Core pushes forward, dissidents scramble.
As usual.
Topic: Bitcoin Core #REKT (Read 2447 times)
Brg444 #REKT
Theymos #REKT
Theymos #REKT
Actually I think Theymos is backing Classic now.
It would be surprising if Theymos were really backing Classic. Your assertion prompted me to look through some of his recent reddit comments. Here's one from "1 day ago":
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/40zs8h/instead_of_whining_about_the_block_size_we_better/cyywmvg
Quote from: theymos_on_reddit
If you change Classic's rollout mechanism to just a flag day 6 months from when it's introduced, it looks reasonably safe to me. There may still be problems with worst-case blocks taking many minutes to verify, though.
SegWit basically does the same thing, though, and better. With the Core roadmap, we'll have blocks effectively 2 MB in size in only around 4 months, and it'll be backward-compatible. Also very important is that it enables future deployment of fraud proofs, which will make Bitcoin way stronger against attacks by miners (a serious concern with the existing amount of miner centralization). It also fixes the slow verification issue. Late this year a "real" max block size increase following something like Classic's design can be scheduled. So the Classic change seems entirely worse to me, especially when so many experts have signed onto the Core roadmap.
(To be clear: I'm talking about the changes in Bitcoin Classic. Since Bitcoin Classic implements a contentious hardfork, I wouldn't support it unless it actually overtakes the economy.)
SegWit basically does the same thing, though, and better. With the Core roadmap, we'll have blocks effectively 2 MB in size in only around 4 months, and it'll be backward-compatible. Also very important is that it enables future deployment of fraud proofs, which will make Bitcoin way stronger against attacks by miners (a serious concern with the existing amount of miner centralization). It also fixes the slow verification issue. Late this year a "real" max block size increase following something like Classic's design can be scheduled. So the Classic change seems entirely worse to me, especially when so many experts have signed onto the Core roadmap.
(To be clear: I'm talking about the changes in Bitcoin Classic. Since Bitcoin Classic implements a contentious hardfork, I wouldn't support it unless it actually overtakes the economy.)
What he seems to be missing is that the "Classic" dev team is capable of implementing these additional features as well. The forking debate isn't about deciding on particular features or technologies. It's about choosing a management team. The current core team has proven that they're either incompetent or corrupt. Either way, it's time to fire them.
they eliminated 0 conf transactions in their idea of scalability so every vendor will have to reprogram everything to do reasonably quick will have to reprogram everything to work with new more complex interface.
they did? WTF...
Indeed, they did.
But not to worry. If you need help managing the new complexities, I'm sure your local BlockStream salesperson will be glad to give you a quote.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
I kinda feel like bitcoin started to have politics
YA THINK?
Bitcoin is everyone's. That is why i find a democracy pretty cool in it. But we should call our parties node clients rather than altcoins. I kinda feel like bitcoin started to have politics and some people are really like trump's hardcore supporters in this thing.
they eliminated 0 conf transactions in their idea of scalability so every vendor will have to reprogram everything to do reasonably quick will have to reprogram everything to work with new more complex interface.
You mean opt-in RBF? "Classic" will have this too, right?
They don't know yet.
The Tooministas won't be able to compromise and resolve the schism, leading to a Classic Classic versus New Classic fork.
The process will repeat for CLTV and SEGWIT, so we may look forward to Classic Classic++, New Classic Ultra, etc, etc, etc.
So many bikeshed permutations, so little time for vanity combinatorics...
they eliminated 0 conf transactions in their idea of scalability so every vendor will have to reprogram everything to do reasonably quick will have to reprogram everything to work with new more complex interface.
You mean opt-in RBF? "Classic" will have this too, right?
0 conf rules ..da fuq
Don't worry. If you like your 0 conf, you can keep your 0 conf.*
*Disclaimer: 0 conf was never secure in the first place.
Security isn't an is/isn't dichotomy.
Zeroconf on a $5 coffee might fit your risk model, an interbank transfer of $3m then one, two or even 6 confirmations may not be enough.
Accepting Zeroconf is a choice. RBF takes away that choice.
I guess Core is the altcoin now? At least theymos is consistent. 
Quote
majority succeeds in taking out Core it necessarily takes Bitcon's (experiment in) antifragility with it
maybe you missed something about the miners getting to vote on the direction of the chian? Also - if you destroy antifragility it wasn't anti fragile (obviously).
Whatever it is you're smoking - I wish I had some *grumbles*
Guess no one has considered the fact that blocks actually are full and this debate has been going on for more or less three years? Core had their chance to resolve it and refused to. Too little, too late, their own fault. Not coinbases or anyone else's.
China can SPV mine, which they do already, but it is risky and puts them at a further disadvantage.
Why? They can control the pool abroad.
A pool abroad is a loser. It just adds latency.
That doesn't add any latency that they wouldn't have already with small blocks.
Yes it does. Block is solved in China. If it is sent to a mining pool in China, that mining pool and the other ones in China receive it right away. If it has to go over GFW twice, as would be the case with a pool node outside China, then there is added latency.
Incorrect. The pool still has to propagate the block solution to the block chain which means all block solutions have to propagate across the GFW (so it always double for incoming/outgoing block solutions regardless whether the pool is inside or outside China's wall). The size of the blocks is irrelevant as I said.
The block solution can be propagated directly to others inside of China even if the pool is also outside.
They would have to build a custom solution to do that, and then deal with maintaining it and potentially being exploited in some manner. If forced, they will likely do exactly that, but they would prefer not to.
I'm not referring to what is theoretically possible (maybe, if there aren't some non-obvious ways to exploit it) but what is readily deployable using existing tools.
1,312,500 BTC mined per year @ $300+ profit = $400 million annually (assuming the very low < $50 costs for mining for 2 cents hydropower and latest ASICs). Chinese are mining an estimate of 67% of that apparently.
They can afford to build that custom software solution.
The Chinese miners are lying.
Expect corruption at the highest levels. Probably are getting subsidized electricity for free. Etc.
Bitcoin has already been 51% attacked. End of story.
We MUST eliminate profitable mining (my design)!
Edit:
Quote from: anonymous
Maybe those Chinese miners are puppets for corrupt Chinese ministers? Maybe due to the crackdown on corruption, electricity for Bitcoin is more stealthily than transferring bank money?
That was also one of my thoughts about the possibilities.
But also consider that the core devs of Bitcoin can't be this dumb. Surely they also know about this and have covered it up.
The Chinese are siphoning off our speculator money with their $50 per BTC mining costs:
There is practically no reliable info on the bitcoin economy, in particular on the flow and ownership of bitcoin by country. (This is a serious problem for would-be investors.)
We can only note that more than 67% of all new bitcoins are mined by Chinese pools, which probably comprise mostly Chinese miners; and that bitcoin has practically no use inside China, except as an instrument of speculative trading inside the exchanges. Until last October, variations of trading volume at those exchanges did not seem to be reflected in the USD transaction volume, which may mean that there was little deposit and withdrawal at those exchanges.
There is efficient arbitrage between the Chinese and non-Chinese exchanges. If Chinese miners sold their coins only in Chinese exchanges, that would tend to depress the price there. Then the arbitragers would immediately move those excess coins to non-Chinese exchanges, until the prices got equalized.
So, I would guess that it does not matter where the Chinese miners sell: the net effect is that a large fraction (if not most) of the bitcoins mined in China are eventually bought and hoarded by non-Chinese investors.
Anyone know what proportion of BTC is produced in China/held in China/sold out of China ?
Without this info I don't know that I can put too much store in this theory Jorge.
Without this info I don't know that I can put too much store in this theory Jorge.
There is practically no reliable info on the bitcoin economy, in particular on the flow and ownership of bitcoin by country. (This is a serious problem for would-be investors.)
We can only note that more than 67% of all new bitcoins are mined by Chinese pools, which probably comprise mostly Chinese miners; and that bitcoin has practically no use inside China, except as an instrument of speculative trading inside the exchanges. Until last October, variations of trading volume at those exchanges did not seem to be reflected in the USD transaction volume, which may mean that there was little deposit and withdrawal at those exchanges.
There is efficient arbitrage between the Chinese and non-Chinese exchanges. If Chinese miners sold their coins only in Chinese exchanges, that would tend to depress the price there. Then the arbitragers would immediately move those excess coins to non-Chinese exchanges, until the prices got equalized.
So, I would guess that it does not matter where the Chinese miners sell: the net effect is that a large fraction (if not most) of the bitcoins mined in China are eventually bought and hoarded by non-Chinese investors.
On the likelihood of fixing Bitcoin:
The problem is that the cost [ of validating a transaction ] grows like N^2 for N inputs.
By the way, there is no excuse for the cost to be quadratic. That is one of the many crocks in the BitcoinCore implementation, that will take more crocks to work around. Like the Segregated Witnesses proposal, malleability and its partial patches, blockchain voting to increase the limit, etc..
There you have another possible failure mode for Bitcoin: runaway code crockification (RCC). As the code gets more complicated and ugly, fewer competent people will be willing to work on it. Their place will be taken by incompetent pople, who will add even more crocks -- and so on until the code will fail and there will be no one capable of fixing it in time.
Just a possibility; but after seeing the malleability problems, the Fork of July fiasco, the "fee merket" plans and the RBF hack, the Seg Wit proposal -- I fear that the RCC may be already underway...
If we understand the reasoning that led to certain details of the design (like the 1 MB limit and the abrupt halvings of the reward) we have a better chance of predicting what would happen if we changed them.
Those who want to reform bitcoin so that it replaces VISA or ACH should put bitcoin aside and start the design such a system from scratch, choosing at each step the gears and rivets that are better suited to those goals. But, first, they should justify why the world needs a better option for those goals and why they think that they can design one.
(That said: in fact, I believe that, as a software engineer, Satoshi, was much better than Gavin and Mike, who are much better than all the Blockstream developers -- who are totally incompetent and irresponsible in that regard.)
Those who want to reform bitcoin so that it replaces VISA or ACH should put bitcoin aside and start the design such a system from scratch, choosing at each step the gears and rivets that are better suited to those goals. But, first, they should justify why the world needs a better option for those goals and why they think that they can design one.
(That said: in fact, I believe that, as a software engineer, Satoshi, was much better than Gavin and Mike, who are much better than all the Blockstream developers -- who are totally incompetent and irresponsible in that regard.)
Well, really? No one(at least for me) really cares about Bitcoin Classic or whatever you call it.
Why don't you people who support Bitcoin Classic develop your own coins if you really want a 2MB blocksize? :O
Why don't you people who support Bitcoin Classic develop your own coins if you really want a 2MB blocksize? :O
Hearn's Avengers don't want to develop their own coin anymore than the XT and Unlimited hosers did.
They want to hijack Core, repurpose its roadmap to suit Coinbase's business markitecture requirements, and still expect Core's devs to keep working.
Adam Back is wrecking _Classic on twitter. His best point so far is that _Classic is self-defeating, in that if its tyranny of the majority succeeds in taking out Core it necessarily takes Bitcon's (experiment in) antifragility with it.
Then there is the fact _Classic is saying such stupid things it makes the small block militia's job easy....
Quote
Henry Brade @Technom4ge
@Koopake @adam3us @virtuallylaw @morcosa The update in Classic is extremely simple and safe, not much testing needed.
@Koopake @adam3us @virtuallylaw @morcosa The update in Classic is extremely simple and safe, not much testing needed.
"Not much testing needed" is an instant comedy classic. Memes in 3, 2, 1....
Quote
Henry Brade @Technom4ge 4h4 hours ago
@adam3us I'm willing to risk it all purely on principle and the faith that there will be developers even if there aren't many now.
@adam3us I'm willing to risk it all purely on principle and the faith that there will be developers even if there aren't many now.
Principle and Faith® will save _Classic from Evil Core! You read it here first!
This new generation of TumorBlocker lowcows is even more unintentionally hilarious than our beloved old herd of XT and Unlimited Gavinistas.
I guess we have to thank Hearn's timely, high-profile martyrdom for agitating the Tooministas into such an incoherent froth.
What is bitcoin classic and who is behind its development, could you give us abit of info?
It's the unbeatable All Star Dream Team:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4182w6/who_are_bitcoin_classic_developers/cz0baj2
You forgot jstolfi, Chief Architect
Bitcoin Classic is coming
www.BitcoinClassic.comOver 50% of Mining Power is already publicly committed. List of Miners already publicly on record as Supporting Bitcoin Classic:
- Bitmain/Antpool
- BitFury
- BW.COM
- HAOBTC.com
- KnCMiner
- Genesis Mining
- Avalon Miner
Everybody needs to be ready to DOWNLOAD and RUN Classic the second it is released. The Blockstream/Coretard Supporters will be ramping up FUD, trying to DDOS sites. We need a fast, massive rampup to show unity. Classic Blocks and Classic Nodes need to EXPLODE OUT OF THE BLOCKS BABY!
Get Ready to Upgrade!
Memorial Day
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
they eliminated 0 conf transactions in their idea of scalability so every vendor will have to reprogram everything to do reasonably quick will have to reprogram everything to work with new more complex interface.
You mean opt-in RBF? "Classic" will have this too, right?
0 conf rules ..da fuq
Don't worry. If you like your 0 conf, you can keep your 0 conf.*
*Disclaimer: 0 conf was never secure in the first place.
kinda of like obama said you can keep your doctor right
full member
Activity: 136
Merit: 100
Get your filthy fiat off me you damn dirty state.
they eliminated 0 conf transactions in their idea of scalability so every vendor will have to reprogram everything to do reasonably quick will have to reprogram everything to work with new more complex interface.
You mean opt-in RBF? "Classic" will have this too, right?
0 conf rules ..da fuq
Don't worry. If you like your 0 conf, you can keep your 0 conf.*
*Disclaimer: 0 conf was never secure in the first place.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
they eliminated 0 conf transactions in their idea of scalability so every vendor will have to reprogram everything to do reasonably quick will have to reprogram everything to work with new more complex interface.
You mean opt-in RBF? "Classic" will have this too, right?
0 conf rules ..da fuq
full member
Activity: 136
Merit: 100
Get your filthy fiat off me you damn dirty state.
they eliminated 0 conf transactions in their idea of scalability so every vendor will have to reprogram everything to do reasonably quick will have to reprogram everything to work with new more complex interface.
You mean opt-in RBF? "Classic" will have this too, right?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
they eliminated 0 conf transactions in their idea of scalability so every vendor will have to reprogram everything to do reasonably quick will have to reprogram everything to work with new more complex interface.
they did? WTF...
Jump to: