Satoshi's original idea...

[squatter]

old nodes are not compatible. they are handed a pidgeon english translation.. theres a difference
its why even the devs clearly pointed out that old nodes become downstream/filtered(their buzzwords) nodes instead of part of the main relay network. they even drew a picture to make it easy to understand.

old nodes do not relay blocks to segwit nodes nor relay segwit transactions. they only receive a stripped down block and then sit on the edge of the network

If older nodes aren't compatible with Segwit, why can I send Segwit outputs to legacy addresses? Why can I receive payments from legacy addresses to my Segwit wallet? Why do older nodes accept Segwit transactions and blocks as valid?

firstly your talking about transactions. not nodes. (nice meander by the way..(facepalm))
learn about the network topology.

Actually, no. This pertains to both transactions and nodes. They are inextricably linked. Segwit nodes can send Segwit outputs to legacy nodes. Legacy nodes can send legacy outputs to Segwit nodes.

This compatibility has absolutely nothing to do with network topology. You're just fundamentally confused about what "compatibility" means, or you're purposefully being dishonest.

also older nodes do not accept segwit transactions as valid. the full validation check of a segwit transaction gets bypassed and is auto deemed as accepted. (not valid(there is a difference)) OLD NODES DO NOT SIGNATURE VERIFY A SEGWIT TX)

Actually, they do accept Segwit transactions as valid. If they didn't, they would reject such blocks. You may want to review how invalidity is treated on the Bitcoin network. Blocks containing invalid transactions are simply ignored.

Legacy nodes can't validate the signature of a Segwit transaction. So what? They still validate the POW, the inputs and outputs, the scripts, etc. Everything is validated the same way as before. Legacy nodes are just 1) accepting and propagating valid transactions from/to the network or 2) receiving valid outputs that have already been accepted by the network.

Your fundamental issue here is with how the Bitcoin protocol works, not Segwit.

imagine your a fully validating node. but you dont want to OPT-IN. you dont download the latest version to opt-in. thus you would think that you are a part of consensus giving a no to the vote.

"Consensus" = the Bitcoin protocol's consensus rules. It's not some sort of a democratic vote or something -- that's never how Bitcoin (or any network) worked.

Segwit is 100% compatible with the consensus rules, so there is nothing for your node to "reject." There is no voting. It's either compatible or not. You don't have any say over that.

If you think node operators should be able to "vote" on everything other compatible nodes do, then you don't understand how networks operate. You don't get to decide what the rest of the network does. You can OPT-OUT if you want by shutting down your "pigeon English" node, but that's the extent of your power.

[franky1]

squatter. so much fail in your statements i think your just twisting things for entertainment

saying that a full node not signature validating deserves a "so what" response. goes to show you dont even understand the concept of being a full validation node.

as for saying one node sends an output to another node.. shows you dont understand what gets transmitted or the whole blockcreation, relay, validation. process

why oh why are soo many of the core defenders so lacking in basic concepts yet keep circling the same social drama play of meandering and bear poking.

squatter you might have better luck joining a kardashian fan club if your just going to follow the same tactics of the other guys.
have a nice day

[DooMAD]

squatter you might have better luck joining a kardashian fan club if your just going to follow the same tactics of the other guys.

The "tactic" of explaining exactly how Bitcoin with SegWit works, you mean?  Squatter makes more sense in a single post than you could ever make in a thousand.  

even the blockchain data can prove that by looking at the time stamp on the blockchains of which first made the diverting block(split)... (psst hint: it was core.. cash didnt even roll out until hours later. even the segwit fans made a big deal that cash didnt make a block for hours.. so how could cash instigate something if they couldnt even make a block to cause a controversal split(logic prevails over social drama tricks))

psst hint:  It was miners.  Core are a dev team, so how could Core instigate something if they definitely couldn't make a block because they aren't even mining?  (logic prevails over anything franky1 has ever posted in his life)

If you were actually capable of logic, you'd also understand that you don't need to have any hashpower at all to fork yourself off the network by running incompatible code.  Whether BCH had barely any hash or no hash at all, it makes no difference in the cold, hard light of uncompromising reality.  If I altered my node to enforce incompatible rules and not follow consensus, I can remove myself from the network at the very next block.  If I'm not mining, my new, incompatible chain will immediately stall.  Would that be Core's fault too in franky1's fantasy lalaland?

[squatter]

squatter. so much fail in your statements i think your just twisting things for entertainment

saying that a full node not signature validating deserves a "so what" response. goes to show you dont even understand the concept of being a full validation node.

I see your strategy now. You throw out walls of text riddled with dishonest statements and inaccuracies, then you neglect to respond to any of the arguments other people make.

This is what I said:

Legacy nodes can't validate the signature of a Segwit transaction. So what? They still validate the POW, the inputs and outputs, the scripts, etc. Everything is validated the same way as before. Legacy nodes are just 1) accepting and propagating valid transactions from/to the network or 2) receiving valid outputs that have already been accepted by the network.

Your fundamental issue here is with how the Bitcoin protocol works, not Segwit.

Legacy nodes validate Segwit transactions in numerous ways. You obviously take serious issue with how Bitcoin scripts work. It upsets you that there are Bitcoin scripts that nodes validate to true without verifying a signature. That's an issue you have with the Bitcoin protocol.

This dynamic was part of Bitcoin's design since inception. Satoshi spoke about this in 2010:

The receiver of a payment does a template match on the script.  Currently, receivers only accept two templates: direct payment and bitcoin address.  Future versions can add templates for more transaction types and nodes running that version or higher will be able to receive them.  All versions of nodes in the network can verify and process any new transactions into blocks, even though they may not know how to read them.

In other words, if you want your node to fully understand every aspect of all transactions, then you should upgrade your node.

Refusing to upgrade to a compatible node isn't a matter of consensus. As long as all different versions remain forward and backward compatible, consensus has never been broken. That's why we're all still on the same network!

as for saying one node sends an output to another node.. shows you dont understand what gets transmitted or the whole blockcreation, relay, validation. process

When you make a groundless statement like that, you should elaborate and explain how it works.

Then I can pick apart the inaccurate/dishonest statements.

[franky1]

psst hint:  It was miners.  Core are a dev team, so how could Core instigate something if they definitely couldn't make a block because they aren't even mining?  (logic prevails over anything franky1 has ever posted in his life)

lol
do you even read code. read bips

the august 1st event. was not about block format.
the event was about a FLAG. yea bitcoin mining pools could have been running bitcoin v0.10 and making legacy blocks on august 1st.(your failure to understand)

 but they were threatened with the mandatory consensus bypass that unless they just simply change a version number (not change block format that requires segwit code).. simply change a version number. they would get their blocks rejected

yep CODE WRITTEN BY DEVS WOULD KILL OFF BLOCKS

it was the mandatory code made by core devs (luke JR and others) that made it that even pools using NON SEGWIT NODES HAD TO (not voluntary) flag a version number to prevent their LEGACY BLOCKS from being rejected

then when the CORE CODE misleadingly activated segwit due to the FAKE VOTE induced by the mandatory threat. weeks later would mining pools actually have to run segwit format blocks

it wasnt an opt-in. it was a stick this bumper sticker on your car to say your a fan, or get off the core road

[franky1]

You obviously take serious issue with how Bitcoin scripts work. It upsets you that there are Bitcoin scripts that nodes validate to true without verifying a signature. That's an issue you have with the Bitcoin protocol.

read what you said atleast 3 times and actually recognise the flaw in why you think a full node should not care
if you think not verifying signatures is cool and fine. then i pitty your lack of care for bitcoin security

[Wind_FURY]

But franky1, Bitcoin is like any other software "experiment" that could fail. It evolves. Plus if "Satosh's Vision" was the goal then would you agree that Bitcoin Cash should be "The Bitcoin"? Do you believe their roadmap to achieve that vision to be technically superior than what the Core developers are doing?

if you think the only choice option is bitcoin core or bitcoin cash. then your still not seeing the bigger picture.
my main gripe is too many people think the only option is cores roadmap or F**k off

Core's roadmap? I have been looking all over bitcoin.org and on Github but I cannot find an "official" roadmap. Can you tell me what you believe Core's roadmap is?

[franky1]

here you go windfury
https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases
it was on bitcoin.org

We, the undersigned, support the roadmap in Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system.

heres the link direct
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

to answer the big issue of consensus bypass (core control the network) and can bypass consensus

Versionbits (BIP9) is approaching maturity and will allow the Bitcoin
network to have multiple in-flight soft-forks. Up until now we’ve had to
completely serialize soft-fork work, and also had no real way to handle
a soft-fork that was merged in core but rejected by the network. All
that is solved in BIP9, which should allow us to pick up the pace of
improvements in the network. It looks like versionbits will be ready
for use in the next soft-fork performed on the network.

read it multiple times without a core defense cap on. but with a bitcoin consensus/security cap on
core are saying they can now change the way the network does things without needing community approval

seriously, thinking not validating signature is ok??!
seriously thinking one team should be allowed to trojan in(inflight SF) new code without network approval(consensus) is ok!?

if anyone says yes to both points then you care nothing about the bitcoin network security and only care that core should be the monarchs
shame on you

[Wind_FURY]

Honestly franky1, I have been thinking about this, "would it be good if a group, or a group of influential groups control the nodes and do a UASF whenever they need to to satisfy their motives?".

That will be a good topic worthy to discuss to open the eyes of the community.

[franky1]

Honestly franky1, I have been thinking about this, "would it be good if a group, or a group of influential groups control the nodes and do a UASF whenever they need to to satisfy their motives?".

That will be a good topic worthy to discuss to open the eyes of the community.

my reply would be
separate teams have separate software that all have their own proposals platform (suggestion box)
then the community(not one team) then poke at the suggestions and improve on them until all teams can agree on one master proposal

then when it comes to a fair agreement/compromise on a fair acceptance. each team then release a version of their software..
lets call it a B version. which thee community can download that includes the master proposal

EG core have version 0.17a which would be the normal version of current active rules. and then a 0.17b that includes the master proposal the community has should high agreement of
where the other teams also have a version B of the same master proposal

then if all the brands version B's show high activation.. then cores next 0.18a(active rules) would the activated master proposal
if the master proposal doesnt get consensus. the its just not activated...  and cores 0.18a wont have the master in it. but atleast each team would get to offer the CHOICE without any brand control fights

that way its not a you need to download only cores latest version or get kicked off the network. but people can download other teams too.. and where the proposal is a separate thing.. thus its not a brand debate. but a consensus debate because the proposals are not forced by any single brand as they are offered by all brands (as version b) while also letting users not be forced into it by them also having the currently active consensus version(a) available to 'no vote'

that way its actually consensus opt-in while having freedom to choose a brand..rather than a follow one team or else

[sinkfish]

every single idea of revolution start with a noble cause. but end up derail from original idea. exploited by opportunist and finally taken by capitalist. bitcoin is no escape. while the freedom is given to people, rich and powerful are even more freedom to expand their control.

[Marshall14]

Was Satoshi's thinking of a real peer-to-peer cash system

While it's almost impossible to be actually sure what satoshi(him/her/they) had in mind,i honestly doubt this creation was built in order to threaten the well known financial system..

The bitcoin is a p2p method of transaction,built in order to increase individual wealth by putting control in the hands of its users,now that's where the conventional system comes in, individuals lack control in it as opposed to the blockchain technology,thats what I think satoshi had in mind..

To give control to users, and leave them an opportunity to invest and get rich,all within their powers, no government,no regulations,no body,no insurance etc
Just the users/enthusiast

[DooMAD]

my reply would be
separate teams have separate software that all have their own proposals platform (suggestion box)
then the community(not one team) then poke at the suggestions and improve on them until all teams can agree on one master proposal

Literally fallen at the first hurdle.  Devs don't have to agree.  Those securing the network do.  Stop telling people to "learn consensus" when you haven't got the slightest clue about it yourself.  I'm sure you would love it if there was another team who would then be in a position to veto all the ideas you personally disagree with, but Bitcoin doesn't work like that and never will. 

As for the rest of your post, you are proposing something that sounds remarkably like the introduction of political parties and a public vote on their manifestos.  Bitcoin is not a democracy and we're not staging your silly little "elections".  All it takes is for the introduction of some campaign contributions and corporate lobbying and suddenly the whole thing is just as corrupt and controlled as the rest of the world is. 

Even by your dismally low standards, that's a truly horrific idea.  If that's the system you want, go make it and see if anyone likes it.  I, for one, categorically do not.  Bitcoin under your style of "governance" would be an unmitigated disaster. 

psst hint:  It was miners.  Core are a dev team, so how could Core instigate something if they definitely couldn't make a block because they aren't even mining?  (logic prevails over anything franky1 has ever posted in his life)

lol
do you even read code. read bips

the august 1st event. was not about block format.
the event was about a FLAG. yea bitcoin mining pools could have been running bitcoin v0.10 and making legacy blocks on august 1st.(your failure to understand)

 but they were threatened with the mandatory consensus bypass that unless they just simply change a version number (not change block format that requires segwit code).. simply change a version number. they would get their blocks rejected

yep CODE WRITTEN BY DEVS WOULD KILL OFF BLOCKS

I'm not the one with the reading problem.  If a dev coded something tomorrow that threw any pool off the network if they produced a block larger than 10 kilobytes, that code doesn't mean anything unless there are nodes who are enforcing that code.  Even if there was a BIP for it.  Even if there was a flag day announced.  Even if all the Core devs agreed and made that the next official Core release.  Nothing actually happens unless network participants are using that software. 

It always comes down to that one simple question which you are totally unable to reconcile with all your crazy ideas about developers enforcing changes:  How are developers forcing people to run this code?  What you're suggesting is that every single person securing this network right now is a gullible fool who has been deceived by a cabal of sinister gatekeepers.  How likely is that really?  What are the odds of that being true?  Apparently we're on a network where no one agrees with the rules that are currently being enforced, but everyone keeps enforcing them anyway?  That's insanity.  Seek help.

If the community run the code which causes these effects you so passionately despise, that still means consensus was reached and those are the rules that will be enforced by the network.  You are the one who doesn't understand consensus because you are pretty much the only lunatic on this entire forum who thinks consensus means the developers are in charge.  It's demonstrably wrong.  Your little crusade is fundamentally misguided.

And in the end, not that many people were actually running the UASF code anyway.  And even if larger numbers of users had been running it, UASF was not the result of any work done in a Core code repository and I challenge you to prove otherwise.  UASF was an alternative client, much like the one you're running.  You might have noticed that some of the most vociferous and militant supporters of User Activated Stumbling Flounder went a little quiet after SegWit got activated by the miners instead of the users.  They didn't get exactly what they wanted either.  Most of them couldn't even square the hypocrisy of what they were arguing for. 

Every single argument I used against the UASF fanboys works against your bullshit arguments too, so perhaps you have more in common with them than you're willing to admit.  Consensus didn't agree with them, just like it doesn't agree with you.  But what the network as a whole does agree in is that we move forward as a chain that has absolutely no significant interest in Emergent Consensus and isn't going to turn into some sort of crooked "democracy", so cry about it all you want.  Your beliefs are terrible and Bitcoin would be far worse if it worked the way you wanted it to. 

[xtrump101]

every single idea of revolution start with a noble cause. but end up derail from original idea. exploited by opportunist and finally taken by capitalist. bitcoin is no escape. while the freedom is given to people, rich and powerful are even more freedom to expand their control.

exactly supposed to be that the spirit of the idea is not to make money but to liberate us from the financial tyrany that we have today but sadly, there are just some greedy ricgh people took that from us.

[franky1]

oh doomad

Nothing actually happens unless network participants are using that software.  

your flip flopping
(now your saying the network had to upgrade to accept cores nw stuff for it to activate (faceplam))

i do laugh.
may i wish you well in your research of actual events. but it seems after so many posts and so many explanations you are just ignoring actually researching.

you have spent so many days insulting, but yet to show any sign of actually researching anything new since you startd your insult spams

CORE didnt need an OPT-IN to get activation.. they just done pidgeon english(your buzzword about compatible nodes) bypass and the mandatory threat car bumper sticker flag(again not needing a node upgrade) or get thrown off the road map
(people didnt need to upgrade their node. nor did it need 95% of the community to run a upgraded node)

(bip9 inflight sf) LEARN IT. i even posted it from the horses mouth and made it red just to make it easier for you just a few posts ago
usaf learn it (mandatory bypass/ controversial fork/ bilateral split(call it what you like, but learn it)
consensus learn it
as you even keep pretending that old node are compatible(full validation nodes) ..
literally is you admitting you know that the community didnt need to OPT-IN because even without upgrading they would still accept some form of data they wont reject.. even if that data cant be fully validated..
thus the community had no vote

the community did not need to upgrade to activate, nor could they reject what core done (without editing their node specifically)
core nodes would have banned nodes and rejected blocks that didnt follow cores plan

again LEARN about the mandatory bypass
the devs literally told you that they can slide in changes without the network consent

[DooMAD]

may i wish you well in your research of actual events.

Ditto to you.  The actual events show that BCH was going to be launched by ViaBTC whatever anyone on the BTC chain (devs, miners, users, literally anyone) decided.  The split was a foregone conclusion.  That's what happened.  

[franky1]

may i wish you well in your research of actual events.

Ditto to you.  The actual events show that BCH was going to be launched by ViaBTC whatever anyone on the BTC chain (devs, miners, users, literally anyone) decided.  The split was a foregone conclusion.  That's what happened.  

because the mandatory consensus bypass was unavoidable.

viabtc, bitcoinABC are the DCG.co puppets
go research they needed to create a separate network to throw the opposers to segwit into.. no one denies that

via and ABC are a group paid for by the same guys that paid for USAF and certain core devs
again go research.

i told you and windfury about the 3 card trick.. but again you stuck head in sand, just to play the social drama games without understanding the underlayer of the games and what actually happened.
the plan was always follow core or F**K off to an altcoin
well done.

my gripe is just that.. well done.
but if you look at the data of which caused which. its still the same group.

and you have not proven that cash forked first.. (hint check the blockchain)

plus. heres the funny.. it just proves your pointless finger pointing at ver and jihan wu. as you just proved to yourself that cash was not created by ver and wu.
they are not devs, they are just PR guys (faceplates with a smile and the occassional middle finger)

if you done your research you would see that the 3 card trick leads back to the same group that want segwit and wanted opposers off the network

NOW GO RESEARCH
oh and you will learn that you are on the right track if your research bumps into the NYA agreement (a little hint for you)
oh and you will furthr learn how deep the social deception goes when you learn about the late 2015 consensus convention that introduced the roadmap.. learn who sponsored it...

[franky1]

doomad.
your debate is pointless
1. i know you love core and defend them.. i get that
2. i know you dont care about bitcoin security/satoshi's vision.. i get that(you think core can and should do as they please)
3. i know your just social drama playing and trying to provoke argument to lead to insults. i get that
4. i know you are just trying to catch me out on some social drama. i get that

your strategy is not new. your buddies done the same thing for a few years. but in the end was meaningless in regards to bitcoin

but try to do some research. and remember this is bitcoin forum. so if you want social drama go to a kardashian fanclub site, go to a pub or go watch some eastenders.

and yes i know the next level of the game is for you to act like the victim. but just remember who keeps poking the bear.
remember its you that interjects into a topic and meanders it into a social drama debate where you throw out the insults
. you can keep playing that game, but to me its just a comedy show..

meanwhile ill keep talking about issues that concern bitcoin security, network changes that occur without consensus and also when i see centralisation changing satoshi's vision into something which is more designed for corporate interest.

one day though. i hope you do the research away from your chums spoonfeedings. and then you have that lightbulb moment to see the big picture

until then, all i can say. with respect. is go research

your main gripe seems to be the false assumption that i want to control the network
flaw in your assumption.
where is my whip, my stick, my bribing, my commits. my code that has any way of making them change.
again you say i want x/y/z but thats your assumption.

my comments on this forum are not to just kiss cores ass..
my comments on this forum are not to just blindly follow core
my comments on this forum are to point out issues that the network is not as open and diverse as satoshis vision wanted it
my comments on this forum are that the code core are trojaning (inflight sw+mandatory bypass) are not helping the BITCOIN community, not helping network security and not doing what the vast comunity want(only 40% want segwit)

this is so that some people may wake up and not just follow core and realise there is more to the network and there should be more to the network than just the core roadmap

i dont usually directly insult. but lets try just once. (its more comedy than insult)
i know your from the UK. but um. are you welsh?
i only ask because it seems you prefer sheep

[DooMAD]

doomad.
your debate is pointless
1. i know you love core and defend them.. i get that
2. i know you dont care about bitcoin security/satoshi's vision.. i get that(you think core can and should do as they please)
3. i know your just social drama playing and trying to provoke argument to lead to insults. i get that
4. i know you are just trying to catch me out on some social drama. i get that

STOP DOUBLE POSTING AND USE THE EDIT BUTTON.

1.  I know you despise core because they ridiculed you that one time.  I defend the right for any developer to code what they want.  I'm sorry if that's too difficult a concept for you to understand.
2:  I know you don't care about consensus because you're an authoritarian..  I get that (Yes, I think ALL DEVELOPERS can and should do as they please).
3.  I know the social drama is in your head and I insult you because you are completely irrational and it's infuriating trying to reason with someone who is incapable of reason.
4.  There is no social drama you are just paranoid delusional and need to be sectioned under the mental health act.

your main gripe seems to be the false assumption that i want to control the network
flaw in your assumption.
where is my whip, my stick, my bribing, my commits. my code that has any way of making them change.
again you say i want x/y/z but thats your assumption.

All the world's previous dictators didn't need code to be a colossal dick, what makes you think you're any different?  All you do is bitch and whine about what core devs should or shouldn't be allowed to do:

core, if it wants to be a reference client should only run current rules.

all the core devs should have their own releases

No, they shouldn't.  Not you call.  Fuck you.

[squatter]

You obviously take serious issue with how Bitcoin scripts work. It upsets you that there are Bitcoin scripts that nodes validate to true without verifying a signature. That's an issue you have with the Bitcoin protocol.

read what you said atleast 3 times and actually recognise the flaw in why you think a full node should not care
if you think not verifying signatures is cool and fine. then i pitty your lack of care for bitcoin security

Full nodes don't care about anything. They just work according to protocol. There's really no call to project that stuff on me -- I'm just explaining how it works. What you're saying doesn't even apply to me since I run a full Segwit node.

It's obvious that you don't appreciate Bitcoin's design at all. Bitcoin isn't some hierarchical organization where "voting" decides what changes are made. Changes are either compatible with the consensus, or they're not. You can update your node, or you can process transactions without understanding them, like Satoshi said. One more time:

The script is actually a predicate.  It's just an equation that evaluates to true or false.  Predicate is a long and unfamiliar word so I called it script.

The receiver of a payment does a template match on the script.  Currently, receivers only accept two templates: direct payment and bitcoin address.  Future versions can add templates for more transaction types and nodes running that version or higher will be able to receive them.  All versions of nodes in the network can verify and process any new transactions into blocks, even though they may not know how to read them.