BitPico throwing down against Roger Ver

[Wind_FURY]

"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
     - 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System', Satoshi Nakamoto

The words of Satoshi. Do you believe we should follow it like a religion?

No. At least not just because they are The Words Of Satoshi. But it does concisely explain how Bitcoin actually operates. No matter how much bloviating is directed to the incorrect impression that non-mining entities have any enforcement power over the chain consensus, the design decision of the miners determining the rules is unchanged. As it should.

But that is not the case on how Bitcoin operates today.

You are incorrect. It is exactly how bitcoin operates today.

Ok so from your point of view it was the miners that agreed and decided to activate Segwit without outside pressure?

Whether or not subject to outside pressure, it was indeed the miners that activated The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

That did not answer the question. Did or did the miners not succumb from outside pressure and went along to activate Segwit? Or do you believe they did the decision by themselves?

Yes, it answered the question fully. There is no way of knowing what the motivation of any party is, as that is internal to their mind only. All we can know is what happened - which is that miners activated Segwit.

We know what the answer is. If the miners activate it under their own prerogative, it would have activated some months before August, 2017. But you are free to believe what you believe.

Hypothetical situation, what if the miners disagree with the economic majority in activating something and the economic majority announces that it will activate and enforce it themselves and take the risk of a chain split?

In such a case, it would be a Mexican standoff until one or the other groups capitulates. There is no a priori way to determine which group would cave. For while it is true that a chain that nobody wants (as if it would be nobody) is worthless, similarly a chain that cannot be traded upon is also worthless.

But a more important question to ask would be why it is that you think that non-mining, validating entities -- the most Sybil-able group in the ecosystem -- has anything to do whatsoever with economic power?

But that was not what I was asking. I was asking about the importance of non-mining nodes enforcing the rules and validating transactions and blocks themselves. If there was "economic power" that would come with it, it would be secondary or a side effect.

No. See my bolding of your quote. You were not asking about the importance of non-mining validators. You asked about a divergence between miners' desires, and desires of the economic majority. You seem to me to imply that non-mining validator count is an indication of economic majority. If this indeed be your claim, I call bullshit. Non-mining validators are a trivial cost to spin up any number of sybil clones. As opposed to mining power or demonstrated coin hodlings.

Nevertheless, I am asking why you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

But if the miners came to decide to do a Sybil attack because it is "easy", do you believe that the economic majority running non-mining nodes will follow? Would it not cause another chain-split? Do you really believe that the miner's chain will be called "the Bitcoin"?

Why are you dodging my question? Answer the question I posed to you above.

And again, you seem to be laboring under some delusion that non-mining validators have some relation to economic power. What is your justification for this assumption?

All exchanges run their own nodes. All the merchants also run nodes. There are users who run nodes to have their own view of the blockchain and to validate transactions. Any node not following the rules will be rejected. Do you believe the miners have all the "power" and expect the everyone to follow whatever they want to do in the network without risking a chain split?

You do realize who you are arguing with

Haha. I gotta ask. Just whoop you think I am?

A paid shill

does not matter what you believe in

Future proves past

nice timing

Do they pay in Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin? Haha.

[Zin-Zang]

about a month has passed from this, so can someone give us a summary of what exactly happened. i honestly missed it and the media seems to only have talked about the initial intention to spam attack and then talk about nodes and how centralized they are based on Bitpico tweet about their nodes being banned!!! but i can't find what happened to the blocks.
like for example what was this 6MB block that took nodes 40+GB RAM to verify?

BitPico said within 6 weeks, so he still has until August 7,2018 before his supposed time window is up.

You can monitor his twitter : https://twitter.com/bitpico?lang=en

Aside from claiming to record Bitcoin Cash node IP address, not really much else mentioned so far.

[nutildah]

about a month has passed from this, so can someone give us a summary of what exactly happened. i honestly missed it and the media seems to only have talked about the initial intention to spam attack and then talk about nodes and how centralized they are based on Bitpico tweet about their nodes being banned!!! but i can't find what happened to the blocks.
like for example what was this 6MB block that took nodes 40+GB RAM to verify?

It would appear the attack failed, the reason given (as you mentioned) was their 800 nodes were banned from the network, which can be seen as an act of centralization. Blocks don't seem to be of any size out of the ordinary, at an average of 70-80 kb (pretty miniscule). Still, the network remains in tact.



Regardless, this coin is a joke led by mass deception, and after what Roger did with bitcoin.com it should be evident to anybody capable of critical thought that he's something of a greed-driven, egotistical madman.

[Wind_FURY]

about a month has passed from this, so can someone give us a summary of what exactly happened. i honestly missed it and the media seems to only have talked about the initial intention to spam attack and then talk about nodes and how centralized they are based on Bitpico tweet about their nodes being banned!!! but i can't find what happened to the blocks.
like for example what was this 6MB block that took nodes 40+GB RAM to verify?

Regardless, this coin is a joke led by mass deception, and after what Roger did with bitcoin.com it should be evident to anybody capable of critical thought that he's something of a greed-driven, egotistical madman.

Roger Ver also used his website to threaten Bity to list Bitcoin Cash or "he would remove the exchange from bitcoin.com's exchange listing". Haha.



I have said this before. Bitcoin Cash would be a better network without Roger Ver and Craig Wright.

[nutildah]

I have said this before. Bitcoin Cash would be a better network without Roger Ver and Craig Wright.

Oof. Forgot about Craig Wright, aka Satoshi Nakamoto. Two of the biggest known liars in the cryptosphere.

Its like, how much money is enough? The average GDP of all the countries in the world is $17,300, yet these two multimillionaires throw their weight around trying to bend reality for even more personal financial gain, instead of promoting cryptocurrency for what it was intended: helping the average person by leveling the financial playing field.

I don't think all the money in the world would be enough for these two. They are driven by a weird, deep-seeded psychological need to be recognized as God, or something.

[artamon]

The fact that they use the word bitcoin in their coin shows how much confidence they have on their coin. We cannot say it was unintentional, he did it on purpose to fool others.

[Wind_FURY]

I have said this before. Bitcoin Cash would be a better network without Roger Ver and Craig Wright.

Oof. Forgot about Craig Wright, aka Satoshi Nakamoto. Two of the biggest known liars in the cryptosphere.

Its like, how much money is enough? The average GDP of all the countries in the world is $17,300, yet these two multimillionaires throw their weight around trying to bend reality for even more personal financial gain, instead of promoting cryptocurrency for what it was intended: helping the average person by leveling the financial playing field.

No, I believe the end goal of Bitcoin, and I cannot speak for other cryptocurrencies, is censorship resistance. Plus decentralization is only the means to reach that goal, which many people mistake as "it, decentralization," as the goal.

I don't think all the money in the world would be enough for these two. They are driven by a weird, deep-seeded psychological need to be recognized as God, or something.

They also love conspiracy theories, https://news.bitcoin.com/why-is-blockstream-working-with-national-spies-sigint-humint/

[jbreher]

You do realize who you are arguing with

Haha. I gotta ask. Just whoop you think I am?

A paid shill

Where's my pay? Do you dole it out? You owe me big time, dude (or dudette).

[Wind_FURY]

...

Jeebus buck this is getting tiresome. Answer the flipping question:

Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

Read my posts, the answer is there.

Because they can reject blocks and transactions that are invalid on the network. If the miners start pushing their own agenda and the economic majority resists, there is nothing the miners can do but to risk a chain split or follow the network rules.

I have said this before. Bitcoin Cash would be a better network without Roger Ver and Craig Wright.

Well, you're not making much sense. What would you have us do? Expel Roger and Craig? Surely, you can understand that in the permissionless environment, that would be impossible.

Right?

Publicly denounce him.

[jbreher]

...

Jeebus buck this is getting tiresome. Answer the flipping question:

Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

Read my posts, the answer is there.

Because they can reject blocks and transactions that are invalid on the network. If the miners start pushing their own agenda and the economic majority resists, there is nothing the miners can do but to risk a chain split or follow the network rules.

Is your brain broken? You have done nothing to answer the question. The question is not about miners vs. economic majority. Re-read, absorb the meaning, and reply to the actual question.

[Wind_FURY]

...

Jeebus buck this is getting tiresome. Answer the flipping question:

Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

Read my posts, the answer is there.

Because they can reject blocks and transactions that are invalid on the network. If the miners start pushing their own agenda and the economic majority resists, there is nothing the miners can do but to risk a chain split or follow the network rules.

Is your brain broken? You have done nothing to answer the question. The question is not about miners vs. economic majority. Re-read, absorb the meaning, and reply to the actual question.

Because the more nodes there are, the more node decentralization there is, and the more the network is resilient.

But you believe that only miners should run nodes, right? How is that good for the network where there is miner cartelization?

[jbreher]

Really!? Exactly why has my post been deleted? It is exactly on-topic, and it is not abusive to any other participants. Exactly what drew your ire?

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

about a month has passed from this, so can someone give us a summary of what exactly happened.

Yeah. Nothing.

Not to mention the other posts you deigned to eradicate... uncomfortable truths, Mr Moderator?

[jbreher]

...

Jeebus buck this is getting tiresome. Answer the flipping question:

Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

Read my posts, the answer is there.

Because they can reject blocks and transactions that are invalid on the network. If the miners start pushing their own agenda and the economic majority resists, there is nothing the miners can do but to risk a chain split or follow the network rules.

Is your brain broken? You have done nothing to answer the question. The question is not about miners vs. economic majority. Re-read, absorb the meaning, and reply to the actual question.

Because the more nodes there are, the more node decentralization there is, and the more the network is resilient.

But you believe that only miners should run nodes, right? How is that good for the network where there is miner cartelization?

No. I never claimed that "only miners should run nodes".

And again, you have not answered the question:

Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

[Wind_FURY]

...

Jeebus buck this is getting tiresome. Answer the flipping question:

Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

Read my posts, the answer is there.

Because they can reject blocks and transactions that are invalid on the network. If the miners start pushing their own agenda and the economic majority resists, there is nothing the miners can do but to risk a chain split or follow the network rules.

Is your brain broken? You have done nothing to answer the question. The question is not about miners vs. economic majority. Re-read, absorb the meaning, and reply to the actual question.

Because the more nodes there are, the more node decentralization there is, and the more the network is resilient.

But you believe that only miners should run nodes, right? How is that good for the network where there is miner cartelization?

No. I never claimed that "only miners should run nodes".

I never said you did. But maybe I assumed that you agreed with it because you support Roger Ver, Craig Wright, and Bitcoin Cash. Sorry. But do you believe that only miners should run full nodes?

And again, you have not answered the question:

Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

Because it gives the economic majority, merchants, exchanges and users all together to enforce the rules of the network. The more nodes there are, the more resilient the network will be. But explain to me why you believe not and why I am wrong.

Maybe you are also right that, at full scale, Bitcoin's consensus security does not come from the amount of full nodes. But we will never go to a point of "security at full scale" if the users' ability to run their own nodes are taken away from them, and to let the miners freely dictate consensus.

[jbreher]

No. I never claimed that "only miners should run nodes".

I never said you did. But maybe I assumed that you agreed with it because you support Roger Ver, Craig Wright, and Bitcoin Cash.

You know what I find hilarious? The apparent OCD need that small blockers have to insert personalities such as Roger and Craig (and the other favorite boogieman, whom you missed - Jihan) into every conversation about Bitcoin Cash. I do not 'support' such personalities. Their existence is completely irrelevant to my 'support' of Bitcoin Cash, which I support for its superior properties.

Just. Get. Over. It.

Sorry. But do you believe that only miners should run full nodes?

No. I believe that nobody should be barred from running non-mining validators. As an example, I am not a miner, and I run a non-mining validator. Several actually. But I am not laboring under any false pretense that my running of these non-mining validators brings any benefit to the Bitcoin network. They might benefit me as an end user in my ability to transact purely permissionlessly, but they do nothing for the network as a whole.

And again, you have not answered the question:

Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

Because it gives the economic majority, merchants, exchanges and users all together to enforce the rules of the network.

Do you believe you have answered the question with the statement above? Because you have not. I don't know whether you are being intentionally obtuse, or if you are just suffering some cognitive dissonance. Let me try again. There is a concept of 'economic power' it is measured in actual holdings of Bitcoin (whether BTC or BCH as appropriate per network) - fundamentally, after stripping away all the bullshit, this is a scalar quantity. There is also an absolute count of the number of non-mining validators - another integer. The question is: Why do you think that knowledge of the integer number of non-mining validators has anything whatsoever to do with the integer that is a measure of economic power?

[Wind_FURY]

No. I never claimed that "only miners should run nodes".

I never said you did. But maybe I assumed that you agreed with it because you support Roger Ver, Craig Wright, and Bitcoin Cash.

You know what I find hilarious? The apparent OCD need that small blockers have to insert personalities such as Roger and Craig (and the other favorite boogieman, whom you missed - Jihan) into every conversation about Bitcoin Cash. I do not 'support' such personalities. Their existence is completely irrelevant to my 'support' of Bitcoin Cash, which I support for its superior properties.

Just. Get. Over. It.

I know, and I'm sorry. It is maybe because of Bitcoin Cash's history of being closely related to Roger Ver and Jihan Wu. Some Bitcoiners also believe that they control Bitcoin Cash. Personally, I give their community the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry. But do you believe that only miners should run full nodes?

No. I believe that nobody should be barred from running non-mining validators. As an example, I am not a miner, and I run a non-mining validator. Several actually. But I am not laboring under any false pretense that my running of these non-mining validators brings any benefit to the Bitcoin network. They might benefit me as an end user in my ability to transact purely permissionlessly, but they do nothing for the network as a whole.

Yes but it also benefits you by having a "voice" in the network. I know you would argue against the success of the USAF and NO2X, but they are two examples of having a voice and acting on it by running thr node.

And again, you have not answered the question:

Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

Because it gives the economic majority, merchants, exchanges and users all together to enforce the rules of the network.

Do you believe you have answered the question with the statement above? Because you have not. I don't know whether you are being intentionally obtuse, or if you are just suffering some cognitive dissonance. Let me try again. There is a concept of 'economic power' it is measured in actual holdings of Bitcoin (whether BTC or BCH as appropriate per network) - fundamentally, after stripping away all the bullshit, this is a scalar quantity. There is also an absolute count of the number of non-mining validators - another integer. The question is: Why do you think that knowledge of the integer number of non-mining validators has anything whatsoever to do with the integer that is a measure of economic power?

Are we talking about representation of the economic majority by running full nodes or economic power? But even "economic power measured in actual holdings" cannot over-power the economic majority as the failure of the NYA has shown, correct?

[jbreher]

Are we talking about representation of the economic majority by running full nodes or economic power?

No. The economic majority wields economic power. My fault for introducing a new term, albeit meant to be a synonym.

But you have again sidestepped the question:
Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

[Wind_FURY]

Are we talking about representation of the economic majority by running full nodes or economic power?

No. The economic majority wields economic power. My fault for introducing a new term, albeit meant to be a synonym.

The economic majority wields some power but not all the power in the network. Everyne must also be in consensus or else there is a chain split.

But you have again sidestepped the question:
Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

I did not sidestep the question. I answered you before and I will give you the same answer again.

The network needs non-mining full nodes to economically enforce the rules on the miners, and the more the better to make the network more resilient. If there are no non-mining full nodes running in the network, then we only have a network with the miners making their own rules.

But tell me why you believe that the higher count of non-mining full nodes have no bearing on the network. Would it not be easier for miners to do a Sybil attack if the non-mining full node count is very low?

[jbreher]

But you have again sidestepped the question:
Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

I did not sidestep the question. I answered you before and I will give you the same answer again.

The network needs non-mining full nodes to economically enforce the rules on the miners, and the more the better to make the network more resilient. If there are no non-mining full nodes running in the network, then we only have a network with the miners making their own rules.

You may think you have not sidestepped the question, but you certainly have not answered it. Nothing in your paragraph about needing non-mining nodes says anything whatsoever about the economic majority.

I will try one last time to rephrase. If you answer with yet another non-sequitur, then I am done with this conversation.

Why do you think that the number of non-mining validators is a measure of the economic majority?

[Wind_FURY]

But you have again sidestepped the question:
Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

I did not sidestep the question. I answered you before and I will give you the same answer again.

The network needs non-mining full nodes to economically enforce the rules on the miners, and the more the better to make the network more resilient. If there are no non-mining full nodes running in the network, then we only have a network with the miners making their own rules.

You may think you have not sidestepped the question, but you certainly have not answered it. Nothing in your paragraph about needing non-mining nodes says anything whatsoever about the economic majority.

I will try one last time to rephrase. If you answer with yet another non-sequitur, then I am done with this conversation.

Why do you think that the number of non-mining validators is a measure of the economic majority?

Because if each real user and each real merchant ran a Bitcoin full validating node, it is, because they all validate and enforce the rules. If they did not run one for reasons like "the only nodes that matter are the mining nodes" then what is stopping the miners from changing the rules?

But you are sidestepping my question too. Why do you believe that a higher count of non-mining nodes have no bearing on the network? Would it not centralize all power towards miners if there are no non-mining full nodes?