Re: Knots/BIP110 designed to fork off?

[PepeLapiu]

So DaveF created a very misleading thread and he's deleting all my replies to it.
Here is his original thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5583540.0

And here is my answer:

(retard link removed)
But since he sums it up so well I figured it was worth a mention here. Because sooner or later the mod of r/bitcoinismoney will probably remove the post since they are pro 110 and remove a lot of anti 110 stuff.

I don't do Reddit so I'll have to take your word for it. One thing for sure, the post is still there while most pro-BIP110 posts on this forum do get removed, moved, locked, or you get yourself kicked out.

Maybe Reddit is pro-BIP110 but this forum in 100% pro-spam and pro-bitcoin-as-dickbutt.jpegs. And the censorship here is far worst than most anywhere else.

BIP-110 nodes aggressively attempt to connect to 8 outbound BIP-110 nodes using normal Core rules, and only connect to 0-2 non-BIP-110 nodes as an optional "sidecar".

Knots has been doing this since the very beginning, long before the spam war started. Furthermore, if you dislike preferential peering, I suggest you look into Peter Toad's LibreRelay. It's a node client derived from core designed to maximize spam on bitcoin. With no filtering, and preferential peering. It's designed for miners who want to include more spam for cheaper.

The net result is that BIP-110 nodes barely participate in the wider network, from the beginning they formed their own network that is sparsely connected to Core nodes.

It's my belief that core is an attack vector and pure spanware. The network doesn't want spam, the network want bitcoin as money. I think core 30 node operators should be tarred, feathered, and ran out of town.

There's only one reason to do this: if you assume you're going to be the minority in a partition.

That is completely absurd. You believe that Luke designed Knots to fork off with the minority hash at least a full decade before core 30?

If you sincerely believe preferential peering's only reason to be is to hard fork the chain, you should ask Peter Toad why his software also does preferential peering. You think Peter Toad wants to hard fork the miners away from the network?

The BIP-110 networking code gives away the author's true beliefs: BIP-110 would fail to attain a majority in hash or nodes, and would fork off.

Coretards told us we would fail when we had 3% of the nodes with Knots. Now we have 25% of the nodes with Knots, and 9-10% with BIP110.

More bitcoiners switched to Knots/BIP110 than upgraded to spamware core 30.

1) Some people (well at least 1 person) has been crossing the line with personal attacks.

Calling you a coretard is not a personal attack if it's true. And added that rule later on.
Can't exactly recall, but I don't think my post was too insulting.

2) If you say no that is not going to happen or anything code related. You need to post the code or at least point out in the code why what you said was true.

Fuck! Now only C++ coders are allowed to post on your bullshit thread?

So I can say YES knots / 110 will reject blocks starting in early August because of this code:
in https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/blob/29.x-knots

Nobody is running that garbage. It's not even main net ready with no plans to bring it on main net.

You know what's strange here? For the last 6 months coretards have been trying to tell us that BIP110 will either fail or we will end up hard forking. Those are the only two options you can come up with: fail or hard fork.

We kept insisting we have no desire to give away bitcoin to spammers and start our own shit/altcoin. Spammers don't get to show up 4 years ago, and kick out bitcoiners. You'll get kicked out, not bitcoiners.

And now you claim it's a secret conspiracy? That we secretly want to hard fork out? WTF are you sniffin'?

[ertil]

Re: Knots/BIP110 designed to fork off?

Of course it is. After block 961632, Knots will switch to a different chain, if the majority of miners won't support it.

I suggest you look into Peter Toad's LibreRelay.

It is not a part of Bitcoin Core. It is an alternative client, based on it.

You believe that Luke designed Knots to fork off with the minority hash at least a full decade before core 30?

Why a full decade before? Just since BIP-110, it is programmed to fork after block 961632, if it will be in a minority.

You think Peter Toad wants to fork the miners away from the network?

No, because his client does not reject blocks, after a given point in time, like Knots do.

Now only C++ coders are allowed to post on your bullshit thread?

If you cannot point at the code, and explain it, then you probably don't understand, how it works. Which means, that your posts are based on "beliefs", instead of facts.

For the last 6 months coretards have been trying to tell us that BIP110 will either fail or we will end up hard forking.

Because this is what the code is doing here and now. And even links from sites like https://bip110.org/ agree on that:

If BIP 110 lacks economic support, its nodes stall. They sit at the last valid block, waiting for a signaling block that doesn’t come. The main chain continues as if nothing happened. No split, no disruption, no damage. BIP 110 just quietly fails.

If you think it is false, then you should justify it with something stronger, than "I don't believe it".

Those are the only two options you can come up with: fail or hard fork.

The first option, "failing", is directly explained in pro-BIP-110 articles. The second option is logical, if you want a chain, that is moving forward, while the majority of miners is not supporting it. If you have 1% miners, mining BIP-110 chain, then you produce around one block per day. Unless you change the code, which means hard-forking, or making other adjustments, to make it working in a minority.

And now you claim it's a secret conspiracy?

It's not a secret: it is literally in Bitcoin Knots source code, and people pointed at relevant fragments at least a few times.

That we secretly want to hard fork out?

Forking is not a "secret". It is clearly visible, how many miners are signalling for BIP-110. There are even sites, that can simulate scenarios, based on the hashrate support for a given side.

And then, hard-forking is just a logical next step. Unless you want to claim, that BIP-110 miners will keep producing one block per day, and will patiently wait for the difficulty to drop. And they will mine at a loss, while being unable to sell BIP-110 coins for the same price as BTC, just to keep the BIP-110 chain running. Because this is what they would need, if they would be in a minority.

[PepeLapiu]

(Coretard slop removed)

Of course there is no question that BIP110 will fork, it's in the name: RDTS or reduced data temporary soft fork. (emphasis on the S in RDTS)

The claim is that the code was secretly designed to hard fork. And the claim is that preferencial peeering is part of this secret design for a hard fork.

This is false. BIP110 is based on Knots 29. And Knots has always done preferential peering for reasons that have nothing to do with some eventual hard fork.

DaveF claims that a hard fork is the only possible reason for preferential peering. If so, is DaveF and his ilk making the claim that LibreRelay also is planning to hard fork the spam miners from the rest of the network?

[bitmover]

Fork? A new bitcoin cash?

We all have seen thia before.

They can fork and i will selling my forked coins instantly