Topic: Are blockchain tracking sites tracking Segwit adoption wrong? (Read 1104 times)

how can "wu clan" spam MORE confirmed transactions. if wu clan are not adding spam transactions to thier block.
EG
a train
you only have a filled train if you put more people on the train. you cant blame a train driver for filling trains if that train isnt filled. what you should do is ask the other train drivers of other trains(pools) why they let people get on and off at every station to cause issues.
(hint. could be solved by introducing a fee priority rule that costs users more that spend more than 2 times a day or a rule that tx's wont get added to a block unless 6 confirms)
you dont simply reddit shout "wu clan must be adding lots of 1 confirm tx's" .. because blockchain data doesnt show that to be the case


also about the mixer. knowing the taint followed a particular mixer and you analyze the blockdata. and whos mixer is linked to particular people. you get to see which group is more involved.

and yes i did laugh at the joke.. the whole kardashan drama to finger point away from devs is the funniest part though.
yet its the devs who are literally the only ones that write the code that cause changes to the protocol that cause protocol issues.

its real funny when some people point fingers at people who dont even write a line of code... thats true comedy

my mindset is blockchains dont scale themselves. devs CODE scaling.
if a dev says blockchains cant scale. and the dev is refusing to scale it.
its the dev that has failed.
again blockchains are not some AI. its reliant on devs. so if a dev says no. then its the dev that is refusing. not the technology
(if you reply with typical floppydisk size data or else server farm reply that circles since 3 years+ ago..... update yourself microsd, fibre,5g)

The Coinbase bit was more of a joke so if that presumption made you laugh than I guess the joke worked... kinda?

Point being that while the transaction drop-off is unlikely to be a coincidence it is also close to impossible to tell who's play it was. Even less so if a mixer was involved.



I don't quite get what you are trying to say. Mining empty blocks (as was the case with Antpool, especially) increases the effectiveness of spam transactions so your hint of "empty blocks = less spam" makes absolutely no sense to me.



That's an oversimplification of the complexity of the issue and you should know better than that. But it's also pretty much off-topic and has been argued to death so I'll leave it at that.

1. presuming is was random. is a laugh. check the core BIP dates (july 2015 spam attack .... bip for CSV)
2. not coinbase non-batching.. the transactions were from a mixer well known linked to a certain dev
3. even if coinbase spammed. check the puppet master dcg.co/portfolio/#c.. also note a dev group in #b

but thats digressing off the point. since segwit there has been a red curve of transactions

oh and before you presume the red curve 2018 drop was due to lets say coinbase batching.. that too can be proved just a presumption.
because if that was the case. you would on one of the charts windfury provided for the topic (inputs and outputs)
in a situation of batching. would see inputs and outputs rise .. not fall.

.. in 2018 coinbase did start batching.. but still the transaction count chart.. AND the inputoutput chart BOTH DROPPED
which means coinbase had little influence.
(the 'spam' if you analyse the blockchain and not reddit PR. shows it was MIXER caused..people actually put in a lil amount of coin into the main mixers and later followed the taint. so blockchain analysis revealed the actual truth.. not reddit/twitter PR)

oh.. by the way. dont now presume "Wu CHINA" spammed.. as the blockchain data (again not reddit PR) can show "Wu clan" was not filling blocks to spam that things are over capacity.. (hint: empty blocks = less spam)

..
finally to hopefully put to rest the meander about "conservatism" aka "doing nothing"

the drama which i call the "floppydisk space(1mb) or else servers" is so laughable.
Kodak tried that in 1999 when they too thought going digital with microsd cards wont work due to limits of floppy disks...

the reply the world gave kodak was .. what i shall call now a 256GB space is a fingernail size bit of plastic
we are not in the floppy, dialup era.. we are in in fibre/5G/microsd era..

if anyone wants to say 1mb is too much for 10minutes.. better tell liverstreamers, skyp/facetimers, gamers that.. oh wait. that would be a laugh

frank1... gotta love the finger pointing that it was Core creating spam.

In all seriousness though, obviously we don't know who was responsible for creating the spam and probably never will. However Bitcoin Cash proponents being behind the transaction spam makes more sense to me due to (1) Core developers insisting on Bitcoin not running at capacity yet (which would have been the case, if not for the spam transactions) and (2) Bitcoin Unlimited / XT / ABC chanting the eternal song of "look at all these transactions, we need to move now and increase the block size" while flaming Core for "doing nothing" while "organic growth" is "overloading the network".

For all we do know though it might just have been Coinbase fucking up the network with their (back then) lack of transaction batching.

That being said I appreciate you posting your view on that matter.

though above appears to be just another meander off topic and a point finger to kardashian drama session.. ill address it
(but dang im starting to notice this tactic occur so much)

HeRetiK.. gotta love the finger pointing that it was someone else creating spam.
the 2015 spam ......... oh you mean the core bips... for instance the checksequenceverify bip was a very spammy period as one example i remember (gotta laugh at a certain dev that ramped up his favourite mixer service at that time period. wasnt that subtle)
(you might wanna check your calender vs core bips)

funny thing is. spam only happens when core want a new BIP adopted under the premise "transactions are at peak, adopt us and we give you more capacity"

no other proposal had mandatory adoption. no other proposal had tricks to get adoption.
over the years xt, bu, classic and others just released software and if people didnt adopt it. no deadlines. no force no coercion. just let people run it and see what happened..it was a 'oh well consensus said no.'

only core couldnt take no as an option..(blockstream devs had a seed round tranche of funds bet on the november 2017 ultimate deadline)
 core only had 35% vote winter2016 - start of summer 2017.. they hated it. but didnt want to back down and go back to the drawing board. it was a core roadmap or else.
lesson to core.. when someone says "take the highroad" that means eat your hat, accept no as the answer. and retreat with respect... doesnt mean to actually TAKE the road

i hope you now calender check and blockchain data check which bips occured at spammy periods. .. oh and i mean data check, not reddit/twitter kardashian drama PR check

it was you that shown off the 2009-2018 data.. so i just shown the curve of that graph. also with all the (false) promotion of "more transactions" and stuff.. that curve would continue on its 10 year trend... (under core expectations/PR/assumptions)
the green curve was within the confines of expectation, even with block limits. (because transactions per block are not at expected "peak" capacity, so you cant say it would platto out due to capacity as the capacity of cores promotion is more than 7tx/s right... while reality at the green/red is not even 3.5tx/s)

oh.. and the ATH spike actually shows that capacity hadnt peaked and actually had more potential.......
but.. as the curve shows the reality of transactions DROPPING at mid 2017

thats something that got debated and laughed about a couple years ago.
long story short
median can be more scewed and abused than anything.

median has nothing to do with what multiple people spend.
median has nothing to do with what average spend it.
median is just what the SINGLE piggy in the middle spent.(not group, not community. just the single middle)
which can be easily prepared collated and tweaked

its called looking and observing.

look at the chart which you provided for the last near 10 years and see the curve
EG
if you were to see this:
            /\/
        /\/
    /\/
/\/
if you flatten out the small tips and dips. would you call it a vertical?, or horizontal? or diagonal line?
you would call it a diagonal line.. same goes for your 10 year chart. you would see a curve.

its just basic shape recognition a 5 year old can do

Because 2016 - 2017 was the start and the peak of the hype. Would you say that it will never reach and surpass that level again? Or would you say that the fees will be higher than ever if it surpasses that level? Because it will, and it will have lower fees.

Plus I believe median was used to avoid "skewing" the data from the extreme numbers from outliers.

Where did you get the "green line"?

IIRC that drop in daily transactions around June was when the spam transactions subsided, presumably because the proponents of what is now Bitcoin Cash / Bitcoin ABC (FKA Bitcoin Unlimited FKA Bitcoin XT) gave up on trying to pressure Core into increasing the block size; finally deciding to simply fork off instead. On a closer look the initial release of Bitcoin XT in late 2015 also marks the beginning of the suspicious acceleration in transaction amount growth. Most likely a coincidence but still a kinda weird one at that, especially in retrospect.

I do assume you have a different take on it though?

green line=community expectation of natural growth
red line. .. well ill let you work out what happened mid 2017.. where the red line begins and shows a different direction than the expections


(quick hand doodle dont knitpick the specifics. just concentrated on the question about green vs red)
the peak at end of 2017-start of 2018 is just he couple month drama of ATH
but again explain why the red curve.
i also beside the eye swaying 2009-2018 chart. i done a 2016-2018 specific.. chart beside it... just to draw attention to the point of this topic related to segwit which was first mentioned and debated blah blah blah. not in 2009-15 but from 2016+ just so people can concentrate on that period

i also included some dotted lines that help show rough area of transaction lows and highs of both 2016 and 2017. to also show that 2018 fell below 2016-2017 standards

but again.. explain the red line.. i think you all know exactly what happened at the point where green met red. (hint mid 2017)

yea you can stretch out the data back to 2009 to sway thee eyes away from the period of concern
but care to notice the 2018 cliff edge that went BELOW 2016-17 levels

kind of funny you think including 2009-2015 is helpful.
when infact people will notice a nice exponential curve upwards. that then went weird after mid 2017
and no segwit had nothing to do with 2009-2015

as for fees
"median" dang, im not gonna repeat the long lengthy debate where lauda tried that "median" trick a couple years back
hint. to save months of social drama... median has nothing to do with average

for instance
1-1-1-1-1-9-9-9-9 of the set of 9 transaction amounts median=1
EG i could make a block of 9 transactions and put my own transactions paying myself 1sat 5 times(stat tweaking). and then let in normal peoples transactions (real community) of 9sat
thus the community majority pay 9 but the stats tweak show on graph sites that use "median" show only '1'
yet the average would be 4.555555
(BTCC done alot of throwing in lots of free transactions from its own exchange.. purely to make stats look better then general reality of whole community utility)

---

transaction fee's again.. by looking at the lack of transactions per block. explains itself
nothing at all to do with segwit gets more transactions in but cheaper.. because .. there are LESS transactions(2018 cliff dive)

oh and also if you look at the bytes USED per tx and if you count the PRICE people pay. you will see they pay more now than in 2016

but i do find it funny about using the "median" as oppose to average.  yea i remembered that lil trick

funny that when segwit was announced people were hopeful to get back below 10cents average amounts again.
funny that when the base block is not actually 100% filled. the fee's are not below 10cents

Because there was no better word in what you were doing.

You told me once that fees are higher in the network today after Segwit activation than before that, backed up by your "facts". Is that not gaslighting? Fees have never been lower in satoshis/byte.



You also said that adoption is decreasing. Why is network activity increasing year on year?

In essence, yes. What's keeping you? There are thousands of coins restaurants out there, vote with your wallet. It's a free market after all.

That being said, it's kinda silly to change restaurant merely because they added menu options that you personally don't want to take. But to each their own.

"one lone voice cant change the chains policy"(facepalm)
under consensus 65% voices said no to a restaurant chan updating the menu. infact the waiter in the chain should not have added dessert without the chain.

but i guess you now admit core own the chain........ and no longer just a waiter within the chain.

the dessert is on the table.. it never was before august 2017. but now its on the table the waiters are already dishing it out

those that didnt want the dessert had no choice. they now end up paying for it. but the waiter strips it off the plate trashes it and just gives you what you think is what you want. but now you are not given the full meal that every full paying customer should get.

again the now set full menu meal includes a dessert. you as a customer never got the chance to say dont offer dessert in august 2017(consensus)  it was mandatoryily changed(consensus bypassed, bilateral split UASF)

you are told the new full menu is compatible with the old menu as the new waiters strip the dessert off the plate..but you still pay the new full price but dont get to see the full menu any more. if you dont like it go f**k off to a new restaurant

play your silly games all you want. core changed the menu and those not wanting a new menu get a wishy washy scrubbed off version of the menu. but still pay the full price. they cant even give the dessert to others(relay) that may want the dessert. as its been stripped off the plate. thus others no longer see you as a equal peer as you dont hold a main+dessert

again it wasnt a consensus event.
if you cared about bitcoin security where no software should have the ability to do that. you would understand the issue. but your too deep in doing what they want to care about bitcoin.

again no choice no way of voting that the menu should stay the same(consensus).. it just became a upgrade your tastebuds to eat the dessert and be a full peer.. of go to a different restaurant

anyway doomad. you are protecting devs not bitcoin security. so no point in talking technical to you. hense i dont.. you might have notice i actually bothered to ELI-5 many things. but even that passed over your core defense cap
no point circling the same topic with you because you are just blind to th bitcoin security issues of "inflght upgrades"(consensus bypasses).

best bet is you go learn some romantic poetry instead and become a core romantic
you have had ample opportunity to learn whats really going on, now i think you havnt bothered more because your not interested in the network security. but only interested in core friendship

end of debate

I'm happy to keep it going with the analogy if that's what you really want.  

You're in a restaurant that serves dessert.  You are there by choice.  You're seated in the "no dessert" section.  Also by choice.  Even though it's more expensive without the dessert discount.  That means you are not getting a dessert.  Dessert is not being brought to your table.  You've never even seen a dessert.  You can still enjoy your main and pay exactly what you've always paid for it.  Stop whining at us because we like sitting in the dessert section and we're happy with the one main.  One lone voice can't change the restaurant chain's policy on main courses.  Each restaurant location sets its own menu, but most of them seem to have the same menu.  Most of the other customers seem very content with the current menu.  Sometimes you have to tip a bit more when it's busy, but most people don't have a problem with this because they love the service and the quality.  This restaurant always seems to know exactly what the majority of its customers want, almost as if it was run by them.  I honestly don't know why you keep coming here when all you do is complain about the menu.  Some people just like the attention, I guess.  You also strike me as the kind of person that doesn't tip very generously.  We like it here, though.

I even hear that a small number of locations for this chain of restaurants have a bespoke menu.  You run one of those restaurants, don't you?  You let customers decide how many main courses they want to have, but there's definitely no dessert menu.  It seems that idea hasn't proven very popular, though.  Most people are happy with either just the one main, or the one main and then a nice big dessert.  I'd have thought you'd be appreciative of the fact that you're totally free to run your own restaurant with no dessert on offer.  Literally no one can force you to offer dessert at your location.  I don't know why you think you get to tell the other locations what should be on their menu, though.  It's not your call.  You've made your choice for what goes on your menu, so you need to respect the choice of the other locations.  Maybe you should consider being less of a dick about this and just be thankful for what you've got.  No one else can reverse your order like they can in old-fashioned restaurants.  You don't have to give them your personal contact details to eat here like old-fashioned restaurants do.  They're open 24/7, when the old-fashioned restaurants are often closed.  You can even be refused service altogether at those old-fashioned places.  Everyone is welcome here.  You might not like the menu, but there are clearly enough good reasons for you to stick around because you haven't left yet.

Plus, there's always that other chain of restaurants with the controversial advertising and up-to-32-course meals and no dessert if you like your mains so much.  We think that's a tad gluttonous, though.  If everyone ate a large number of courses there, most of their locations would probably be forced to shut and you'd be left with only one central location where the service was absolutely terrible.  They could change the menu as much as they wanted and people wouldn't have much say in it.  Plus, even though you can have up to 32 courses there, most people who eat there don't even finish their starters.  People just seem to go there for a light snack.  It's all a bit strange, really.  But if you like that business model, the option is yours.

And there are countless other restaurant chains too, but the service and quality varies greatly.  Sometimes people get food poisoning at those other chains.  Standards are pretty lax.  

Many believe that's why this chain of restaurants we eat in is so popular.  The quality here is really high.  And there are so many locations.  Sometimes people forget how important those aspects are and that maybe it's not the best idea to jeapordise those qualities.

you forgot your dessert analogy didnt you
people didnt ask for dessert they were happy with their main meal... but the dessert arrived at the table anyway, they were just told to not see or hand it around. and to only touch the main meal plate the waiter handed them stripped of the dessert

though the people with only the main meal pay more for their meal even if they cant be involved in having a full valid meal+dessert.

funny, flip flops you make
compatible no need to upgrade
concensus need to upgrade

just accept it.. consensus bypassed.
and yes its old news but you keep meandering topics to bring it up

yes
check out the usual group you chat to. lauda, achowe, carlton. they love their 'conservative' 'ad-homs' 'compatible' over use.
even doomad had joined in with "conservative" "compatible" repetition. doomad even gets mad if i myself dont use certain buzzwords
it kinda became a strange thing i noticed and picked up on.
much like a certain mindset loves to scream bcash, china, lambo, fomo. you start to see what crowd people circle in by their use of language

as for your 'gas lighting'. seems you have picked up a new word recently. reading your posts for months it wasnt there. then recently its been used multiple times in the last month.. so its something i noticed


correct it did not.
you can malleate a transaction now. by using legacy. so it didnt solve malleation for the network.

there are multiple ways to malleate a tx. segwit solved one that was needed to make BTC "compatible" with LN
due to how LN monitors a TX by its TXID but only for segwit transactions

and yes devs want to re introduce things that make malleation possible again for segwit tx formats.

segwits true purpose was not a network solution. it was a make a tx format thats compatible with LN. al other half promises were wishy washy PR stuff to try coaxing people to adopt and wave a flag of devotion


a transaction that has 2 inputs and 2 outputs
some call it vin   vout
some call it sender   receiver
some call it spending   paying


ask your chums. a few know a few dont. and one in particular doesnt like it when im being subtle but give him no input

Will you go far in saying that everything you said had not one single lie or half-truths? This is a "yes or no" question.


Why "pfft"? It did not fix malleability?


This is a stupid question. What is 2-in-2out again?


What OPcodes would that be?

The reason Bitcoin is secure is because there's a lower resource cost for running a full node with a smaller blockweight than there would be with a larger blockweight.  That's why we're doing what we're doing.  Of all the blockchains that exist today, this one is the most secure.  We're not going to jeopardise that.



The correct analogy would be that those who ordered a dessert get a discount on their meal, whereas you pay the same price you always used to pay before they introduced the dessert menu.  If you don't order the dessert, you can't even see it.  You can continue eating, blissfully unaware of the existence of dessert if that's what you want.  The choice is yours.  



There's no flip flopping, those securing the chain decide what consensus is.  They've decided on SegWit.  That's not tyranny.  Forcing a larger blockweight onto nodes that don't want it is tyranny.  Node operators have the option of running code that supports a larger blockweight.  If or when they decide to do that, fair enough.  We can then have a larger blockweight.  But they aren't doing that now.  So stop being the guy who thinks they get to order for everyone.  You are the lone voice with little-to-no support who, depending on what day it is, wants either EC or a 4mb blockweight that everyone can use.  Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that's not what everyone else wants?  At present, ~0.53% of nodes on this network are running clients that advocate larger blocksize/blockweight.  0.53%.  And your preferred method of getting people to agree with you appears to be attacking developers and coming up with bizarre tin-foil-hat stories about how certain people control the network.  And you wonder why you're not having much success and people think you're being dishonest?  Either come up with a sensible and reasonable case that people might actually take seriously, or just wait patiently for people to decide for themselves when the right time is to run code supporting a larger blockweight.  You've made your choice.  No one is telling you what to run.  Why can't you respect everyone else's decision?

awww you actually think the trust has meaning.. i think you have forgotten the point of bitcoin
you care more about cor trust, than you do about bitcoin security

if you went out for a meal as a group of 10 people and 6 people didnt want dessert. but the 4 people demanded dessert and so the whole table were given dessert. thus the restaurant were deemed as fully accepting dessert but, the waiter charged you 4 times more for your main meal because they had to scrape off the dessert from your plate and edited your receipt to show as a more expensive meal without dessert even though the reality is that a dessert was provided to everyone on the table. you were told to just accept it or f**k off to a different table.

its funny you argue that the meal order cannot change without group agreement. and then argue that people should just shut up if the group dont get a group agreement because one person gets to order for everyone
.. stop flip flopping. decide.. consensus is what you want or tyranny