It seems luke-jr is ready to make his own shitcoin forked version of Bitcoin :P

[stompix]

someone to Reddit in a topic like this blame me that i am troll and i must not criticise devs because i own to them my profits from Bitcoin.
With the same logic i own profits and to Gavin and Mike hearn

You should really shut up, bow down, ass up and open your....to the mighty devs!!!

Funny how this idolizing of some people has reached this level nowadays, less widespread in BTC but with a lot of people who would try everything to make you shut up if you dare to even doubt the devs of a token or a shitcoin.

Probably a lot of hodlers are so scared of anything bad coming up that they would go against the very principles of cryptos by imposing censorship and centralization just to see their investments safe.

Who the hell is luke-jr and why should we care about this?

One of the people that can be labeled as "developers" for BTC and to be fair I think he is still the most active one.
But unfortunately, he has a lot...a lot of crazy ideas.
And this might be one of those.

[1714806216]

1714806216

[1714806216]

1714806216

[1714806216]

1714806216

[1714806216]

1714806216

[1714806216]

1714806216

[squatter]

I don't ever get how this guy gets any attention. He always seems to be up to the dumbest shit and opinions of all time. And yet he's always headline news.

He's made hundreds of contributions to Bitcoin Core and maintains the BIP process. He's the one who realized Segwit could be implemented as a soft fork -- prior to that, it wasn't a serious option. He was probably integral in getting Segwit activated on the network by championing BIP148.

He has some good ideas and also some really bad ones. It can help to have conservative engineers like him involved, even if their ideas won't agree with the consensus most of the time. They see things that other people can't and can provide important counterpoints in technical discussions.

[chek2fire]

It seems that after big blockers the next group that will leave bitcoin will be the "tiny blockers"

https://twitter.com/BitcoinErrorLog/status/1094731496638873600

we will see more of this new fork drama in the next months imo.

[BrewMaster]

It seems that after big blockers the next group that will leave bitcoin will be the "tiny blockers"

https://twitter.com/BitcoinErrorLog/status/1094731496638873600

we will see more of this new fork drama in the next months imo.

from what i see, there is no actual fork drama. people have been making this bigger than it really is, not to mention that it is not even a new thing! this weird looking proposal has been around for a long time (over a year?). and i suspect it has something to do with the price and the fact that some groups still want to lower it more.

[franky1]

I don't ever get how this guy gets any attention. He always seems to be up to the dumbest shit and opinions of all time. And yet he's always headline news.

He's made hundreds of contributions to Bitcoin Core and maintains the BIP process. He's the one who realized Segwit could be implemented as a soft fork -- prior to that, it wasn't a serious option. He was probably integral in getting Segwit activated on the network by championing BIP148.

He has some good ideas and also some really bad ones. It can help to have conservative engineers like him involved, even if their ideas won't agree with the consensus most of the time. They see things that other people can't and can provide important counterpoints in technical discussions.

and there it is squatter pumped the "conservative" speach..
ok squatter has now entered what seems to be the echo chamber of the core defence league andd centralist loving crowd

P.S bip 148 was not soft. ys he was instrumental in it. but in no way was 148 soft. it was controversial hard fork
hint august 1st.

[squatter]

I don't ever get how this guy gets any attention. He always seems to be up to the dumbest shit and opinions of all time. And yet he's always headline news.

He's made hundreds of contributions to Bitcoin Core and maintains the BIP process. He's the one who realized Segwit could be implemented as a soft fork -- prior to that, it wasn't a serious option. He was probably integral in getting Segwit activated on the network by championing BIP148.

He has some good ideas and also some really bad ones. It can help to have conservative engineers like him involved, even if their ideas won't agree with the consensus most of the time. They see things that other people can't and can provide important counterpoints in technical discussions.

and there it is squatter pumped the "conservative" speach..
ok squatter has now entered what seems to be the echo chamber of the core defence league andd centralist loving crowd

P.S bip 148 was not soft. ys he was instrumental in it. but in no way was 148 soft. it was controversial hard fork
hint august 1st.

BIP148 was controversial, but it was coded as a soft fork. Not all soft forks are backward compatible. That's one of things that upset me so much about the BIP148 camp -- they marketed it as a backward compatible soft fork, which was completely false and deceptive. Of course, no UASF can be a priori backward compatible because soft forks require majority hashrate to remain compatible. Indeed, one might call it a "soft-hard" fork because it was a soft fork that was extremely likely to cause a network split.

As you may be able to tell, I was vehemently opposed to BIP148. It was incredibly reckless to do on such a short timeline and I honestly lost a lot of respect for the people who pushed it. I also think Luke is an asshole who puts his own misguided principles above all else, including the health of the Bitcoin network.

But credit where credit is due: Segwit never would have activated if not for BIP148.

[pooya87]

BIP148 was controversial, but it was coded as a soft fork. Not all soft forks are backward compatible. That's one of things that upset me so much about the BIP148 camp -- they marketed it as a backward compatible soft fork, which was completely false and deceptive. Of course, no UASF can be a priori backward compatible because soft forks require majority hashrate to remain compatible. Indeed, one might call it a "soft-hard" fork because it was a soft fork that was extremely likely to cause a network split.

As you may be able to tell, I was vehemently opposed to BIP148. It was incredibly reckless to do on such a short timeline and I honestly lost a lot of respect for the people who pushed it. I also think Luke is an asshole who puts his own misguided principles above all else, including the health of the Bitcoin network.

when speaking of things such as BIP148 it is best to avoid using terms such as hard/soft fork, backward compatibility,... instead i tend to stick to the fact that it was a fork and it had very little support from both miners and nodes and the risk of splitting the network into two was extremely high.
not to mention that proposals such as BIP148 with their low threshold must not exist in a decentralized consensus based system. in other simple words "if you can't reach consensus you shouldn't force it".

that is why i was against it. if you look at SegWit proposal itself you can see it was designed to be activated with a high support of 95% and that is how consensus should work and that is how bitcoin has always worked.

[franky1]

BIP148 was controversial, but it was coded as a soft fork. Not all soft forks are backward compatible.
..
Indeed, one might call it a "soft-hard" fork because it was a soft fork that was extremely likely to cause a network split.

But credit where credit is due: Segwit never would have activated if not for BIP148.

1. bip 148 was a controversial HARD fork. it was coded to be a hard fork, it performed as a hardfork. but was 'social dramatised' buzzworded as soft purely by the use of some baseball caps that samson mow handed out. and false promotions by the DCG NYA that pay blockstream/luke/mow and all them involved
basball caps and twitter pics does not make something hard go soft.(unless your looking at porn and then the next pic you see is trump wearing a 'make america ggreat again' cap )

2. one might call it an elephant or a helicopter. but doesnt make it so.

3. actually based on a 2015 meeting where there was a community compromise of a segwit2mb. if luke actually didnt back out of that decision with his chimney sweep/janitor/im not a contributor step back tactic.. segwit could have actually got activated a year earlier, while also letting legacy offer better transaction count possibilities and also without the wishy washy code. of witness scale factor.
but nah luke didnt like segwit2mb and only wanted segwit1x which when released as an option in november 2016, only obtained 35% approval by spring 2017...
so luke doubled down with wishy washy code and controversial tactics employed to force it in

and here we are 2019... transaction counts still under 600k a day(under7tx/s)
and here we are 2019... transaction that can still b malleated. yep both with legacy, and due to new opcodes, segwit is vulnerable again
and here we are 2019... with the only direction change being a new tx format thats only real purpose was to be a gateway to another network

..
so late 2015... early 2019. and people are still demanding scaling.. and what conclusion is there.. to deburden bitcoin of its utility and move people off the network
well done.. (sarcasm) way to go... celebrate bitcoin by saying get off the network. congrats for 3 years of.. well ill end my sarcasm there

[Wind_FURY]

blockweight consensus rule is 4,000,000 witness scale factor /4 (base block 1mb weight 4mb)
average blocks real utility is ~ 1,200,000 (not all transactions are segwit so a full 1mb base is only garnering a 0.2mb extra weight)

by luke wanting (actual blocks) utilised to be just 600,000 . at current utility that would make the base block around 0.5mb.
which if he then tries to push segwit adoption up afterwards by forcing his nodes to only use wallets of segwit based address formats. would push the base block to be ~300,000

luke is trying to bypass the consensus rule by not changing the consensus (4mb) but just controversially reject blocks that produce blocks of 600kb

luke method of doing such a fork is super ugly. controversial and foolish.

its not even good coding practice.. nor utility practical
..
seems lukes mindset is maybe too stuck in the push bitcoin utility down, deburden bitcoin of utility by getting people to use commercial service networks like LN.
oh the august deadlines are not coincidence. the investors of blockstream need to start getting repaid ASAP so they would wanna see LN's commercialised income stream adoption rise for the investors to get some returns

He might be. Although I believe it is his opinion that the Bitcoin network is "not ready" to be utilized in a big way. It might come from the belief that if the users can't or won't run full nodes because the initial blockchain download is too much for their bandwidth, or hardware, or both, then Bitcoin therefore is "broken".

[franky1]

He might be. Although I believe it is his opinion that the Bitcoin network is "not ready" to be utilized in a big way. It might come from the belief that if the users can't or won't run full nodes because the initial blockchain download is too much for their bandwidth, or hardware, or both, then Bitcoin therefore is "broken".

its not "broke" .. but yes people like luke*. will assume and try to promote such.
Lukes true nature is that luke is greedy. luke loves altcoins, merge mine income from different networks and such.  

there actually is no problem with bitcoin and blockchains, if certain real BITCOIN innovations occur. i am not talking about jumping to "gigabytes by midnight" which false mantra a that a certain group have stuck in their head as the lame excuse not to even try scaling bitcoin
im talking about bitcoin optimisations and SCALING(not leaping)

what i found truly funny. yes luke always hated bitcoin scaling and didnt even like the 1mb limit years ago. but as soon as it become apparent that the only way h can enforce segwit(to claim his VC funded prize) would be to accept 4mb. he soon went quiet about '2mb a block/100gb a year is bad'. and suddenly he became happy about 4mb possibilities(2.1-2.5 more realistic capability).
(now he has his VC funded tranche of income, now he wants to backtrack things. as do certain group that desire to de-burden bitcoin of utility to push people to other networks in the hopes of greedy income streams)

by the way, bitcoin is not too much for peoples bandwidth/hardware. in as much as online gaming or live streaming(which requires more data)


*(by which ill also tag you into that group as you seem to have your foot stuck in the door of preferring to de burden bitcoin of utility with your LN optimisms and not wanting bitcoin scaling)

[NeuroticFish]

its not "broke" .. but yes people like luke*. will assume and try to promote such.
Lukes true nature is that luke is greedy. luke loves altcoins, merge mine income from different networks and such.  

As you said, too much social drama with not much of an use. The idea is not good.
Probably the guy is a good dev. Probably he made a lot of meaningful changes into Bitcoin. Maybe his idea has good or bad intentions behind. It doesn't matter. The idea is not viable.

And if he insists in making a fork for this, ... let's just hope it will not called again Bitcoin Whatever. If he doesn't, no problem: let the man experiment.

[vapourminer]

Looks like Luke DashJr made this commit in the hopes of people being more convinced to run full nodes. In my opinion, regardless if we have 300kb blocks or 100kb blocks, I really don't see getting the masses to use full nodes, as I think most are holding their coins on their mobile wallets in the first place anyway.

the difference in hardware needed for 1mb vs 300k blocks is trivial IMO. basically, consumer hardware can run either.

if i can run a full node at home with 1mb blocks on my pathetic 1.5 Mbs internet with a cheap 256 gb ssd (well soon will need a 500 gb ssd as the blockchain is currently ~220 gb), i see no need to go to smaller blocks purely from a technological standpoint.

as for the masses, they either will or they wont and it wont be based on 300k vs 1mb blocks that make the difference.. its the tech knowledge needed that is the selling point. few people have the security and computer knowledge needed to run full nodes with wallets securely at this point.

as far as mobile wallets for keeping coins. well i sure hope not. but again it comes down to security and computer knowledge. sure some people may be better of with mobile wallets (i use one for spending, most btc is in hardware wallets or paper wallets) as they lack the knowledge to run other wallets securely. they will be more likely lose their coins on other, more secure storage methods due to user error than have a good mobile wallet compromised.

[KingScorpio]

luke-jr is another one to add to the line fo Craig Wright, Jihan Wu and everyone that decide to fork bitcoin without any consensus. By design Bitcoin is open to this but as with the previous ppl and now luke-jr claim to social media that his version will be the "real Bitcoin"

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/v0.17.1...luke-jr:example_300k-0.17

why do you always seek to discriminate against all "coins"

[squatter]

BIP148 was controversial, but it was coded as a soft fork. Not all soft forks are backward compatible.
..
Indeed, one might call it a "soft-hard" fork because it was a soft fork that was extremely likely to cause a network split.

But credit where credit is due: Segwit never would have activated if not for BIP148.

1. bip 148 was a controversial HARD fork. it was coded to be a hard fork, it performed as a hardfork.

Not according to the definitions we've been using for many years. From the Bitcoin wiki:

A hardfork is a change to the bitcoin protocol that makes previously invalid blocks/transactions valid, and therefore requires all users to upgrade.
A softfork is a change to the bitcoin protocol wherein only previously valid blocks/transactions are made invalid.

BIP148 rejected previously valid blocks (blocks that didn't signal for Segwit). That's how it pressured miners into activating Segwit. Miners risked losing block rewards if they didn't.

2. one might call it an elephant or a helicopter. but doesnt make it so.

Sort of like you calling a "soft fork" a "hard fork."

None of this matters anyway. Soft vs. hard is not important. What matter is whether a fork is compatibility-breaking. That is what causes network splits. That's why BIP148 was just as reckless as many hard fork proposals.

[franky1]

Not according to the definitions we've been using for many years. From the Bitcoin wiki:

A hardfork is a change to the bitcoin protocol that makes previously invalid blocks/transactions valid, and therefore requires all users to upgrade.
A softfork is a change to the bitcoin protocol wherein only previously valid blocks/transactions are made invalid.

EDITED 21st september 2018
HA HA HA

heres a tip
buzzwords "user assisted softfork"(UASF)
buzzwords "miner assisted softfork"(MASF)
were non existant terms before LUKE dreamed them up .
it was all false social drama, to try to hid/downplay the controversy it would cause.. calling it soft doesnt mean its soft. it just a word someone chose for a buzzword to confuse the sheep

if you dont know what controversial fork (hard) is. then you really have not looked at what real hard/soft are in regards to real hard/soft forks since many years before lukes bait/switch social games name twisting buzzwords

but hey.. because a certain group buzzworded it in the last 2 years. (like 'conservative' you will follow their buzzword as the truth, rather than really understand/research
in short a soft fork is a fork that is not controversial or causes much network effect/damage. thus its soft
if it causes controversy/drama/alot of network effect.. its hard

even luke knows that. which is why he now wants to use the buzzword "inflight upgrade" for softforks
even other devs knows that. which is why they now wants to use the buzzword "compatible upgrade" for softforks

2. one might call it an elephant or a helicopter. but doesnt make it so.

Sort of like you calling a "soft fork" a "hard fork."

None of this matters anyway. Soft vs. hard is not important. What matter is whether a fork is compatibility-breaking. That is what causes network splits. That's why BIP148 was just as reckless as many hard fork proposals.

[chek2fire]

for anyone that want small blocks this is your system guys Not even close to luke proposal of 300kb



some more ideas about this ridiculous proposal.
First is very unethical to force ppl to use lightning network or any second layer system. Even the worst shitcoin dont do tricks like this and force ppl to use a solution. Only ethereum have done this but imo ethereum is one of the worst shitcoins out there with a completely broken blockchain system.
This ridiculous proposal works and a help hand to the dead fork bcashABC and bcashSV and is only there to create confusion and unnecessary fud against bitcoin.
In the other hand i dont think anyone will follow it and only a very small part of nodes will enable this soft fork. I also believe that sooner or later this nodes will fork off from the network

[24Kt]

Free shit coins again.

Those who will buy this kind of coin will regret afterwards. They should know that they are collecting useless coins here.

[squatter]

Not according to the definitions we've been using for many years. From the Bitcoin wiki:

A hardfork is a change to the bitcoin protocol that makes previously invalid blocks/transactions valid, and therefore requires all users to upgrade.
A softfork is a change to the bitcoin protocol wherein only previously valid blocks/transactions are made invalid.

EDITED 21st september 2018
HA HA HA

heres a tip
buzzwords "user assisted softfork"(UASF)
buzzwords "miner assisted softfork"(MASF)
were non existant terms before LUKE dreamed them up .

I guess you don't understand how wikis work. You're only looking at the most recent revisions.

The hardfork wiki was created on 22 March 2014‎, and the definition in question was published on 23 March 2014‎. See here for the entire history.

The softfork wiki was also created on 22 March 2014‎, and the definition in question was published on 23 March 2014. See here for the entire history.

This is how the definitions appeared at that time:

A hardfork is a change to the bitcoin protocol that makes previously invalid blocks/transactions valid, and therefore requires all users to upgrade.

A softfork is a change to the bitcoin protocol wherein only previously valid blocks/transactions are made invalid.

[franky1]

Not according to the definitions we've been using for many years. From the Bitcoin wiki:

A hardfork is a change to the bitcoin protocol that makes previously invalid blocks/transactions valid, and therefore requires all users to upgrade.
A softfork is a change to the bitcoin protocol wherein only previously valid blocks/transactions are made invalid.

EDITED 21st september 2018
HA HA HA

heres a tip
buzzwords "user assisted softfork"(UASF)
buzzwords "miner assisted softfork"(MASF)
were non existant terms before LUKE dreamed them up .

I guess you don't understand how wikis work. You're only looking at the most recent revisions.

The hardfork wiki was created on 22 March 2014‎, and the definition in question was published on 23 March 2014‎. See here for the entire history.

The softfork wiki was also created on 22 March 2014‎, and the definition in question was published on 23 March 2014. See here for the entire history.

This is how the definitions appeared at that time:

A hardfork is a change to the bitcoin protocol that makes previously invalid blocks/transactions valid, and therefore requires all users to upgrade.

A softfork is a change to the bitcoin protocol wherein only previously valid blocks/transactions are made invalid.

more limited perspective by you.
try going back to 2009

your taking a certain type of soft and a certain type of hard. used as just one example in some wiki... and thinking thats the full scope.

to simplify the full scope
soft is soft because it doesnt require/cause mass disruption/controversy
hard is hard because it does require/cause mass disruption/controversy

you can try to limit the extent of disruption/controversy of hard and soft via different ways.
but you cant make a hard fork become a soft fork by just calling it such on a webpage and on twitter. or be selling baseball caps

your 2014 limited scope version is one example. where yes a hard requires majority upgrade for network adoption otherwise big issues
your 2014 limited scope version is one example. where yes a soft wont cause big issues if X happens

but now ur just meandering the topic away from the topic with your buzzword twisting
you can spend months meandering and playing the buzzword twisting game. so best you actually spend some time going back and researching things fully, rather than just taking the first google search result you find as gospel.
expand your mind. try not to limit yourself. and its better to spend months researching than months trying to pretend a hard is actually soft

[Ucy]

Has anything good come out of forks?
Well, Fork is allowed for a reason. I wish they do not involve monetary rewards so people with good ideas can fork as much as they want.   Luke-jr is not an ordinary developer. .