Topic: Happy Anniversary, SEGWIT! - page 3. (Read 1358 times)

That's actually how network consensus works. Consensus means unanimity. It's impossible to get every single Bitcoin user to affirmatively agree to a new consensus -- i.e. a new set a consensus rules; a hard fork. So if users (like those who created BCH) want to create an incompatible fork, they are therefore leaving the consensus and establishing a new network, completely incompatible (and incommunicable) with the old. Breaking consensus = leaving the network. This is literally what happens on a networking level.

The Bitcoin network keeps chugging along as always, regardless of whatever hard forks are being spun off.


Hard forks are inevitable in any FOSS project. Bitcoin isn't immune to that. People are free to fork the code, and they will.

Unless you're ready to admit that this Khaos77 persona wasn't your first account (and it honestly wouldn't surprise me if you were RNC/Anti-cen/some another banned account) then you weren't around before SegWit was implemented.  Hell, even your old Zin-Zang account was registered post-SegWit (Deja vu, anyone?  ).  If you had been around at the time to see for yourself the incessant infighting and lack of progress being made, you wouldn't say we were stronger together.  The simple fact is that the two ideologies are not compatible.  So those other chains are free to experiment with their larger blocks, but, at the same time, there's nothing to prevent them swallowing their pride and using this chain as well.  That's the beauty of it and none of your toxic poison can taint that. 

wrong---all valid soft forks (backed by sufficient hash power) are part of the consensus because they are compatible with existing consensus rules. no one needs your permission to add compatible rules, franky.

you already opted into bitcoin's consensus rules by virtue of running a bitcoin node. segwit (because it was backed by sufficient hash power) was 100% compatible with the existing consensus rules, meaning you already consented.

this is the same reason why 51% attacks and miner transaction censorship are also 100% compatible with bitcoin. that is bitcoin's security model: miners don't need "consent" to do what nodes have already consented to. nodes enforce the consensus rules, nothing more.

now flop back to your love of the "compatibility" trick. that changes were implemented without people needing to update their code as they would just bypass true validation and verification of segwit transactions and just accept them.
(thus devs deem it ok for the home user community to not be required to do full validation as they are not important)

wake up and care about bitcoin and the network/protocol. stop trying to defend a dev team when they are allowed by people like you to change things without a true moral consensus upgrade procedure

aparthied/segregation analogy:
you would have been great as a bus driver in america's 1950's saying its ok to separate blacks from whites and pretend you are still providing a community service as blacks can still be on the bus.

yet you are ignorant about the whole community should include the blacks ability to vote.
pretending its ok to ignore a large portion of the communities vote because you want to pretend they dont lose anything in the fake vote..

sorry but the ability to change network rules without getting the majority to accept iit under the ruse of 'backward compatibility, validation bypass' makes user nodes less important

do you really think that this statement
'usernodes independently validate every signature matches the inputs to ensure a transaction is valid'
compares to
'usernodes simply accept segwit transactions, because the previous peer sent the block, meaning they validated it'

saying a change to a network is ok because those that oppose the change dont count. those that remain after the change have to trust other peers.. makes the network less secure


the whole 'power of network changes' is not home user node based. but instead pool and merchant.
atleast do some research and stop just caring about defending a few devs and start caring about the network

Stop derailing the topic, please.  No one cares what your personal (along with warped, insane, wrong and stupid) definition of consensus is.  The software people run determines the consensus rules.  Not you.  You are an insignificant nothing.  Keep running your BU node along with the other paltry dozen or so people on the entire planet who don't understand Bitcoin.  That's as far as you can go with your objection.  Anything else is just verbal diarrhoea on your part.  If that's not good enough for you, go cry to someone who cares, because none of us do.

It's beyond hilarity that you try to back up your fellow disinformation agent in spreading the lie that nodes don't matter when you spend every waking moment of your sad little existence whining about the software doing things you don't want it to.  As always, the reply is:

It wouldn't do those things if the other people running that code agreed with you.  Ergo, it stands to reason that they don't agree with you.  Troll harder.

1. segwit was not consensus. it was aparthied to fake consensus.. as your point three points out. to remain on the network after a consensus people need to update. segwit was implemented by throwing users off BEFORE the consensus number was reached.
a true consensus would only change its settings AFTER the majority of nodes decided they wanted the new settings.

2. segwits august aparthied campaign was more impactful than many other things that happened in the past. but again a TRUE consensus would only activate only in the event of a consensus..... thus impact is only 5%
segwit activated below 95% of usernode compliance, this just goes to show as my last post stated that core devs have bypassed the old priority that nodes would provide.

3. again not forcing.. of majority dont upgrade. it doesnt activate.. end of story. the confusion is the 2016 segwit bip was more consensus compliant. but only achieved 45%. thus no activation.. but the 2017 segwit bip allowed pushing nodes and pools off th network unless they complied to segwit..

this 2017 version was not true consensus. but pople still dont realise or even understand what consensus really is, nor how it should be achieved properly, which is wher people are not realising that the usernodes importance in the network has been deminished.

even core devs(paid by barry silbert) will admit that segwit activated only due to pools and merchants and it didnt need random hobby users nodes to do anything(backward compatibility)

.. that said. i can understand softworks used to just introduce new address formats. like the 2018 adding bc1q addresses. but when it comes to bigger settings like block sizes and how transactions should fit into a block. that kind of important thing should require proper and moral obiding consensus

pre-empt core fanboys hatred of consensus by saying "bitcoin is not democratic"..
those that want to rebutt. try to learn consensus. and if you still love the idea of consensus bypass.. learn the word tyranny, trojan horse risks and also centralisation

if only Doomad could wipe away the purple glaze in his eyes to finally see the negatives of the core team. he would then understand the negatives of "able to implement new features via softfork", which means that the normal nodes provide a LESS impactful part of the network then they did in the past.

pre-empt Doomads insults
pre-empt Doomads spinning core devs into gods speach
pre-empt Doomads ignorance of negatives
pre-empt Doomads just spin the reply into some chat about another network and its devs/ spokesmen
doomad. dont reply with your usual flip flops. if you cant understand the negatives and dont understand that its just pools and merchant nodes that become the deciding factor, then atleast do some research on your best buddy group of the bscartel (core and NYA agrement list)


anyways.. segwit 2 years on and no improvement to transaction counts or fee's. seems the "solution" for the 2015 highlighted issues, still exist, and will do until core devs really started to give a crap about bitcoin again, instead of their investors

If you're foolish enough to believe anything that lying scumsack says, then you are in no position to question anyone's intelligence.  FakeSatoshi clearly doesn't value full nodes and will lie to make other people think they're not important.  You will spread those lies because you're an idiot.

They don't relay blocks if those blocks don't conform to the protocol rules the non-mining nodes are enforcing.  The function of the node is to validate first, then relay.  They don't just blindly pass the information along without checking it first.  Here's how the validation process works, in case your ignorance proves overwhelming to reason and you need further explanation.

Every non-mining node carries out those checks on every single block.  If miners violate those rules, their block is rejected by the network.

You are a disinformation agent, who would happily see a network where miners were in full control because there weren't enough non-mining nodes to keep their behaviour in check.  But you might as well give up, because anyone with eyes can see what you're doing, it's that obvious.

In the Bitcoin network's standpoint, it doesn't care if it's a mining node or a non-mining node. A full node is a full node that validates, then relays if transactions/blocks are valid.

Before you debate with me on this topic, you should know how the network works first. You are simply wrong.


That's not what the top miners, and top merchants said when UASF/NO2X arrived.

Wait, hasn't nodes of block explorers been shut down under the circumstance you assumed?

As all non-mining nodes including the ones belonging to all the exchanges, miners' deposit to exchanges won't get confirmed unless those exchanges are stupid enough to trust others' nodes.

Then what do miners pay for the bill for electricity without fiat provided by exchanges?

Well, miners themselves are not too stupid to recognise the true bosses behind.
That's why Jihad Wu resigned from Bitmain and started Matrixport in July this year.

Any full node do validate. Any invalid transaction/not following the rules will not be relayed in the network. Bitcoin, therefore, is a validation stronghold.

You should learn how the network works, before trolling. You're an ineffective troll.


Wrong. That's not how Bitcoin works. Bitcoin is trustless, anyone can run a full node and validate everything for themselves.


 

Who's pumping? I'm merely recognizing Segwit's anniversary.

Plus about 51% attacks, here are some misstatements about it, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/9-misstatements-youll-hear-about-bitcoin-on-the-media-4391393

Thanks to whoever came up with the Segwit idea. I can pay less for my bitcoin transaction fee and I need not wait for too long before confirmation. Waiting for full lightening network.

wrong and wrong

• not "Satoshi's right hand man", he volunteered, he was not chosen
• he had precisely nothing to do with Segwit

At first, I thought SEGWIT was a layer 2 solution like the Lightning Network that's a solution for bitcoin scalability problem but I was wrong. It's was made by one of the right hand of Satoshi Nakamoto which is Gavin Andresen.

They knew at first that the bitcoin users will grow and by that, transactions will also grow too. So they develop something to increased the block size 1MB, that thing called SegWit. Hoping to have more update/upgrade on the main protocol of the Bitcoin since the society is getting to adapt the usage of bitcoin.

Sure, there are no guarantees in life. Bitcoin's design is based on brilliant game theory, not irrefutable law. But the more years and years that go by, the less convincing your position is.


What would you have me read?

Tell us, why isn't Bitcoin being constantly 51% attacked?


As I recall, a super majority of hash power signaled support for SegWit2x. It was also supported by the biggest companies in the space, including Bitmain.

Why did they all back out and stop supporting the 2x hard fork?


It sounds like miners don't really control the network at all, do they? What do you think will happen to Coinbase -- legally, and in terms of market share -- if they replace their customer bitcoins with an altcoin fork? The exchanges will let the market decide, not the miners. That's been the precedent since 2017.

At most, the miners can reorganize blocks or censor transactions -- incurring great financial cost for the privilege. How is that "controlling" the network?

Then reject the economic majority? That would be stupid, like you.


The miners do. Miners produce blocks the economic majority wants.


Why would they do that? Losing the community's trust would be a quick way to go out if business, wouldn't it.

In fact, the top merchants and miners tried to co-opt Bitcoin, they were hulk-smashed by a community of basement-dwellers.


So.? It's important to me that I validate my own transactions.


Not as stupid as a Zeitcoin hodler though. Hahahaha.

Happy 2nd Segwit Anniversary.

4 "guys" control Bitcoin?


Then why can't the miners control a network of non-mining-node-running-basement-dwellers?


No. When non-mining nodes say they want a kind of block that the miners cannot provide, then the non-mining nodes will reject those blocks.

Happy 2nd anniversary Segwit! #UASF.