Topic: Finally, Bitcoin Core = REKT - page 2. (Read 7754 times)

"No, segwit is far superior in every way (expect a really important one), change subject to something emotive then state some undefined thing is obvious."

That's your best argument?

• Classic fixes full blocks by changing a parameter to allow for bigger blocks.
  

This change is simpler (various objective measures: LOC,amount of functionality added, amount of exiting functionality modified) and directly addresses full blocks. It works around the sighash problem with another temporary cap. It introduces a bunch of trigger code. It increases resource utilisation on nodes.

• Segwit works around full blocks by changing the way in which bitcoin blocks are built, and moving some of the data into a new data structure.
  

This change introduces more complexity than the blocksize update and fundamentally changes the way in which bitcoin works. It also affects some economic incentives around transaction size and miner fees, these directly benefit LN at the expense of miners and non mininig-nodes. It has several benefits with regards malleability, sighash and p2sh. In doing so it increases the effective block size without changing the blocksize limit itself. It too also increases resource utilisation on nodes.


There are pros and cons to both methods (the above is not exhaustive). It is not clear that one is objectively better than the other.

Yet you are stating that Segwit is far superior. How can you possibly know?

You draw a comparison to the "Core vs Classic" debate. The implication here is either that you think Core is far superior to classic, or that you think that its obvious that Segwit is better than a blocksize increase. Its one of those opinions presented as fact things. It also serves to further polarise opinion on the topic.

This is a fact:

• It's not obvious which solution is better.

This is, on balance, most likely:

• Core is not far superior to Classic.
• Classic is not far superior to Core.

(This is because they are largely the same code base, and the respective changes to each have their pros and cons.)

This is another fact:

• Segwit and Blocksize increase are not mutually exclusive.
  

I review this thread and reddit posts to make that decision. If reddit says to do something, it is usually a good sign you should do the exact opposite of that. 

No. The current argument is Segwit vs 2 MB blocks where Segwit is far superior in any aspect (aside of the complexity). You could also argue between Core and Classic but it is obvious which the better implementation is.

There are a series of standard "anti-blocksize increase" arguments. They have all been answered.

You're currently using the 'increased pressure on nodes leads to centralisation' argument, which always invites the standard 'segwit pushes the same if not more data than blockchain' response.

Segwit works around the blocksize limit, it doesn't *not* increase resource utilisation in a like for like comparison.

You said segwit 'buys time', implicit in that statement is an acknowledgement that something needs to be done. Hence I think you already know the answer to your own question "What's the Urgency?"

The miners run their own nodes. Overlooking, for the time being, that they could spend 1/10,000th of the money they have invested in mining  gear & throw up a sufficient number of "their" nodes a la Bitnodes stunt (for giggles, what percentage of total do you suppose that should that be?), explain how the remaining nodes matter?


Do explain, because what you have written thus far is nonsense.

How does being that clueless and paranoid feel?

Let me explain one scenario. 75% of the miners change the consensus rules and create a new bitcoin fork. Unfortunately the nodes dint follow them and block this nodes as invalid. the scenario is that in the old node system the mining decrease dramatically and the remain miners take all the bitcoins.
In the other poart of the fork the miners act alone, increase their mining share but has few nodes to relay their blocks.
I cant explain more. To troll the other only for trolling is not a loyal act. You act like a small part of the zerg not even the mastermind

You're confused. The node can mark a block as "invalid" for its fork. If I throw up a bunch of Blunderer nodes, which reject every block, do you think I'll break Bitcoin? Duh!

That means absolutely nothing. Structurally equivalent: Miners can do bad stuffs, but because (undefined, trust me on this), they can't.

P.S. See edit above ...oh, fuckit, i'll paste
Edit: Looooool at the ridiculous wiki "Some are incentivizing it.

Bitnodes is incentivizing full node operators "until the end of 2015 or until 10,000 nodes are running."[2] For rules and how to join the incentives program, visit Bitnodes Incentive Program. Cheesy Cheesy

Tell me about "economic majority" again?

---

* The whole "full node" bit is something that's constantly glossed over, mainly because it's an embarrassing bit of nonsense & doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

because of this


and of course this

Nah, I can google myself. How 'bout YOU explain to me why non-mining node "consensus" matters
Bonus points: explain the relationship between full nodes & "economic majority."

Edit: Looooool at the ridiculous wiki "Some are incentivizing it.

Bitnodes is incentivizing full node operators "until the end of 2015 or until 10,000 nodes are running."[2] For rules and how to join the incentives program, visit Bitnodes Incentive Program.

Yes i know. The problem is that it seems that you dont know how it works and that you blindly follow the zerg. You can read how the node system works here. Is a good start

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node

Classic has been released yesterday, and already has 6% (not 1%), though explain to me how this matters? Do you know how Bitcoin works?
Please understand that I can throw up as many nodes as I wish, without owning a single BTC or performing a single hash.

but this node that you say is a small part in bitcoin ecosystem. BitcoinXt nodes have 7% now and Classic have about 1% of all the nodes. If you know anything about how bitcoin workds you cant go anywhere with that node numbers....

^Absolutely nothing, say it again y'all

Integrity. What's it good for really?

I'm going by miners (hashpower), the voting mechanism satoshi suggested and felt was sufficient.
Yourself?
Who suggested a public vote? And WTF do you mean by "Bitcoin is not a democratic system"? Avoid sloganism if you expect to be taken seriously.
Nonsense.
More nonsense. Miners don't need consensus from full nodes, that's pure ignorance/misinformation. There are XT nodes; Unlimited nodes; Classic nodes; I can throw up a Blunderer node. I assure you the Blunderer node is not going to be a part of your consensus, so WTF are you trying to say?

and what criteria you use and you say that most of the community support that increase now. Bitcoin is not a democratic system we change the core after a public vote. Bitcoin system is 100% consensus in bitcoin ecosystem.
Something else i like to add is that everyone think that miner are the most powerful part in bitcoin ecosystem. Not. Miners cant pass alone a fork. They need and consensus from full nodes. Full nodes can easy block all the transactions that came from that miners. Full nodes are more powerfull in bitcoin ecosystem than miners.

Out of curiosity, how would you expect to see it? What criteria would you look for/consider valid?


Apparently.

Most of them apparently don't, and some are just posting because of their signatures. 2 MB blocks are susceptible to a new attack vector; Gavin's proposal (IIRC) avoids this with a workaround that limits certain types of transactions ("censorship-free" system).

Does anyone know here how bitcoin works or all of you act like a blind zerg? SegWit solve and other problems especially for fast transmitting big block. Bitcoin as it is now can't handle even a block increase to 2mb.

You say that. I dont see it