Topic: 2MB Pros and Cons - page 2. (Read 9735 times)

You can't ignore the word "valid" in the whitepaper. There is confusion around this subject because Satoshi conflated miners and nodes in the whitepaper, which makes sense as it was in the context of CPU mining. That doesn't change the fact that nodes enforce the rules, not hashpower.


What if 75% is used as a majority miner (51%) double spend attack? Is that "community consensus?" Miners do not have the same interests as users; we can't assume that they speak for them.


I didn't really mention miner centralization. Pools should consider non-votes as votes for status quo, as that is how consensus works. Anyone running old software is enforcing the old consensus rules. Until they flag agreement with new consensus rules, and/or enforce new consensus rules.......status quo.


How is this any different than a few pseudonymous people parroting support for Classic here or on Reddit?

i think this is not what the white paper seemed to indicate. ( " bitcoin is whatever the longest chain happens to be " or somthing to that effect )

altho i must agree with your assessment as a better description of what it takes to change the rules.

i simply believe >75% hashing power = Overwhelming community consensus ( clearly node count isn't a good gauge as we see with classic nodes its more representative of economy marjory then anything else )

and its not fair to say that pools command to much hashing power they are known to let their user base vote individuality ( altho they do seem to reserve the right to vote on the behalf of non-voters )

i think a lot of the problem comes from the idea that individuals have a say, they dont. if we have 10 loud poeple on bitcointalk.org pushing for 1MB blocks forever, this should have no bearing on gauging " community consensus ", this is mearly political white noise.

No I went back to the find the post in question and couldn't find it. Could be my mistake. Anyway, this is all irrelevant to the subject at hand, so if jbreher feels the need to keep focusing on it, it would just show that he's not particularly interested in the real issues.

Overwhelming community consensus. See 2013 hard fork for reference. Much of the community clearly rejects these attempts to change the consensus rules at the present time.


That's all that is needed for a majority miner attack. That's all that's needed for miners to add restrictions to the protocol (soft fork) -- with or without community input (ie we have no power over that).

But 51% hashing power has nothing to do with forcing node operators to uninstall their software and install some incompatible software. If you remove consensus rules, that is what must happen. Otherwise those nodes will ignore the new network.

what post did i delete? are you talking about another adam?

ok exstasie you need to explain to us, the means by which you believe bitcoin can change its protocol rules

i was told 51% of hashing power was all that was really NEEDED.

75% trigger + 90% activation is merely a "polite" way of doing it AFAI

LOL. Pretty good? How about all the wealth stored on the network? Miners cannot alone dictate the rules; they merely order transactions. Miners are meaningless on a dead network.  


How do you not understand that a miner (or Coinbase or Roger Ver) spinning up a bunch of nodes has absolutely nothing to do with the software users are running? How useful are miners communicating with themselves + a bunch of datacenter nodes with no economic activity behind them? Miners need people to sell their coins to..... so if you think they can ignore the network of users by spinning up nodes...... LOL.


That's only true if they are merely concerned with communicating amongst themselves, as opposed to the network of users, who may have forked them off.


Still pushing this disinformation that spinning up nodes forces the rest of the network to install some foreign software? Shame on you.


Why would you assume that? If miners violate the inflation controls that prevent > 21 million coins from being produced (these are consensus rules) why would anyone be transacting on their blockchain? No one would accept payment on that chain as legitimate.


What the hell are you talking about? "Drop all the incoming transactions on the floor?" Do you even bitcoin? No one accepts confirmed payments on that chain if they break the rules they enforce. That goes for any node on the network.


And no one will necessarily care about the blockchain those miners are mining on....


Node software is the only aspect of the bitcoin system that enforces rules. Try all you want to ignore that fact, but it is not merely an indication of will. If 75% of miners are mining on another chain, and 75% of users exist on the original chain, 75% of users simply ignore the invalid chain. It's very simple.


How the hell does 75% miner agreement equate to "75% of those making transactions?" What connection do they have at all?


Indeed. And they will fork off miners who publish invalid blocks.  


Then why did Gavin solicit pledges for people to spin up thousands of nodes? Why are services like classic-cloud spinning up nodes? The simple answer is to try to indicate that there is a network of users behind these nodes. (Of course, we know that is largely untrue simply based on the facts) Why is that necessary? Because miners are meaningless on a dead network with no users.


Segwit nodes are fully compatible with nodes that haven't updated. So apparently you are the one living in a "fantasy land" where you have redefined the meaning of "backwards compatible."


Any statistics, risk and game theory analysis to support the contention that 75% is remotely safe to ensure not only that miners, but network nodes upgrade? "Somewhat south?" What the hell does that mean? Please supply more than "who would want to stay on a dead chain?" as this is not evidence that 75% miner agreement would result in a dead chain rather than 2+ surviving chains.


Cool story. What you seek =/= what will happen. If you contend that 75% miner agreement will not break the consensus that defines what bitcoin is, then provide evidence rather than passing it off as truth.


Nakamoto Consensus says nodes can and will simply fork off such a "75% miner attack" on the network. Because hashpower has fuck all to do with the rules. Again, please respond to this, specifically, with regard to miner's ability to force users to install adversarial software:


Good luck with that. I just see great opportunity for forkers to cannibalize each other.


LOL. Really? Trying to push the disinformation that running software that will break consensus rules =/= breaking consensus?

So now BTCD = Bitcoin Classic? How can that be, when BTCD will reject 2MB blocks as invalid, and Classic will accept them?


Of course I've verified them. In this case, adam deleted his post after he was called out on it. Icebreaker has quoted some great posts from frapdoc et al, feel free to peruse them; this is not an issue for me, I'm not going to waste time to search through post histories. Consider the point moot, since it was directed at adam, not you.

If they didn't seek to split the chain, their activation threshold would be north of 90%. You can make such claims all day long. If their intentions were truly pure and for the sake of Bitcoin, they would never risk the negative effects of a network split (e.g. 3/4 and 1/4).

Introducing competition in a consensus based algorithm; interesting proposal.  

No. But nice try at reductio al stupido. Hashpower is a pretty good measure of economic resources. In this world where chicken littles are cluck-clucking about how expensive a 2MB node is to run, a mid-size miner can spin up any number of nodes. To such a miner, the cost of operating nodes is less than chickenfeed. For a mere two chicks. The non-mining nodes have cluck-all to do with consensus. But they do make the impotent feel good about their 'power'.


Is there a reason you always refer to it as "SegWit Omnibus Changeset?"