Topic: hypothesis: BU motivations (NO PROOF) (Read 2654 times)

You cannot be serious in using that as evidence to show that Core or a group allied with Core is behind it right? That is too obvious. Because a group against Core could do it too and make it look like Core did it. We cannot snub that possibility out.

iamback
quoting yourself is meaningless.
your getting to the point of being a traincarwreck endless pil of rants that just circle into an endless loop of 'im wright because i said so here, her and here'

---

Explain why the miners are bad actors , please...because to me it sounds crazy.  Miners are the ones securing Bitcoin, how could they possibly be bad actors unless
they are going to be blatantly malicious (unwind transactions, block transactions etc)

BU has missed the way, how can they lead us? They better listen to the core Devs and act appropriately. I don't see why they keep seeking undeserved attention?

BU trash aint dead yet? 

I see people supporting this crap coin. They must be paid by his friend roger and antpool comunist.

What the fork guys. No one want this crap bugged coin. Stop messing up kids.

I think that BU legitimately thinks that they are choosing the way forward, I think the miners are the bad actors here skewing everyones vision. Even Roger I think believes he is doing the right thing, if not he would sell all of his coins and could live like a king for the rest of his life.

I really do not know.  It could be either side of the debate trying to force a resolution. 

Honestly I do not think it is Roger Ver (as some say) because I know he was using Bitcoin for
payments, so it wouldn't make sense to cause an issue just so he could complain
about it since he could complain anyway once it became an issue.

hashpower alone doesnt mean much. all it means is more dodgy blocks get rejected/orphaned and a group with such high hashpower is just wasting much more electric just to get rejected.

EG
imagine there was 2 pools and the node rule was 1mb
pool A with 500000000 exahash making a 1.000,250 block
and pool B with 4exahash making 0.999,750 block

pool A would lose, all that happens is that the orphan/reject stats would be higher

NODES have to have consensus and accept 1.000,250 block.
and even then thats just to try to keep the over 1mb going because the nodes are just in a orphan drama event.

the only way to make sure that 1.000,250 blocks are acceptable without drama without fuss and with the pools making the blocks able to spend their rewards, is to have node consensus of majority, merchant/services node acceptance and to completely ignore the minority to not care about their old rules.

...
now if dynamic implementations wanted to do this controversially they would have done it already over the last few years. they would have even set a date and announced it.

now if dynamic implementations wanted to do this controversially they would have gmaxwell up on the bilateral split offer, rather than laugh in his face at gmaxwells desire of dominant TIER centralised control by pushing anything not core away/to bottom tier.

but it's not feasible today to buy tons of petahash just to attack the network, to force a decision, if that the reason behind the attack

it's always better for them to mine with that hashrate than doing an attack, the only case where this can make sense is if bitcoin is tanking hard and there is no real profit anymore

as a desperate final move a 515% would make sense in that case

by not being so generous with the txsigop limit can discourage it
by having more space in the base block so that it takes more effort can discourage it

by even inventing a new priority mechanism thats not just a rich vs poor preference but a real bloat +young age costly thing.. can discourage it.

but core have not increased base block.
but core have not reduced txsigop limit, infact they increased it to be absurdly more generous to spammers
and core have removed any kind of priority barrier  

even funnier. core say the onchain fee is good for pools. even though pools dont really 'need' it this decade. but at the same time discounted it as a way to tempt people to use segwit. thus not really offering more 'bonus' to pools due to a discount. and not really offering a real discount by pre-emptively increasing the fee's 10-100x the cost of 2015

+1 Well said Franky1.

Franky1 has the answer and I recommend others to read his post.

Its obvious there are those with an agenda to undermine Bitcoin. There's a long list of names and institutions, not that hard to identify who.

looking at the dates of when the most spam spikes are

june/july 2016
and then
a long constant go at it from october onwards..

it appears obvious that anyone offering something from those particular dates that want to sway people into thinking their features are needed to remedy the spam would benefit from creating spam to then point out that something needs to be done.
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1year

june/july 2016 = core CSV
october+ = segwit

BTC could be taken down with zero hashpower.

Right. Let me divert the topic a little. Who do you think is spamming the network and for whose best interest is he acting? All we see are cries of "Oh someone is spamming and flooding the mempool" but there is no mention of who or what group is doing this.

In theory it could be someone who has a commitment to Bitcoin Unlimited but I do not want to go there and be biased. That is why I am asking you.

of course , because it will be more expensive as we discussed earlier.

Thank you.

But if we have a layer on top of the blockchain for offchain transactions, we would be given an option as an out to avoid doing the transaction on the blockchain and do it off the chain. That is a shallow reason but still very useful.

Do you think spamming the blockchain will be discouraged by having bigger blocks?

Franky1, I will reply to your post later if I can find the brain cells.

Interesting theory OP.

I wonder if this could be evidence of banks/states supporting bu.


There could be some agenda in play where people with money and influence are spreading pro bitcoin unlimited propaganda.

If there is a hard fork, will decreasing the number of miners and nodes also lead to slower transactions?

The concept of a hard fork could be flawed if such is the case.

usually i try to keep things laymens.
non technical version

imagine it like a plane that originally only allows 2500 seats. and people are waiting at the airport to buy their seat

issues.
1 guy can buy a party ticket to buy up all the seats for only 5 obese people to sit in..
leaving 2495 passengers angry and frustrated

solutions

a. allow plans to grow in seating capacity, but limit the party ticket. EG a 5,000 seat plane has a party ticket to allow 20people to reserve the whole plane instead of 5 (or go one step further make it so party ticket people need 40+ to fill the plane instead of 5)
b. make the cargo-hold area into new seating and offer a discount for adults if the let their kids sit in the cargo hold
c. invent a teleporter on teleport island to avoid passengers needing the plane each month. but once a month they need to travel by plane to or from teleport island just to be able to use the teleporter inbetween times.

a=dynamics
b=segwit
c=LN

issues
b. though there are 2500seats that could possibly allow more first class empty seats for more people because some adults volunteer to put their kids into cargo freeing up the main seats. the plane operator has done nothing to stop the party ticket guy from buying up all the seats for only 5 people

c. although some people may love teleport island. some people may only need the plane once a month so why buy a return ticket via teleport island to get to destination. rather than just a single ticket to destination. also plane operator hasnt stopped the partyticket reserving the plane for just 5 people.

thats the situation we are at...

---

now to your question
1. are you open to a smaller maxblocksize and an offchain transaction layer for Bitcoin? Honestly.
answer: LN (teleport island) does have a niche for gamblers that want to get to Lasvegas many times a day instantly in their coffee break. but LN is not for everyone. and forcing people into LN/teleport island especially without fixing bloat/partyticket, isnt solving the issue of queues at the airport.
answer: also if it starts costing too much just to get to teleport island by plane. people will hate travlling distances and never use the airport to even then use the teleport island.(AKA never use bitcoin to never use LN)

2. planes with (ur 32mb scenario) 80000 seats too big to be reliable around the sky and can crash with all the weight.
answer: no one is building plane to be that big overnight. it would be natural growth over time that move when safety allowances are met. nodes wont flag preference for such big planes unless they could cope. (think slow progressive growth over time. not 32mb by midnight)
answer: if the plane allowed a party ticket of 5 extremely obese guys fill the plane then the unbalance weight could cause more damage. so restrictions of bloat to allow say only parties of 2 onboard (40,000 tickets) is safer and manageable. rather than 5 tickets of insane obesity.

try to look at from a simple supply and demand persective.

Supply = blocksize space
demand = transaction

by making the supply smaller, prices (fees) will go up.   

So if someone wants to manipulate the market (spam attack) and make prices go up, obviously its going to easier with a smaller market (smaller blocksize, smaller supply)
than with a bigger one..

I hope that isn't too technical.