Topic: it is Core, not Bitman blocking segwit - page 3. (Read 5420 times)

lol you think achowe is unbiased?

also a mod should only be moderating language/scams/virus risks.
no tech knowledge needed.

moderating message based on tech is censoring out tech.

P.S

my comments to you were not in any way about thinking you had power. its more about correcting your rhetoric so that you dont
just turn into a blockstream puppet on a string.

but i am glad you are actually open minded enough to not just be spoon fed by the blockstreamists

Yes you do, don't play dumb now.


LOL that's a new low even for you.

Like you're just going to sit there with a straight face and ignore the fact that SegWit is stuck in the mud because Blockstream/Core thought they could fuck over both miners and nodes at the same time.

Blockstream ignored nodes and went softfork because they thought they got miners in their pockets, even though they already fucked them over with the 1MB, that's how arrogant Blockstream/Core were, that's what fucked them.


I am saying you talk a lot of shit but there were never anything to back it up.

After I bated you I now know for sure you're the kind of troll that looks into every detail trying to win an argument. But you just couldn't find any evidence to support your claims, that's why you had to play dumb all the time.

By the way, how does it actually feel to have to talk like a dumb fuck all the time, knowing everything that comes out of your mouth is bullshit and everyone else can see through it?

If I have to do that I'd probably quit within a week.



I baited you, the edit was the bait, BIP-141 was the net, you still don't get it?

You're now trying to wiggle around by using the idiotic assumption that Jihan only learned about Extension Block the last minute and voiced its support immediately. That is, by making the assumption that the whole time since March, Jihan never learned about what Extension block was until the moment before he voiced his support.

But the bait was Extension Block had always been immune to ASICBoost. The github edit would throw you off because you're the kind of shill that play dumb and repeat bullshits, but secretly you're actually looking at all possible details for a rebuttal. That's how I exposed you as a paid shill.

You know exactly what bullshit you're talking about, you're intentionally talking like a dumb fuck all the time, because that's your job.

You don't have the technical understanding of BIP-141, that's why you fell for the edit. That is the long con you fell for, I gave you a detail you'd bite on, but once you bite on it, you're already inside the net.

The idea that a business man like Jihan wouldn't look over Extension Block at least a few times and think over it for a few days before voicing his support, is hilarious.

You've mistaken Jihan for some Blockstream troll where everything they say online is decided at the last minute, base on whatever they could see at the time.


Irrelevant, putting patent in product helps win patent lawsuits, it's that simple.

The funny thing about you trolls is you guys keep assuming Jihan is the only guy on the planet who can build ASIC chips that use ASICBoost. Patent doesn't stop any nameless mining farm from building their own ASICBoost rigs, ASICBoost existed for years, anyone could have been using it for years. That's why this ASICBoost bullshit is just another obvious distraction.

If Blockstream/Core don't like ASICBoost, they should just change the fucking code.


Yeah, let's all just act like a bunch of dumb fuck again and just ignore the fact so many people is ditching SegWit because they are pissed at Blockstream/Core.

Let's all repeat ASICBoost in every paragraph and make accusations like a bunch of completely uninformed retards.


This is the first time I am agreeing with you.

I will look into this further and later, since I don't have time now.

But superficially, I would think that if the Core mailing list is "gated" by a
core dev who is also a blockstream employee, then another non employed
voluntary Core dev should be given equal right to add new commenters to the
mailing list to prevent any biased situations or accusations of conflict(s). The
same would apply to mailing for BIP issuance. If Gavin was in that position
and still working with MIT, I would request that a voluntary Core dev was
co-mailer with Gavin. That would be a reasonable accommodation, IMO. It
would definitely alleviate a lot of issues and accusations outright.

When it comes moderators of Bitcointalk, I don't really care since Theymos
owns it and he can appoint anyone he wishes as a moderator. Thought obviously,
sections that deal with complex issues like technical and development should be
moderated by people who at least understand Bitcoin on a higher level. I think
Theymos added Achow now, which I think is appropriate.

Personally, as for the Core mailing list and BIP procedures, there should be
some adjustments and accommodations made, based on my simple understanding
and what you outlined. But remember Franky, I'm a noob with no power, so... I'm
only telling you what I would do, if I could.

If Jihan publicly stated/tweeted that he is now against "Patched Ext Blocks", it would be
obvious to the community why, and it would hurt his credibility with big blockers, IMO.

But I would like to add that the fact that he hasn't tweeted "I love Patched Ext Blocks",
could also be equally as telling. If I was Jihan and truly innocent and being set up, I would
agree to using "Patched Ext Blocks" and tweet that and shove it up my enemies asses. Since
he has not it makes me wonder, since it would be to his advantage, IMO. Which then adds
to my increasing belief that Jihan may truly be against SegWit because it hurts an ASICBoost
future that he has already invested load of money into.

As for the HK agreement, we can agree to disagree. I wasn't there and I really don't know
what was going on. All I know is that the whole community was watching that event and
ultimately no one was going to be happy, since the situation is too complex for a spur of
the moment written napkin agreement.

?? blockstream devs have no control ??

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips
luke JR.. oh look blockstream (p.s just a couple months ago it was gmax)

hmm who moderates the mailing list
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/bitcoin-dev-moderation
ozlabs... i wonder... oh look rusty russel

so thats LJR and RR of blockstream employment.
so whats next. hmm
oh the technical discussion category on this forum
oh look gmaxwell

so thats LJR,  RR and GM of blockstream employment.

---

separate matter..

---

have you then seen the segwit activation proposals
bip9, if gets no vote.. dont realise the community said no, do UASF

UASF, if gets no vote.. dont realise the community said no, dont give up, push harder until the end of 2018

seems blockstream can control what happens. and can only take no for an answer when its them saying no

I really don't understand why they went. I thought it was just to talk things over.
To explain their viewpoints and future goals/plans. Not to place anything in writing.
A few Core devs and Back of Blockstream do not have authority over the other Core
devs. I think it was a gigantic misunderstanding because of different issues.



I'm not shilling, that is my recollection at the time.

Yes, SegWit did get merged because the Core Devs agreed that is was worthy of
inclusion, but that doesn't mean it will be accepted, that is the community's choice.
That is what the miner's didn't understand at the HK meeting. The fact that SegWit
isn't already part of the protocol shows that the Core Devs during the HK meeting
were trying to be honest and reasonable. Devs are not all powerful. They can create
and propose, but if other devs, exchanges, miners, and users don't want that feature
it will not become the standard. In my opinion 2MB hardfork is more contentious in the
community than a SegWit softfork, but that is just my opinion. The expectations during
the HK meeting was way too high.

And yes, some BIPs about direct blocksize increases have been closed, but because the
plan is for optimizations first. The issue isn't about "trying to stop anything beyond 1MB",
since the whole community knows we will need to raise it eventually. A few small minority
of small blockers are "1MB 4EVAs!", but the rest of us want new ideas and optimizations
to the protocol that can increase TPS before we simply change the blocklimit with a hardfork.
It was always about optimizations and security, then onchain scaling. Bigblockers, like you I
presume, want that in reverse, which smallblockers think compromises security.

We, as a community, should request optimizations of the blockspace, before we increase
that space. If we can just bump it up all the time, there is no incentive to develop new
ideas and concepts to improve the protocol. SegWit may or may not be accepted as the
standard one day, but I accept that may be the reality and that should prove to you I am
not a shill for Core or Blockstream. I only want a decentralized and secure Bitcoin.
Though, I do support the current Core road map.



The "facts" you listed at the time, was a combination of your opinions and issues
that haven't been fully understood yet. Your argument to me is like:

Alex.BTC: "FACT: Humans will never find aliens in the universe!"
AgentofCoin: "That is not a fact, that is yet to be determined."
Alex.BTC: "Oh yeah?! Then prove it! Find me an alien now!"
AgentofCoin: "What? I'm not even an astronomer or astronaut."
Alex.BTC: "You troll! See! I hate you trolls. You need to prove it now!"

That is why this is ridiculous because I'll let the experts prove me right or wrong.
But you were the one who was arguing there were no "facts". Which is backwards.
Either you are protecting Bitmain and Antpool, or you are just backwards here.



I looked online at twitter timezones and Githubs and according to my simple research,
twitter shows the time based on your timezone and GitHub is based on EDT. This means
that Jihan tweeted 1 hour and 21 minutes after chjj edited the Ext block code no matter
where you are in the world. That is all I was pointing out.

Everything you are writing now is irrelevant to your original posting to me. You claimed
that Jihan tweeted BEFORE chjj changed it as a blockstream conspiracy, when in fact, it
was the other way, which either means it is a Jihan conspiracy or just "coincidence".




I don't know the patent laws in China, but in the West a patent doesn't only protect the
selling of the idea in product form, but also prevents you from construction and use. If for
example, Bitmain did patent ASICBoost and had the full rights to it, no one else in the
world is technically allowed to build, use, or sell a chip that uses the same configuration
without a license from Bitmain, otherwise that is patent theft. Maybe some will or could
do it, but bitmain could attempt to find them liable and get damages from that company.

For other miners not to be found liable, they need to create a new ASICBoost configuration
that is different from Bitmain's version and no miners are going to invest in R&D for that now,
IMO. Either Jihan opens up the rights to all parties for free or we need to patch the protocol.

Or its possible there could be a wind-down agreement where Jihan can use it for the next 3
years as long as he halves the usage every 1 year, in agreement to accept SegWit unpatched
now. Then in 3 years we patch ASICboost and have SegWit. Of course, Jihan might like that,
but bigblockers will not since they never get their blocksize increase. But it is just an idea for
fun for negotiation purposes. Maybe something along these lines could be negotiated.




I am not pinning everything on ASICBoost. It is just that it is an interesting puzzle piece
the community did not include in their mental equation as to why there is a stalemate.
When you add this ASICBoost element into it, things seem logical again.

It makes more sense that Jihan could block SegWit over an ASICBoost patch more than
truely wanting bigger blocks. Miners do not want bigger blocks. In the past, it took the Core
devs forever to get the miners to raise their soft caps. Weeks would go by and the miners
weren't paying attention. I think certain miners wanting bigger blocks now, is a myth.

Thinking that 1MB temporary cap is killing the network, is a large oversimplification of the
issues at hand. We need to balance the scaling with security over time. If we don't we could
both lose everything. We are trying to preserve the network and you wish to expand it in a
blind risk with fingers crossed that it works out and doesn't kill the golden goose. I do not
think Satoshi was all knowing. He was wrong sometimes and a piece of proof of that was
that Satoshi added the 1MB limit after Hal explained the logic of it. Satoshi changed his
mind sometimes and that is what must be kept in our minds as we go forward. If we
expand the blocksize, we can not do it on the logic of Satoshi from 2010, but data
and knowledge of 2017.




No one should listen to me. I'm not here to get followers or something.
I came to learn and talk. We are talking now because we disagree about things.

You have provided no facts or data for anything you have stated prior, only opinion.
You want me, a noob, to analysis Antpool's block data in the blockchain and I don't
even know how to parse that data automatically with python code and all that. There
are more qualified members of this community who can do all forms of data mining
and also interpret that data correctly.

If you want me to cite some info from the community already I will:

 - Antpool's stratum has code for covert and overt ASICBoost implemented
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/dfy5o65/
 - Electrum Wallet dev(s) says AntPool blocks/txs consistent with ASICBoost
https://twitter.com/ElectrumWallet/status/849974808259559425
 - Four AntPool blocks that have the same Coinbase string data.
https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/dfydbca/

Those are just three different issues (I didn't include stuff about empty blocks).

Now, I will assume that you will say these people are biased or not trustworthy
because they are from Bitcoin reddit or they support Core or Blockstream and that
is fine, but once again I will advise you to be patient and eventually someone who is
independent and scientific will have pulled all the data and analyze it, and will
conclusively determine whether there is anything or there is nothing there.

By you arguing that it is my sole responsibility is ridiculous. That is like telling the
person who calls 911 to prove that there is an emergency before they will send the
police or ambulance. There are people who are experts who are working on this
issue and analyzing it right now. The Bitcoin world doesn't fall only on my shoulders,
but all of ours. Those who are capable will rise and help the community to determine
the truth.

You were the one who was prejudging the situation by telling people the facts were
that there is no evidence. I only said to you, that is currently still being determined.
Your the one who needs to prove that your original "facts" were facts, which I
disproved in my prior posting and determined to be 1 fact out of your 6 possible facts.

I want an investigation and you want no investigation. The question is, as a Bitcoiner,
why don't you want to know the result of an investigation? Maybe you will be proven
right. Why are you against that? That is the problem here. You don't seek truths.

Thanks.

Gotcha.  Yeah , you made it sound that you were saying Jihan publicly stated that he
already changed his mind, which is not the case. 

We can agree to disagree on HK.  to me its just more evidence Core is full of BS.

 

Then wtf was the point of the meeting? Just a few dev hanging around stroking each other's dicks?

There was a huge blocksize debate at the time, pressure was on Core to increase the blocksize limit, Blockstream/Core fucked everyone over by pretending to support 2MB block increase.
 
If nothing was agreed upon, then there would have been another meeting for the blocksize issue, but nope, Blockstream/Core played everyone, now nobody trust anything they say.


Now you're just shilling for Blockstream/Core.
The fact is the exact opposite. Blockstream/Core is still fucking everyone over by keeping blocksize at 1MB.

SegWit gets merged by Core without a word (and still have less support than BU).
Blocksize increase pull request instantly get closed by Blockstream co-founder on Github.


That's the problem with you trolls, you spending too much time on personal attacks and too little on facts.

I just don't like watching people going around making idiotic statements with zero proof then act like they are some kind of know-it-all authority on the future. If you have a theory, post it as a theory, don't state it as a matter of fact, then go for bullshit gymnastics and personal attacks when someone ask you for proof.


If you play with timezones I am sure you can pull out different numbers.

But that is just more of the same nitpicking on trivial bullshit.

At the end of the day you just don't know what the exact time was when Jihan learned about Extension Block, and the exact time when he decided to support it, it could have been hours it could have been days.

The history of Extension Block is here:
https://medium.com/purse-essays/extension-block-story-619a46b58c24

The first commit of Extension Block was on Mar 23, 2017, it was a small commit, just a few lines, and it reads:
"This repository contains the specification for extension blocks with a BIP141 ruleset"

This proves Extension Block is base on BIP-141 right from the get go, so it was immune to ASICBoost right from the start, not hours or minutes ago.

I actually asked Christopher wtf was he doing on that botched edit, he said the edit was strictly within the context of the new stuff in extension block only, not the regular stuff, and he said he removed that line because it was redundant and overall the edit changed nothing.

Christopher wasn't aware of ASICBoost until Greg's proposal, he simply didn't know how it works, so he didn't know BIP-141 already implied ASICBoost immunity. His knee jerk reactionary edit later changed nothing, Extension Block was already immune to ASICBoost right from the start.

And it didn't matter what Chris knew, Jihan would know what BIP-141 means for ASICBoost.

This ASICBoost distraction is just a total bullshit, regardless of what Jihan did, if the code allow this shortcut, then any miners can build their own ASIC to use that shortcut, Jihan's patent only forbids others from selling it in China, not forbidding miners from building their own, so fix the damn code instead of blaming other people.


The blocksize increase is the true issue, it has been for over a year, because it affects everyone's bottom line. It is ignorant for you to use tunnel vision and pin everything on ASICBoost when Jihan will also profit from a blocksize increase, there are many things in play here.

It doesn't matter who Jihan is, I expect him to do everything he can for his business, and right now he's speaking the truth and he's openly opposing BlockStream, and his words make sense, that's good enough for me.

That's what I don't like about you trolls, the blocksize limit is fucking up the network right now, it's already happening, and instead just acknowledging it, you idiots circle jerk around the issue then keep pointing fingers at someone else. Blockstream/Core is clearly the culprit here.



You said Jihan have already used ASICBoost in production.
I asked you for proof.
You went for personal attack.
I out trolled you back.
Now you want a report?
What are you even on about?

You made the accusation.
I haven't seen any evidence.
So I asked you for them.
You talked shit.
So I dug a little, I found data that went against your claim.
So I showed that data to you, and asked you for evidence for your accusations again.
You tried to act like a smart ass, knowing full well you had nothing.
And instead of just man up and admit that.
You started 'lol'ing at the data I found.

It's like you have no idea how stupid you actually look.
And the funny part is you actually think people can't see through this shit.
Like at this point any of your insults actually do anything.

What's with the smartass teenager act anyway? Obviously you're not a teenager, who the fuck is going to respect some loud mouth finger pointing dumb fuck who can only ever talk shit.

Franky, we have talked on many occasions and we both understand that we believe
Bitcoin should go in different directions, but we both respect each other and know
that we both want what is best for Bitcoin. We are not paid shills who are trying to
make a mess, we both want to learn and discuss, even if we fight sometimes.

With that in mind, I disagree with you only because I don't think it is right to make
agreements with miners or exchanges or whatever, unless it is brought to the whole
development team and all agree or disagree and those devs then form a working
document publicly for the miners to sign at a personal event maybe. I think it is
important also for community response prior to writing that document.

In this case that did happened, a few Core devs and Back from Blockstream went
and they wrote something up to try to make everyone happy. But the problem is
that no one could ever be happy here, since it wasn't organized and done properly
from the beginning. The scaling issue is too big for a few devs in a small room.

You are arguing that the truth is that certain Core devs and Blockstream actually
control the whole Bitcoin development process and that they are purposefully
restricting and denying possible proposals that do not fit into the "Blockstream"
frame work or plan. I personally do not believe the "conspiracy theory" and think
the reality is that Core devs as a whole have agreed on a certain path and any
opposition to that path is seen as wasting peoples time since they have determined
that slow and steady is the path.

Respectfully Franky, I do not believe in the theory that the development process
is a scam and is fully controlled by a small handful. That would mean that if those
people wanted to scale to the moon tomorrow, then the others would follow. I don't
believe that. I think those other devs have their own opinions and would then disagree
unless they were given some new data or facts.

You know that I admit when I am wrong and I don't claim to know more than I do. I
truly tell you now, in my heart, I don't believe it is the way that you think it is. But if
you must force me to take a stand, I will stand with Core since I sincerely believe they
want Bitcoin to remain a decentralized network. I think bitcoin's greatest threat is
governmental regulation first. You know that, because I say that all the time. My
concern is whether Bitcoin will be able to survive to get to 50 years from now. My
concern centers on its future use in a more restrictive and oppressive world.

Once again we disagree Franky, but it is ok, because one day I believe a solution will
be found that will make us both happy, possibly reunite the tribes, and we can move
on to the next problem we will need to face in the future, which I think will be related
to adding more fungability into network.

 

1) When I give my opinions and comments I try to be fair, but I have made it public
that I support a decentralized validator node network at the expense of on-chain
scaling now. I think in a few more years we can go to 3MB on-chain. If I come off
as biased, I will admit that in that specific issue at the time, if you wish, I am not
unreasonable. I can not be truly full non biased, that would not be human. On
most issues I try to be unbiased, but on issues like blocksize debate, that is not
possible since that is about two polar opposite ideologies.

2) Jonald, as for the HK agreement, I am not making an excuse. You need to
understand that from my perspective, the agreement was induced and not how we
conduct ourselves in this community. Individual Core members can not go and meet
with other people to form an agreement on future implementations. That is wrong for
those Core members to do. There were wrong, they should have walked out.

You need all Core members to sign off and even if you could do that, that doesn't
mean the community will accept those changes. That is what the miners did not
understand and what you are missing here. Everyone was wrong. The HK agreement
was wrong before it was written. Core Devs have no right o do that. It was an error
at the time and will likely never happen again.

3) Jihan stated that he like Extension Blocks. At the time he made the comment, Ext
block was not patched yet. After the shit hit the fan, Poon agreed to patch it and did
supposedly. When I originally made that comment, it was made in that context. So
thus, "now that Ext Block has been patched Jihan will not support it". It was not
intended to be read as you are reading it. I guess I should have said "Jihan CAN not
support it".

In Bitmain's public statement about the ASICBoost issue, they argue against Maxwell's
proposed patch and argues that everyone should use ASICBoost (which Jihan owns
the rights to on his chips). If he is willing to still use the now patched Ext blocks, he
should go on the record and state such, since he originally stated he "Loves Ext Blocks",
he can easily tweet "I love the new patched Ext Blocks". Many issues would be resolved
then. It doesn't prove that he won't back down later, but it would be a powerful gesture,
in general, IMO.

agent...
by you pretending Gmax is not the chief tech officer (boss) of development
by you pretending luke does not moderate bips(along with gmax)
by you pretending they are as powerless as a highschool janitor..

is you failing to understand.
many many many people have had dynamic proposals rejected even at mailing list level(blockstream moderated)
and at bip level(blockstream moderated)
and then even when just grabbing core code and independently adding tweaks and asking the core devs to help out.
again blockstream devs REKT that too by saying "its not core, its an alt".

core are not independent. they are follow the leader of 10 paid devs and 100 unpaid interns staying loyal in hopes of getting a job with blockstream

the HK agreement was where people who CAN CODE and CAN direct their employees were invited to write code...
if the HK agreement thought open community effort was possible then .... oh wait, that was tried and REKT..
so the HK agreement wanted the guys that could code to get core to open its gates and do something to be on the same playing field as other diverse nodes.
but luke JR, etc just wanted to act like unskilled janitors/floor cleaners, just turning up for a free lunch before returning to mop and wax the floor, because gmax didnt want to go that route.

i find it funny that one day you praise blockstream devs as kings that own bitcoin and deserve control.
then the next day, pretend they are just floor sweeping janitors and there is no control.

so.

either
man up and be ok with diversity and decentralisation (true independence).
or
man up and admit your preference of core dominance and control in a centralised one codebase dependant group

I don't necessarily share Alex's conclusion you're a "paid shill"
although you are clearly biased in your politics as evidenced
by your signature (nothing necessarily wrong with that).

But I also would like to say that I agree with Alex that
your position on HK is just word play... Lets keep it real here.
You don't think Greg and Adam talk to each other almost
every day?  Of course, they acted as a united front, made,
and broke the agreement.  The fact that it was a non-binding
agreement is irrelevant to demonstrating their lack of compromise
and obstructionism.  Please stop making excuses for this; it
just makes you look bad.  Pick your battles.

Also, you didn't answer my question about where you came
up with this claim about Jihan back peddling on Extensionblocks.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here.  I hope you didn't
just make up a lie, that would make you look really bad.

My crystal ball is saying that Alex.BTC will need to get a real job soon because
his shill work isn't paying the bills. Soon he is going to have to scam the members
in the Digital Good section.

Hey Alex.BTC make sure you address my points in my most recent response since
you are accustomed to taking snippets that never address the actual issues.
Thanks buddy. Looking forward to reading your word salad and tap dancing later.

No, the key here is your explanation is irrelevant. You stated that Jihan signed the
HK Agreement and Maxwell then violated that agreement. The fact was that agreement
was not bound to Maxwell nor to any other Core dev other than to who signed that
document. All signatory developers were not granted any authority to make future
development decisions by the Core dev group.

My comment to your original comment centered around ASICBoost and nothing else.
You were insinuating that Jihan understood when signing the HK Agreement that SegWit
would break his ASICBoost, so he signed it in good faith and with knowledge. I merely
pointed out that was impossible in the timeline of events.
But you don’t care what I am saying because you have a malicious agenda.



If you acknowledge that it was just a gentlemen’s agreement between individuals
(and not representatives of Core with decision authority, which is impossible and a
oxymoron in a voluntary open-source community), why are you arguing about it?

It seems to me that the miners were attempting to pull a fast one. They were trying
to get a handful of people to decide the future of the Bitcoin Network. During that
meeting, all invited parties told the miners they had no actual authority and the
miners got mad because they are ignorant as to how the Bitcoin development
community actually works. They thought they could dictate the future.

Blockstream has no authority over the Core development. Maxwell and other
employees of Blockstream are Core developers, but they are separate entities.
If you think Blockstream breached, sue them. If you think Maxwell, as an employee
of Blockstream was a bad boy, ask Back to fire him. Ultimately, it is worthless since
all parties who signed the “agreement” had no power nor authority to guarantee or
implement a 2MB hardfork. That is the community's decision. Not any of theres.

You might consider the reason why you think there is a “Blockstream Circus” is
because you don’t really understand the full development system. If you or the
miners would have had your way, Bitcoin would have a dictator or CEO, it seems.

I love Bitcoin and the liberty it grants, you only love to control and strangle it.



Why begin accusing me of being a paid troll or shill? The fact is you are the noob
who copies and pastes from other forums and websites and literally checks off
talking points as you go. Half the time your points have nothing to do with our
original conversation. Normal people do not resort to calling people shills or trolls.
But you do that to hide the fact that you likely are one.  Like I said in my original
post to Jonald, you are just here to “perpetuate the obfuscations”. But, if you are
not a paid shill or troll then you are prone to paranoid delusions.




I disagree with your analysis and conclusion.
In fact, it seems to have a major flaw.

According to my simple research chjj changed Ext Blocks code 1 hour and  
21 minutes before Jihan commented that he loved Ext blocks. So, if that is true,
 that means Jihan likely got chjj to change the code and not Blockstream or
Maxwell.

So, you wrote a lot, and that is nice, but your time stamps do not match the
proper time line. If your conspiracy was to be correct then chjj should have
changed AFTER Jihan’s twitter posting, not BEFORE as he did.

This would also explain tany other issues and contradictions on the GitHub in
a reasonable way. In this case, chjj issued pull after Maxwell’s email to the
Core Devs could be seen as a “cover my ass” pull request. Either way, Jihan
twitter commented after the chjj change was made.

So as a non-technical person who hasn't gone deep into the details yet,
I think you are overall wrong due to timeline error.



I think I have shown simply that Jihan tweeted his love for Ext Block after chjj
change its code. Your facts were not complete and you jumped to conclusions.






I never argued there was proof currently available.
Everyone who is bothering to read this thread (which I assume is quite low
since most people would not waste their time and are likely telling themselves
that I am a moron for bothering to talk to you in a reasonable manner) can
see i never made the claim you are now attributing to me, once again.

The blocksize increase is not the true issue since Jihan doesn’t even really care
about that either. He cares more about the potential loss of profits if ASICBoost
is restricted from the network. He basically said so in the Bitmain published
statement. He only cares about his patents while drapes himself in how he
doesn't want to harm the Bitcoin community, yet that is what he has been doing.

People who think that Jihan is a true believer of the blocksize increase is naïve
at best and a paid shill at worst. You have been used by a Chinese businessman
who thought he would use the blocksize issue as a pawn, including its adherents.
The very people Satoshi created the Bitcoin system to control, you are advocating
we should trust. The only thing you should trust is that they will try to find the
next block over their competitor.



That may be because you can’t tell the different between two separate distinctions.




Lol. Pretty hostile statement.

In the past, community members who have specialized knowledge and training
have come forth to do that work. Why do I, someone who has no training in
computers or math, need to lead this charge. Lol, I’m not as arrogant as you to
think I could do it. Community members who are experts will handle that. I have
nothing to prove personally. As I have stated previously, the community will
investigate and analyze like every other time a controversy like this occurred.

See what I said there. That is called being rational. I know its hard for you.
But you need to learn to try more.




You twisted my words. So you are either not reading properly or doing it
intentionally. You are stating there is no evidence. Have you already looked into
this subject? Maybe you should publish your report on your findings, since you
claim there are no patterns or anything of any interest. I’m sure that would be
an interesting read, as much as your prior analysis ont chjj and the ext block
github was, Lol. You cited a "fact" that was based on only 3 months of data,
when the technology in question is over 2 years old.

You lack of imagination is remarkable.



Lol. You were the one who was declaring “facts”, remember? You are the one who
is predicting the future by saying there is nothing to find. You are doing the “Do not
look at the man behind the curtain!” routine. Stop telling me to look and also saying
there is nothing to find. It is pretty contradictory.



No, their statement said that he was wrong, not why, and then they go on to state a
better way to deal with this issue other than what Maxwell proposed. They never
pointed out actual math as to why Maxwell was wrong.

I am not arguing for Maxwell. I am only arguing against your “facts” you posted prior.
I’m pretty sure Maxwell and the community understands the difference between 1MB
and 2MB. Since, if they didn’t, we would all be at 5MB by now, and on our way to
14MB within the year.



What? Are you talking about yourself here? I think you might be referring to yourself
here.  My guess is anyone who is constantly attacking people about them being a
paid shill or paid troll or whatever, is likely the true shill or troll. Most people fight, but
when you resort to those types of things, it usually means that individual is the weaker
one and the deceiver, and normal regular people know this. I guess you never learned
that lesson in shill school.



Lol. That is pretty weak. (1) is not a prophesy, that is life in general (2) someone
publishing an analysis should be expected, it happens constantly within our community
(3) that is not a prophecy either, that’s deduction.  But I dare you to have Jihan tweet
that he will accept a scaling solution that enforces anti-ASICBoost like measures. If he
does it and the community sees that statement, I will admit that I was wrong and you
were correct. (Something I'm sure you are incapable of doing yourself).



Lol. Oh no… You got me, I told people not to listen to you because you are
“perpetuating the obfuscations”, and you have interpreted that as an attack in
your simple mind. See that? Where I called your mind simple there. That’s an
attack. Now I have attacked you individually. You are a base shitty person and
there is no wonder why the bitcoin community is so crazy. There are people like
you making new accounts to copy and paste shit for a few satoshis.

BTW you stated above "You do realize you just got out trolled". So is that your
admission that you are indeed a troll then? But, lets continue



Lol.  You used me? Oh man I feel dirty and violated now, kinda like that crack
whore you refer to. What are you like 17 years old? Nothing you have stated on
this whole forum has any truth to it, let alone this little thread. If you think you
have not been proven wrong by now, that’s only due to your own ignorance and
delusion and not due to your "factual" knowledge.

I have now above, shown how your chff and Ext block analysis was wrong.
Are you going to ignore that one too next time you respond? I bet if I am correct
I will never hear about your correction of that error.



Beep Boop. Oh no. Alex.BTC has figured out I’m a robot and he got me. Beep Boop.
I hope he gets paid double from his shill master because he is greatest shill in all
shilldom. The paragraph he wrote above here really outlines how Alex.BTC’s mind
works, and why he is malicious to the bitcoin community. Anyone who continues to
listen to him is either misguided or just as bad. Remember kids, don’t grow up to be
like Alex.BTC. You have to learn to deal with your hate in healthy ways. Don't throw
your life away and grow up to be a paid shill like Alex.BTC. Take a stand with
something you believe in and don't participate in the hate mongering. Beep boop.



Lol. This is my favorite part of the speech. The 50 IQ part. Lol. People can’t speak
proper sentences, let alone hold a thought in their head at that level. But whatever..
You just like to say anything, even things that aren't "factual". Beep Boop.



Talk to my handler, eh? Looks like we got ourselves an intelligence agent here.
Alex.BTC has exposed himself to be an intelligence agent by using their lingo.
Beep Boop Maybe your "handler" will read this thread and fire your ass for
doing a lousy job. But unfortunately, I suspect you will get a raise since
your job is to create division and obfuscation, as opposed to providing
any "facts" to the community.

You want me to ask my 50 Point IQ robot brain if I would hire my 50 IQ robot
brain for a PR campaign? LOL!! If you are not a paid troll/shill I really have no
idea what they would be like, since if your not one, I’d be afraid to meet a real
one. Pathetic my friend, real pathetic.

If I had to score your factual ratio again, you would get another low score, my
robot brain thinks.

He can't answer you, AgentofCoin likes to use his secret crystal ball instead of facts.

not sure i get the joke.

But seriously, AgentofCoin...regardless of the fact that this is a distraction from the scaling debate,
you made an interesting/important claim here about Jihan...so I would like to know where you
got that from.  Surely, you didn't just make this up?

because the majority is using bitcoin core, most of the people in the dark of any client else than core will not get into it. IIRC core is more sustainable by its growth of blockchain size, other than which propose a higher size per block are not affordable to them.

inability of sustaining a blockchain by miners, so do the majority. their statement of using core are reasonable to software users.

They literally spend most of their time writing these garbage posts.

He does, it's a sphere, it's made of glass, it's on the floor of his toilet and it has wet brown stains on it.

Not when someone with tunnel vision keep accusing Jihan of stop supporting SegWit once he realized he can't use ASICBoost on it.

The SegWit agreement was already derailed by Greg's 'dipshits' comment right after the agreement was signed, it was later furter derailed by Greg+gang changing the story to 'SegWit was the blocksize increase'.

The key here is Jihan was not the only miner who was pissed at Blockstream/Core and switched to BU. Pinning the entire mass exodus from Core on ASICBoost is just another distraction from the real issue: The 1M blocksize limit.


Irrelevant word play, when you resort to nitpick on a micro level, you should know the HK Agreement wasn't even a legally binding contract, but an acknowledgement of consensus between miners and Blockstream/Core.

Adam Back represented Blockstream when he signed the HK Agreement (he used a bait and switch at the last minute, but f2pool corrected him afterwards), Greg was part of Blockstream and Core, so everyone in Blockstream is in the same party that signed the agreement.

Greg actively and vocally went against the HK agreement right after it was signed, Greg's bullshit continued to this day. Greg wasn't the only one from Blockstream/Core working against the agreement, but he was the most vocal, that's why he's now called "One Meg Greg", miners switched to BU once it was clear that Blockstream/Core wasn't going to keep their promises and offer 2MB non witness blocks as promised.

This Blockstream circus has been going on for over a year, you have to be intentionally dishonest or grossly uninformed to claim Greg didn't break the HK Agreement.


I knew you'd fall for it. Ext Block had always been immune to ASICBoost, simply because its design is base on BIP-141 (SegWit), which hash all regular and side tx into the coinbase merkle root.

And now I know you really are a paid troll, only a paid troll would act stupid all the time then suddenly become smart enough to pick up on small details and try go for a kill. But you were lazy and didn't check commit history, so you didn't notice it was just a bait.

The funny thing is this time I'll use Greg's ASICBoost inhibiting proposal and BIP-141(SegWit) to prove you wrong, using one shill against another just for kicks.

Take a look at Greg's ASICBoost inhibiting proposal on 5 Apr 2017:

I just established, using verifiable facts, that Jihan/Bitmain/AntPool supported Extension Block, which was and still is immune to ASICBoost.


All the knee jerk responses, screaming and finger pointing, foaming at the mouth baseless accusations about ASICBoost suggest otherwise.


You made the accusations, the burden of proof is on you, back up your own words instead of cry wolf nonstop then looking around like a moron waiting for someone else to clean up your mess.


The blockchain (that immutable thing you call 'faulty data') has always been out there for everyone to see.
There are no long strings of empty blocks.
There are no pattern of funny version numbers.
There are no pattern of weird tx orders.

If there is some kind of secret way to use ASICBoost that can hide this well from everyone for this long, then ASICBoost automatically become yet another optimization. But then again, there aren't any abnormal hashrate:blockrate ratio.

You made accusations with absolutely nothing but bullshit prophecies, then you complain about people showing up with facts dating back months? Normal people just can't be that silly, trolling as a job is one thing, but this is just bad acting, very unprofessional.


Again, no long strings of empty blocks.
No abnormal hashrate/blockrate ratios.

It takes time to calculate the next block template, during which miners mine empty blocks, AntPool has the highest hash rate, naturally they'll have more empty blocks than others.
 
Empty blocks existed before ASIC was even in the picture.

Try look for some abnormal patterns from the blockchain, instead of keep pulling crystal balls out of your rear.


He did say why Greg was wrong.

Why are you even arguing for Greg. Greg doesn't even understand the difference between 1MB and 2MB.


Or they should investigate why there are so many unprofessional trolls posting similar bullshit narratives non stop.

No logic, no facts, wrong every time, yet keep repeating them like their jobs depend on it.

Sometimes they don't even remember what they posted a page ago, like they're working on multiple sites at the same time, or more than one PR worker is using the account.


1. You are laughable.
2. They can, I did, and you have.
3. Cult prophet wannabe proof:
AgentofCoin: In time, all will be revealed.
AgentofCoin: within the next two months or less, someone will publish a full scientific report
AgentofCoin: Jihan will no longer support that Ext Block proposal.

In time, you'll find a better job than acting like a robot online all the time.


You do realize you just got out trolled because you asked for it by name on page 1, right? Here:


And you do realize I was just using you to explain to people Extension Block is immune to ASICBoost, right?

This whole ASICBoost bullshit is just another distraction from Core keeping the blocksize at 1M slowing everything down.

The ASICBoost write paper used a lot of tech jargon, that's why after a year over half the devs still don't know how it works.

ASICBoost is:
1. A programming short cut of using 3 sha256 operations instead of 4 when mining a block hash.

2. It is possible because sha256 processes data in 64 bytes chunks, but the header is 80 bytes long.

3. So the block header is split into 2 chunks when sha256 computes its hash.

4. The merkle root inside the block header, spans over the position that sha256 split the chunks.

5. The merkle root is 32 bytes, 28 bytes of it (head) ends up in the first chunk, 4 bytes of it (tail) ends up in the 2nd chunk.

6. The second chunk has 16 bytes of data and 48 bytes of padding.

7. Of the 16 bytes of the data in the second chunk, 4bytes is the merkle root tail, the other 12 bytes are  time/difficulty/nonce, all known values by the miner.

8. That means if a miner can generate a bunch of hash with the same last 4 bytes, then the entire 2nd chunk, all 16+48 bytes of it becomes a fixed known value.

9. This allows miners to simplify the sha256 mining loop, so that it only uses 3 sha256 operations instead of 4, and increase performance.

10. The more hash with the same last 4 bytes a miner can generate, the more times they can use the short cut, the more performance gain, this process is called 'finding partial hash collision'.

11. To generate these partial hash collisions, miners have to keep changing the data on the block then get a new hash at high speed, but different ways have different costs, only a few of them is worth while.

12. One of the fastest way to find hash collisions is to keep changing the extranonce in the coinbase, at the same time keep reordering tx in the block. This modify both side of the merkle tree parallelly and allow further math shortcuts to take place.

13. Changing the coinbase and reordering tx is computationally costly, it is only worthwhile if you can do both at the same time without affecting each other.

14. In regular Bitcoin, modifying tx changes the right side of the merkle tree, and modifying the coinbase changes the left side of the merkle tree, the coinbase on the left doesn't care what happens to the tx on the right, and vice versa. There are no double overhead modifying data on any side, so in the end you can gain a 20% advantage with ASICBoost.

15. But if the coinbase merkle root includes the hash of all the tx, then ASICBoost is no longer worth the effort, in fact it'd make mining slower, because now every time you reorder the tx, the coinbase also changes, and you have to use an extra 10 or so operations to update the left side of the merkle tree. That 20% advantage is gone.

16. This is what happens in BIP-141 SegWit, the coinbase has a new merkle root call the 'witness root hash', that includes all regular and side tx. This makes reordering tx also updates the coinbase, miners have to spend 10 extra operations for each tx reordering, this double overhead makes it too costly to use ASICBoost.

17. Extension Block is base on BIP-141, they have the same commitment structure, so Extension Block is immune to ASICBoost.

18. If anyone is using ASICBoost, the 'overt' method involves modifying block header data directly, so you'll see strange version numbers and other weird data, the 'covert' method involve reordering of tx, or empty blocks, these are also obvious.

19. If there is a new way to use ASICBoost without obvious side effects, then it's just another valid optimization on generating hash, optimization happens all the time.

20. The excuse of ASICBoost patent may lead to centralization is just silly, there are so many patent involved with mining already, from chip to connectors to cooling, everywhere you look there is a patent. This field is so competitive, every year there are a bunch of new optimizations with a new bunch of patents.

So, ASICBoost doesn't work on Extension Block, and ASICBoost was never used in production.

Stop crying about it being used and just show us the proof for all your accusations.