Topic: AsicBoost Probably the reason Segwit is being blocked. (Read 2682 times)

Surely you must be kidding. The bitcoin mining network is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Surely you must be kidding. The bitcoin mining network is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. How exactly does a team of predominantly volunteers, with a small group of paid coders only, fund taking control of enough hardware to direct power with such a network?

If Core really believe their solution is best, then they should invest in some mining pools in order to get them over the activation threshold. If they arn't prepared to put their money on the line like that, chances are, segwit is not the best solution.

It's horrid to have to think that someone who says they support the Bitcoin community, in this case Jihan is the same person who is just blocking the best solution out their based on the pure motive of greed and eyes of profits. I do understand it though, as money is usually the motive for many decisions being made when it comes to big decisions in the world.

This would also be the reason that they'd be losing around 30 percent in the leg up they have on everybody else so I guess that would mean 30 percent less profit and such?

Segwit does have its own problems but I really see it as the only viable solution that would really be following what Satoshi would've wanted. As I do highly doubt Satoshi would've wanted a centralized system run by King Ver.

It's horrid to have to think that someone who says they support the Bitcoin community, in this case Jihan is the same person who is just blocking the best solution out their based on the pure motive of greed and eyes of profits. I do understand it though, as money is usually the motive for many decisions being made when it comes to big decisions in the world.

This would also be the reason that they'd be losing around 30 percent in the leg up they have on everybody else so I guess that would mean 30 percent less profit and such?

Segwit does have its own problems but I really see it as the only viable solution that would really be following what Satoshi would've wanted. As I do highly doubt Satoshi would've wanted a centralized system run by King Ver.

It's horrid to have to think that someone who says they support the Bitcoin community, in this case Jihan is the same person who is just blocking the best solution out their based on the pure motive of greed and eyes of profits. I do understand it though, as money is usually the motive for many decisions being made when it comes to big decisions in the world.

This would also be the reason that they'd be losing around 30 percent in the leg up they have on everybody else so I guess that would mean 30 percent less profit and such?

Segwit does have its own problems but I really see it as the only viable solution that would really be following what Satoshi would've wanted. As I do highly doubt Satoshi would've wanted a centralized system run by King Ver.

thanks for the link. good read. helps a lot in understanding this mess.

I don't see why any party would use such cryptic technology to block a solution on bitcoin's hottest issues. Would the creators risk the reputation of the technology by only providing access to it to people looking to divide bitcoin's progress? And if yes, what what's to gain out of something like that?

Can BIP148 be cancelled?

Yes. In the event that the economic majority does not support BIP148, users should remove software that enforces BIP148. A flag day activation for SegWit would be the next logical steps and require coordination of the community, most likely towards the end of 2018.

partially agree.

They have investor ties... but even Coindesk still publishes big block articles (they recently did one on bcoin)
and many of the articles have a neutral stance. 

1. (to address posts above) 30% of pools abstaining is really due to being smart and knowing nodes DO matter so no point flagging for something that a node wont fully validate/handle even if node can 'hotpotato game' a stripped block
solution: finally do a proper node+pool consensus and need 1 merkle. and while at it, go dynamic. = community happy

2. asicboost is not a harm its an efficiency gain. like ATI's openCL was. and the resulting hash is not fake but a valid hash that works and checks out. (ATI did not attack bitcoin in the GPU mining era, for analogy comparison)

3. mining hardware and asicboost predates segwit.. meaning miners didnt create an attack, segwit 'going soft' 2merkle tricks just isnt compatible
(a yet to be active bitcoin code failing due to ATI opencL incompatibility wouldnt of been blamed as a ATI openCL attack, for analogy comparison)
solution: segwit finally do a proper node+pool consensus and need 1 merkle. and while at it, go dynamic. = community happy

4. again miners hardware software efficiency 2015. segwit anyonecanspend backdoor exploit AFTER that. segwit code release october 2016.  feb-march 2017 gmax finds a flaw in segwit and goes full wetard to blame miners(facepalm illogic).

today
rather than give in and do a better job with only 6 month old inactivated segwit software,
rather than give in and finally do a real full bitcoin network upgrade of 1merkle and keep all diverse nodes on level playingfield of a peer network
gmax wants to double down.
mandatory activation, remove pool efficiency but keep his 2 merkle TIER network control agenda

issue with gmax plan:
some outsider can start building a 600k blockheight chain privately using the asicboost. to get better chainwork.. then in a few years when bitcoin moves to a 1 merkle, they plop in their chain and take over, due to bitcoin being less efficient than the outsider during the 2merkle period.

solution. do a full proper node+pool consensus, go dynamic, keep the community happy and just let pools use the most efficient hashing methods ther are.

dont break the pools kneecaps just to force segwit tier network in.

P.S segwit using the anyonecanspend opcode backdoor exploit (AKA 'going soft') and suggesting that blockstream can add more backdoors (aka 'even easier to go soft') is allowing more risks of outsiders using those backdoors to slide in their own trojans undetectable to native nodes.
(if people take off their dev devotion hats, they will see it)

partially agree.

They have investor ties... but even Coindesk still publishes big block articles (they recently did one on bcoin)
and many of the articles have a neutral stance.  

Even they have to go against Blockstream/Core if they want to remain credible.  That's how insane things are.  

coindesk is a well known Blockstream mouthpiece.

That is to say, the vast majority of people support Core as the most open and reasonable method for improving Bitcoin. Since Blockstream has some devs helping Core, biased people can complain that most of the bitcoin community is a "Blockstream mouthpiece" but that gets a bit silly.

coindesk is a well known Blockstream mouthpiece.

My understanding from the recent discussions is that you cannot use asicboost at the pool level without it being publicly known or obvious

This won't help if the Chinese government cracks down on Bitcoin. They can mine all the bitcoins they want, but they won't be able to convert it into ready cash to pay their bills.