Topic: hypothesis: BU motivations (NO PROOF) - page 2. (Read 2640 times)

jonald_fyookball, franky1, you have gone too technical and lost me. My pea brain can only handle enough information at a time. I will need to step back and reread your posts later.

I request for someone with more technical knowledge for a rebuttal while I try to read their posts. I am learning as I go.

That's a nice business idea for mining facilities like BitMain. But why do you think they need to destroy Bitcoin for that? They could just create new asics with new algorithm for the bank coin in parallel. Would be the far easier and more profitable.

And why do you need to spin such theories to explain the simple fact that miners want more onchain scaling?

Conspiracy theory. BU existence because core is failed to scale the blocksize.

getting everyone 46million output to move to segwit keys. would in itself cause a mass 'spam event'
....think about it.

secondly then rejecting old transactions is just killing off the hoarders that are not actively spending.
thats like nuking someones old safety deposit box purely in the hopes it will reduce the queue at the banks cashier desk because savers who hardly ever/ dont move funds are then lost.

wake up
far far far easier to not give spammers too many opportunities.. rather than open new attack vectors and then build walls affecting innocent people.

EG
core v0.12
a spammer could fill a block with just 5 bloated tx's of 4000tx sigops. (20k block sigops)
core v0.14
a spammer could fill a block with just 5 bloated tx's of 16000tx sigops.(80k block sigops) meaning...
..yep core 0.14 makes a block have alot longer native quadratic validation time attack.

however. instead of locking out old UTXO's completely as a fix ImHash said..

keep the 4000tx sigops but grow the (80k block sigops) meaning now requires 20 bloated tx's to fill a block instead of 5 and the time is better and manageable,

yep
20 x 4000=80000 is better by many factors of multiplication, rather than
5 x 16000=80000

Why would they go through all the trouble to buy hash power, if they can bribe a couple of government employees to change policies and get Bitcoin banned or regulated? They can even bribe them to stop 3rd party initiatives like the ETF for that matter.

Just look at how effective they were to slow down Bitcoin in New York with the BitLicense. ^grrrrrrrr^

If you have the government in your pocket, you do not need the miners and you do not need Bitcoin. They have not done this aggressively yet, because they know this will turn into a shit show if they do, so they are doing this slowly by doing small things. < Deny ETF / Strict regulations on exchanges / BitLicense >

Banks/SWIFT have nothing to do with the use case of ASIC machines and they process their transactions entirely in a different way. BU will not fork bitcoin because then no exchanging company/merchants will recognize their generated coins as bitcoin and their coin's price will drop below $200 in matter of one week and drop to zero after a month.

---

If segwit activated and spammers still able to spam with old keys then every one should switch to segwit and then everyone could ban/ignore those spams and a spammer needs to have hash power in order to mine blocks filled with spam transactions, a miner if stays honest and friendly to the network could profit more.
Miners also need to find the successful and honest pools to point their hash power only towards them and nodes must ban/ignore/blacklist those nodes which are broadcasting spam attacks.

Anyways right now the whole system are following and enforcing Core rules unless running BU right now could give people advantage over Core miners I see no reason to run other versions such as BU/classic/XBTC/8MB.

there is no reason not to use LN.. emphasis as a VOLUNTARY side service for those that need it.
but LN does have some limitations and issues which make it useful for only a niche of people. not everyone.

also the 1mb base still limits how many channels can be active. and needing more base block size will be needed to cover the more channels being open while also allowing people to replenish funds of channels to spend more. (which does require onchain space to restart new channels or add fresh funds to a channel)

some have done the maths.
to have enough channels open to cover say 7billion people with a 1year lock requires 133-200mb blocks
for a more reasonable 2week lock. that would be 5.2gb blocks. so thinking w can survive on 1mb blocks and (i laugh) 'be like visa' is impossible

Because the context is completely different and we are talking about
2 completely different kinds of 'anti-spam measures'.  

When Satoshi put in the 1mb limit, the avergae block was 1kb,
or 1000 times smaller than the limit, and fees were 0.  
Thus, the spam filter was not operating by making it
expensive for spammers.  Instead, it simply limited
bloat.  

Today, it is more effective to make it economically
expensive, and the way to do that is with bigger
blocks, not smaller ones.

The 'hypothetically possible' that you mention
is a) 'hypothetically possible' at any scale
given enough money and b) 32x cheaper
at 1mb than 32mb.


I'm not against offchain networks per se.  I think its a very cool idea.



If there is to be a maximum blocksize, it should be for a very good reason,
and unless someone convinces me otherwise, it should always be well
beyond that of market demand.   So, if there was no blockstream
but core devs refused to raise it (lets say because of their economic
beliefs) i'd be screaming just as loudly.  It just so happens that
their involvement with blockstream provides a logical explanation
for why they wouldn't take sensible steps to allow growth.

miner centralisation?? nope

you do know that an ASIC has no hard drive.
ASICS do not store the blockchain and do not care about the data of a block or how big a block is.

an asic is just handed a hash and told how many0000 at the start of the solution is needed for a solved hash

1byte of data
65c74c15a686187bb6bbf9958f494fc6b80068034a659a9ad44991b08c58f2d2

or 1000byte
e6631d63c97fb6d9239bd7d1d0a8878e3ea383722635051f94efc5b2790fc441

or a gigabyte
442aaa99d16cf451b853451fbb0515ed696985f236924adf682b34e9531472b1

the hash a asic is given is the same length

---

the POOL/nodes however that do validate tx data need to ensure they do it in a timely manner.

for instance v0.12 had a txsigop limit of 4000ops.. and a blocksigop limit of 20,000ops
a malicious person can make 5 transactions of 4000ops to use up the blocks limits.

lets say it takes 0.01sec to process 4000ops
that becomes 0.05sec to do the whole block.

now imagine. instead of having
1mb block with 4,000txsopl and 20,000bsopl
we had
2mb block with 8,000txsopl and 40,000bsopl
using native keys quadratics would take 1min 40 seconds for the 5 tx's

where as if we had
2mb block with 4000txsopl and 40,000bsopl
using native keys even with quadratics would take 0.10 seconds for 10tx's
thus alleviating the quadratics scare because your not allowing a single transaction to multiply up the sigops. but allowing more transactions per block.

the real silly thing is,
core have actually put in
1mb base 4mb weight block with 16,000txsopl and 80,000bsopl
which is incredibly stupid and allows native key sigop spammers to do alot within the baseblock

if basing the block sigop limit on the weight. they should be doing
1mb base 4mb weight block with 4,000txsopl and 80,000bsopl
which would allow 20 bloated maxed out tx's instead of 5. but the timing would only be 0.2sec...
not hours and only five maxed out spam tx's that core 0.14+ allows

but now im just ranting.

But it is still hypothetically possible. Why not maintain the small maxblocksize as an anti spam measure and create an offchain transaction layer built on top that anyone is free to use.

I want to ask you, if Blockstream was not involved in any of this, are you open to a smaller maxblocksize and an offchain transaction layer for Bitcoin? Honestly.

It would become pretty expensive to bloat a blockchain that had 32mb blocks.  Let's say a transaction is 0.5 kb, that's 2048 x 32 = 65,536 transactions per block.   At a nickel a transaction, that would be $3276.80.  That's just for one block.  That's $19,660.80 an hour, and $471,859.20 a day.  

Yes I agree the spamming will not stop as long as there are certain groups who are unhappy with the way things are now. I am sure there will be another group who will be unhappy if we hard fork to bigger blocks and have a new set of developers who may not be popular.

If that is a possible scenario then I ask this question from jonald_fyookball's ball comment.


Will that lead to more blockchain bloat or not? There is also the mining centralization issue that comes with bigger blocks.

someone making 1mb of spam today will make 1mb of spam filling the baseblock after segwit activation with native keys.
so that no segwit tx's can fit txdata in the baseblock, thus not hang their sigs outside the baseblock.. thus not even use any of the 3mb extra weight but still have the 'blocks are full' issue.


someone making 1mb of spam today will make 1mb of segwit txdata spam filling the baseblock after segwit activation using segwit tx's. so that it has 2mb of txdata+sig spam and still no moral / normal user transactions able to get in

inshort: segwit does not stop spam because segwit is reliant on the baseblock.

That does not compute. I have just read that the 1MB maxblocksize was added as an anti spam measure. We all know that the flooding of the mempool is because some group is spamming the network, so if we hard fork to an 32MB maxblocksize and some other group is not happy and decide to spam the network that will lead to more blockchain bloat.

Absolutely.

Blockstream is the most obvious culprit here...but its possible BU is controlled opposition.

I always liked the idea of just removing the blocksize limit:  Keep in mind that when Satoshi
put in the 1mb, the average block size was 1kb... yep 1000 times smaller.

At this point, I'd be happy as a peach if everyone just got behind a hardfork to 32mb or 8mb.

I believe that there is another unknown group trying to divide us. Whether that group is behind Core or Bitcoin Unlimited or both making them fight each other, I do not know. But whoever they are they are trying to wreck Bitcoin.

As a community why not reject both Core and BU and let us start thinking for ourselves.

i do think it is a dangerous idea. i´am trying not to spread it but i don´t have connections with people that have capacity to verify this and i am trying to reach someone because bitcoin matters a lot to me.
I also ask you not to spread it to the general public yet.

see my other thread, which was inspired by this one.

Banks don't have to bribe miners, they can get almost free hash power by investing in cloud mining.  And they will play both sides of the scaling debate off each other, which is why miners voting won't work anymore. 

Big bitcoin players just need to agree on a scaling solution and execute leadership.

Isn't it obvious? Easy.

1) The banks push bitcoin unlimited

2) Bitcoin unlimited gives miners the control of the blocksize.

3) Miners can be easily bribed by big enough pockets.

4) Banks control bitcoin through the bribed miners which enabled software that gives them control (which gives the banks control thought them). Banks having control over the blocksize can cause havok at will in the community. They can choose to centralize the network or they can choose to kill bitcoin.

Therefore, our defense is to not give blocksize control to miners, in other words, reject bitcoin unlimited like the plague.

You have a good imagination. Though your idea is far fetch and far from the truth but it can be real  sometime in the future. We can call your post a conspiracy theory since there are no solid evidence that can back up your claims thus it remains as a theory or a hypothesis that lacks clear proof. But the moment you post your idea here you are giving an idea to the miners a way to earn fast money without thinking the negative effects on bitcoin.