocket.

This is a checkmate. UASF is already working, the rushed Barry Shillbert agreement is a sign. Now, let's try to get the same compromise but done properly instead of the nonsense proposed in the last hours.

There's already work being done in this direction, approved by relevant devs such as Matt Corallo

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014380.html

I think a PR for this will be easier than a UASF 148 PR. Im waiting to see the reaction of more devs about this. I have no doubt this is the right direction to take now.

[1715328759]

1715328759

[1715328759]

1715328759

[franky1]

silbert is still a blockstreamist. its all just drama. untill there is code that people can review

i find it funny how billy wants to point fingers at the jihan 16% but keeps ignoring the 50% other objectors/abstainers/nayseyer.

anyway billy loves images and graphs..
so

[BillyBobZorton]

silbert is still a blockstreamist. its all just drama. untill there is code that people can review

i find it funny how billy wants to point fingers at the jihan 16% but keeps ignoring the 50% other objectors/abstainers/nayseyer.

anyway billy loves images and graphs..
so

You can keep parroting your nonsense all day, it's irrelevant. Jihan owns way more than 16%, Jihan has unlimited PBOC and ASICBOOST money to keep bribing companies that don't care about anything but money.

Economic majority wants segwit, economic majority rejects BUcoin.

Lightning network with segwit is decentralized, nodes on datacenters is centralized.

[franky1]

nodes on datacenters is centralized.

LOL
you can bait and switch the crap all you like..
you keep parroting the "gigabytes by midnight" nonsense
you keep thinking no witness/prunned nodes (which are not full nodes) is good
you keep thinking cludgy temporary no promise half measure are good
you keep thinking keeping blocks at 1mb to force people into LN permissioned contracts hubs is good

all in all its the same DCG blockstream roadmap or nothing..


you can pretend barry is jihan puppet master, when we all know that he is part of the blockstream one road cartel

all in all its the same DCG blockstream roadmap or nothing..
silbert is the blockstream cartel.

Jihan owns way more than 16%, Jihan has unlimited PBOC and ASICBOOST money to keep bribing companies that don't care about anything but money.

Economic majority wants segwit, economic majority rejects BUcoin.

Lightning network with segwit is decentralized, nodes on datacenters is centralized.

you can bait and switch the crap all you like..
silbert is the blockstream cartel.
http://dcg.co/portfolio/

[dinofelis]

Lightning network with segwit is decentralized, nodes on datacenters is centralized.

I find this not very convincing.   Let us recall what is the centralization pressure in PoW, that has separated the users from the consensus: it are economies of scale in hardware, in electricity.  However, these economies of scale are only rising a little bit: if you double your investment in mining gear, you do not double your margin.  You augment it with a few percent.  This few percent is enough, in the highly competitive market of proof of work, to centralize the PoW stuff so much as to take it out of hands of users. 

But let us think now about the LN.  Here, the margin is going to be the fee % you are going to obtain on LN transactions, over the price of a settlement on chain.  In other words, if you can transact, say, 10 BTC over a channel before you have to settle and "reload", and the LN fee market puts the transaction % at say, 0.1% of the amount, you will win 0.01 BTC of fees, and you will have to pay a settlement on chain, which is maybe 0.008 BTC.  You won 0.002 BTC.  However, if you can transact, say, 1000 BTC over said channel before having to settle, you will win 1 BTC of fees, while your settlement will still be 0.008 BTC.  This time, you won 0.992 BTC net.   In order to be able to transact 1000 BTC in a channel instead of 10 BTC, you'd have to commit about 100 times more BTC in the channel of course, if the fluxes are comparable.  So with 100 times more investment, you found about 500 times more benefit.  Your economies of scale were a factor of 5 !  You invested 100 times more, and your GAIN went up with a factor of 500.

==> you see that the "economies of scale" are not on the percentage level, but are, in our case, 500%.

We see that the LN has a much, much stronger form of economies of scale, namely the concentration of LN hubs into a few big "bank" whale hubs, that can still be very profitable with very low LN fees while smaller fish cannot compete with that.  If you cannot commit thousands of BTC into channels, in order to keep them open a very long time before needing to settle, you cannot offer competitive LN fees. 

The pressure to centralize by economies of scale in an LN network are much, much stronger than with PoW competition.

But there's still another argument that is dangerous.

The LN derives its security from the ability to settle on chain.  However, if the LN contains many more links than can be settled on the chain, then the block chain becomes like "fractional reserve banking".  Some can settle when they want, but all cannot settle when they want.  If, moreover, the room on chain is scarce, settling becomes an expensive affair, but it also becomes a risky affair if you cannot settle in time.

As such, if there are big LN hubs, chances are they will have bought up room on the block chain in agreement with miner pools, for them to be able to settle if ever they don't like some of their customers.  But the other way around will even be more difficult.  Settling will not be permissionless any more.

If you consider that mining pools are centralized, but they contain the essential security room for the settlement of the LN, then the LN is even MORE dependent on these pools than simple transaction are, because people's funds are locked in.

==> the LN only makes sense as a decentralized and permissionless system, if it can settle entirely on-chain at any moment.  The chain has to be potentially bigger than any LN it supports.

[BillyBobZorton]

nodes on datacenters is centralized.

LOL
you can bait and switch the crap all you like..
you keep parroting the "gigabytes by midnight" nonsense
you keep thinking no witness/prunned nodes (which are not full nodes) is good
you keep thinking cludgy temporary no promise half measure are good
you keep thinking keeping blocks at 1mb to force people into LN permissioned contracts hubs is good

all in all its the same DCG blockstream roadmap or nothing..


you can pretend barry is jihan puppet master, when we all know that he is part of the blockstream one road cartel

all in all its the same DCG blockstream roadmap or nothing..
silbert is the blockstream cartel.

Jihan owns way more than 16%, Jihan has unlimited PBOC and ASICBOOST money to keep bribing companies that don't care about anything but money.

Economic majority wants segwit, economic majority rejects BUcoin.

Lightning network with segwit is decentralized, nodes on datacenters is centralized.

you can bait and switch the crap all you like..
silbert is the blockstream cartel.
http://dcg.co/portfolio/

Facts:

Bitcoin running under datacenters (ultimate goal of big blockers) = network centralized at layer 0.

Bitcoin running under an array of decentralized actors running nodes = network decentralized at layer 0.

Even if LN was a disaster and centralized bitcoin at layer 1 (it doesn't), the core of the network would still function in a decentralized way. We the common folk, would still have the power of full validating nodes to take action.

There would be no way out if the core of the network (layer 0) was running under Bitmain Corp. We wouldn't have full nodes to plan anything, we wouldn't have anything, and this is what CIA agents like Gavin and paid shills like you are parroting.


You can keep trying to discuss if 2+2 is or isn't 4, im not up to waste time doing so.

[franky1]

Facts:

Bitcoin running under datacenters (ultimate goal of blockstreamist) = network centralized at layer 0(core).
cludgy lite/prunned/no witness stripped running = network centralized at layer 1
LN hubs set up using core DNS seed preferences = network centralized at layer 2

FTFY

by the way the non blockstream affiliated implementations are not calling for gigabytes by midnight..
thats just your FUD to get people to blindly walk in the middle of the core road
then get 1dimensional dinofelis and his sheep to stupidly hypnotise more sheep to running prunned/no witness nodes is good
that running full nodes is meaningless..

go on tell the community,.. who really has been harping on that prunned no witness cludgy software is good.. oh its blockstream

last things... check dcg.co and look for bloq (aka gavin)
yep gavin and hearne are just the drama puppets of the same blockstream/silbert plan for steering towards the bankers hyperledger highway via the blockstream roadmap

[BillyBobZorton]

Facts:

Bitcoin running under datacenters (ultimate goal of blockstreamist) = network centralized at layer 0(core).
cludgy lite/prunned/no witness stripped running = network centralized at layer 1
LN hubs set up using core DNS seed preferences = network centralized at layer 2

FTFY

by the way the non blockstream affiliated implementations are not calling for gigabytes by midnight..
thats just your FUD to get people to blindly walk in the middle of the core road
then get 1dimensional dinofelis and his sheep to stupidly hypnotise more sheep to running prunned/no witness nodes is good
that running full nodes is meaningless..

go on tell the community,.. who really has been harping on that prunned no witness cludgy software is good.. oh its blockstream

last things... check dcg.co and look for bloq (aka gavin)
yep gavin and hearne are just the drama puppets of the same blockstream/silbert plan for steering towards the bankers hyperledger highway via the blockstream roadmap

You didn't fix shit.

Core's first priority has been to keep the blocksize as conservative as possible because they care about the fact that people should be able to run their own nodes, unlike CIA agents Gavin Andressen and company.

Anything that breaks this principle goes against the network decentralization at the very layer 0.

Your posts continue being stupid nonsense with mixed half truths.

About this Barry Shillbert agreement, the only reason Jihad wants a HF for segwit is to keep his covert ASICBOOST scam going on, and also wants to kick Core from developing this and conveniently hired RSK devs which got caught by Core devs trying to put covert ASICBOOST friendly crap on the code. What a fucking loser.

[BillyBobZorton]

Wang Chun from f2pool shows interest in the segwit SF + 2MB HF being discussed on the bitcoin dev mailist.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014380.html

The reply:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014412.html

Wang Chun 1240902 at gmail.com
Wed May 24 16:02:09 UTC 2017

I think we should go for 75%, same Litecoin. As I have said before, 95% threshold is too high even for unconventional soft forks.

So looks like f2pool would be down to do this the right way.

[European Central Bank]

Wang Chun from f2pool shows interest in the segwit SF + 2MB HF being discussed on the bitcoin dev mailist.

good to see some actual back and forth. responses and opinions seem to have thin on the ground so far.

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

silbert is still a blockstreamist. its all just drama. untill there is code that people can review

i find it funny how billy wants to point fingers at the jihan 16% but keeps ignoring the 50% other objectors/abstainers/nayseyer.

anyway billy loves images and graphs..
so

Does the community here read things and are blind to the fact that most 'changes'/'implementations' to bitcoin protocol are trojan horses to put Bitcoin to death?

Bitcoin is the best working decentralized global store of value that can be simply easily transmitted across the world. It is superior to Stocks, Gold, and Real Estate.

If you let banksters and the ignorant change the code, you will witness the writing of history of bitcoins demise...

[olliedickman]

I do not understand any shit about this and I am still a noob in this forum. Anyhow, 2mb is better than 1mb and we can solve the transactions issues. I want 2mb and segwit right now

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

I do not understand any shit about this and I am still a noob in this forum. Anyhow, 2mb is better than 1mb and we can solve the transactions issues. I want 2mb and segwit right now

750kb is superior to all.

1mb is better than 2mb.

Decentralization is superior to centralization.

[25hashcoin]

100% agreed, we need a reinstated HK agreement but with this time all parties signed on and held accountable who need to be. It doesn't have to be the same, but we need Segwit MASF followed by a 2mb or other blocksize increase HF. Only problem is, does Core want this? Does Blockstream want this? Will they even make the proposal, or are they dead set in their ways of no blocksize increase or UASF? We need Core to speak up and put something real back on the table now. Also, if they do this, will Bitmain and Co be willing accept it? Or is it truly only about asicboost now?


Sidenote: Here's RSKs response. They were involved, but DID NOT sign the agreement: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6d7gzi/rootstock_rsk_labs_didnt_sign_the_consensus_2017/

[dinofelis]

Facts:

Bitcoin running under datacenters (ultimate goal of big blockers) = network centralized at layer 0.

Bitcoin running under an array of decentralized actors running nodes = network decentralized at layer 0.

Fact: the sole block chain being made by a few data centers = bitcoin centralized at layer 0.  Whether the network copies that on many proxies, or everyone goes and fetches the original, doesn't change the decentralization.

Decentralization is not distributivity.   Decentralization is "power of decision".  Distributivity is "many proxies".  Facebook is entirely centralized on its CEO.  If Mark Zuckerberg decides on a strategy, that will be what Facebook will do.  But Facebook is very highly distributed.  It has thousands or more nodes throughout the world and a very distributed network.

Bitcoin's decision power resides entirely in the hands of those who make the unique block chain.  Hence, if there are only a few data centres making these decisions, this is where the power resides.  If bitcoin's network has thousands of full nodes, it has high distributivity, like Facebook.  

In other words, the number of full nodes that hold an exact copy of whatever the miners have produced, does zilch to the decision power, but adds to the distributivity of the network, making it resistant to internet failures, data centre overloads, DDoS etc.... But it doesn't help in decentralization, because decision power is only in the hands of those who make the unique block chain.

Proof.  Suppose that bitcoin has 1 million full nodes, and only one miner, that has 99% of the hash rate (say, the Chinese government) even though we believe that there are 20 different mining pools.  Tell me what happens if the full nodes decide to implement, say, segwit, and the Chinese government switches to 20 MB blocks.

Even if LN was a disaster and centralized bitcoin at layer 1 (it doesn't), the core of the network would still function in a decentralized way. We the common folk, would still have the power of full validating nodes to take action.

You cannot take action if the only chain out there doesn't correspond to what you would like.  The only thing that happens is that your full node stops syncing.

[Yogafan00000]

Proof.  Suppose that bitcoin has 1 million full nodes, and only one miner, that has 99% of the hash rate (say, the Chinese government) even though we believe that there are 20 different mining pools.  Tell me what happens if the full nodes decide to implement, say, segwit, and the Chinese government switches to 20 MB blocks.

I'm no expert but I think what happens is you get a fork where all the hashpower goes to the 20MB block fork but those dumb bastards can't sell their coins because all the exchanges are broken.

The price plummets for months until someone can turn on a Radeon 5830 to mine on the segwit side until the difficulty drops after weeks or months. Segwit gets activated and we can all buy used chinese mining hardware at a super discount on ebay.

#UASF