Topic: it is Core, not Bitman blocking segwit - page 4. (Read 5420 times)

  Very interesting...  do you have a source?

First off, the fact that Jihan signed the HK Agreement doesn't mean anything of any value
in relation to this current ASICBoost issue. Second, Maxwell never signed the HK agreement,
so he could not have broken the agreement that he was not a party to. So, part of your "fact #1"
is not actually factual.

So, I'll give you 0.5 points for your first "fact". (0.5 out of 1.0)
Half a point because Jihan signed it, but that doesn't prove anything at issue.



Sadly, you are the one misdirecting people.

You stated that your "Fact #2" was that Ext Blocks also blocked covert ASICBoost and
Jihan supports that, so you imply Jihan's innocence, since he would never accept the
Ext Block proposal if it also hurt the purported covert ASICBoost advantage and patents.
This is not a correct record of the events.
Ext Blocks only recently patched it to prevent ASICBoost use, and since then, Jihan will
no longer support that Ext Block proposal. Jihan only supported the Ext Block version that
allowed Covert ASICBoosting to remain intact.

So, I'll give you 0.0 points for your second "fact". (0.5 out of 2.0)
Due to being totally wrong.



Again, you are the one misdirecting people.

The issue of ASICBoost a few years ago, which I was around for, centered around the
community acknowledgment that Miners should not use it. In addition, Miners agreed
not to use it. The CURRENT ISSUE is that ASICBoost has been purportedly redesigned
to allow for covert ways to ASICBoost, which would be in violation of the community
and miner verbal agreements. I never claimed ASICBoost was newly discovered and
no one in the community is.

So, I'll give you 0.0 points for your third "fact". (0.5 out of 3.0)
Due to trying to arguing that no obvious evidence now, it proof of no wrongdoing.
That is equivalent to saying "there is no body now, so there was no murder ever".



Of course, the burden in on the community to determine if there is any evidence.

Your "fact #4" relied on faulty data and an incomplete examination of all the
data we could be analyzed. When you dismiss the current accusations outright
and cite a Twitter guy that only went back 3 months, that is disingenuous and
misdirection. We still need time to look over everything. It is likely, based upon
past Bitcoin events, within the next two months or less, someone will publish a
full scientific report either confirming, denying, or concluding that it is
indeterminable. As a Bitcoin supporter you should be interested in those results,
regardless of who is right. You shouldn't be prejudging.

Ultimately, you declaration that there is no evidence is very premature.
You may be correct in the end, but your "Fact #4" is not an actual fact yet.

So, I'll give you 0.0 points for your fourth "fact". (0.5 out of 4.0)
Due to it being not a "fact" and we will have actual "facts" in time.



Again, you are the one misdirecting people.

Your "fact" implies that AntPool is innocent since they only profited 14% fees.
Ultimately, that statement is irrelevant entirely. ASICBoost is about cutting the
time down on finding blocks to gain the blockreward, not to gather as many fees
as possible. In addition, it may be possible with this new proposed covert ASICBoost
design, it could account for AntPools high empty block count. This may or may not
be correct, we still don't know. The community is still looking into this.

So, I'll give you 0.5 points for your fifth "fact". (1.0 out of 5.0)
Due to it being partial correct, but wrong as a "fact" to disprove the current accusations.



Again, you are the one misdirecting people.

Your "fact #6", you stated that "Greg's math is wrong" which can not be a "fact"
and then you cited Bitman's public response to the current issue, which does not
cite any math or proofs as to why "Greg's math is wrong" or what is the math
determinations in general. I only stated that the community needs to begin
independent investigation. So this "fact #6" can't be a fact as well.

So, I'll give you 0.0 points for your sixth "fact". (1.0 out of 6.0)
Due to citing something that doesn't prove your asserted "Fact #6".



Here you go on to state that you provided "facts", yet as I have outlined above, your
"fact" score is around 1.0 out of a possible 6.0 facts. That is a lousy fact ratio.

Maybe the community should also investigate why your facts seem not to add up to what
the current evidence is and what it is currently pointing to. I would assume your high error
ratio has to do with being heavily biased in general and not having a problem with it, since you
are pushing an agenda that doesn't care about anything other than your own personal ego
and financial satisfaction. If you cared about Bitcoin and the community, you wouldn't post
those "facts" because they are self serving and a true distraction. "Nothing to see here guys".
"Don't try to look into any of the accusations, because there is no evidence. Case closed."

Talking about me acting like a cult prophet is laughable. Anyone can go back through my
post history and take a look if I have spoken like a prophet, alluding to communication with
God (or Satoshi, in this case), used people, attacked people, purposefully misconstrued info,
shilled positions that are unreasonable, fallen in line with "party" positions, or whatever. My
only allegiance is to the Bitcoin network and it's unencumbered unrestricted unregulated
future. The community can decide between both of us, who seems more reasonable and
genuine, and who is the bullshit artist.

The truth is that everything you are accusing me of is likely what you yourself is doing. I
haven't called you names, but if we are doing that now, I would advise you to read about
Jim Jones and The People's Temple. Since you think I'm acting like a false prophet or whatever,
I will prophesize that your future in the Bitcoin community and your false arguments will fall
along the same lines as what occurred with them. I see great disillusion in your future.

sorry to burst your bubble

 f2pool was good enough to have morals to admit something

i read this as:   I am a shill for Core/Blockstream.  Their scaling roadmap is the one true God.

Yes, I broadly agree.

But it sounds like you're saying Segwit might not have a chance, but support from miners is steadily rising, consistently above 30% for nearly a week now.

Also, stopping ASIC Boost might cut Bitmain's hashrate share significantly (assuming they're actually using it, which is not an unfair assumption). Fear of getting their blocks orphaned by >51% of miners signalling Segwit might indeed change Bitmain's mind, they'd have little choice but to start signalling Segwit too, or they'd risk losing blocks and revenue.
the


I'm not in favour of bigger blocks, but you will have your wish, when Segwit activates. I think 4MB blocks are a danger, especially since geopolitical tensions seem to increase every day (and more and more governments are using the tension to advocate putting more controls on the internet).

But I'm willing to compromise with Segwit. If you don't think 4MB blocks will be enough today, I don't know what compromise any of us could agree to.

Im tired of all of this talking, we need action now. We need to take out Jihan Wu, then we need segwit so we can enjoy lightning networks and sidechains, all other positions are incorrect.

What i meant in my whole post is that asicboost looks like an important issue to resolve.
Of course segwit would solve it, but it doesn't make consensus now and it can't be activated now.
So it is probably better to just stop asicboost from working and then go back to this old debate.
After asicboost has been stop working, jihan and other won't have any mean to activate it again and they might simply go on for segwit.


I am really preaching against myself here because i am in favor of bigger block but i do not want to arguement that here because i already done that and it gives no result...

I haven't seen any direct evidences from anyone so far about anything. All i see is opinions, accusations, etc. Hence this debate rolls on and on and on boring me to near death.

Sources?

Even so, there still isn't any proof. But I agree, it's highly likely Bitmain are mining empty blocks to make use of ASIC Boost. They've admitted it's there in the ASICs, but deny using it. The BIP to remove covert ASIC Boosting should still happen of course, but there genuinely is no proof it's being used, just some highly suspicious circumstantial evidence, it's not called covert ASIC Boosting for nothing.

Unfortunately this is the case for the supermajority of the population as well as as good portion of the Bitcoin users ("even those thinking they are *awake*").

I'm pretty sure that it is extremely hard/possibly impossible to detect covert usage (which Segwit would prevent).

Why would they spend money building compatible hardware only to *not* use it? Anyone can see that this logic makes no sense.

HK was neither +8 MB nor + 4MB. There was never an exact number specified.

Holliday has made his position clear to me:  He thinks Bitcoin will be fine with low TPS and it will still be valuable as a kind of digital gold.

SegWit will make an effective increase if/when someone jumps on board.

And what "old soft compatibility" issues does SegWit solve? If you're referring to what's described here, that's not really solving anything.


Of course one can't. At least for now.


I guess nobody will care, they can go on with their own altcoin if they so desire, but that's not really on the scope of this subsection of the forum.


Good lesson.


Miners have all the interest in scaling Bitcoin. If Bitcoin does not scale it will not survive and miners have vested interest in Bitcoin.


Well then, it's not hard to figure out what miners will opt for

Because it involves doubling MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT as well as MAX_BLOCK_SIZE.

In practice, that means 2MB + 6MB, not 1MB + 3MB (Segwit BIP 141 as proposed).


No, that's the whole point behind Antpool/Bitmain blocking Segwit (apparently). Segwit activation would stop ASIC Boost working, because of the way Segwit changes the coinbase structure in blocks. Blocking Segwit would allow Bitmain to continue covert ASIC Boosting, although we haven't got direct evidence that Bitmain are using it (but a range of highly suspicious indirect evidence, of course, exists)

some devs have found a clever hack which they can use to make BTC TX and NOT pay miners a TX fee
we should enact a USHF to prevent this hack from being exploited, the security model of bitcoin itself is in jeopardy!!

You're right, they won't, which is why it's an interesting coincidence that Bitmain would support SegWit only in the circumstances which you believe won't happen.  They're taking advantage of Core's unwillingness to compromise by implying that they would support SegWit in other situations.

If we stop them using asicboost, they still have some substantial money invested in bitcoin mining.
So the second after asicboost is rendered useless, they might change their opinion and seek diferent consensus. This is very relevent.

2m+segwit, why not? But what i understood is that it would not stop asicboost to work...
So why not bip anti asicboost and then see if 2mb + segwit get traction ?

hmmmm..... except those are all capacity change proposals, not scaling proposals. Who's the sh(r)ill troll, jonald fyookball?

Wauw, all kinds of people are trolling and shilling....

Fact is, I'm open to many scaling proposals:

Bitcoin Original
Bitcoin Classic
Bitcoin Unlimited
Lightening Network
Bitcoin CoreEC
Flexcap
Extension Blocks

I would even compromise with Segwit-HF + bigger blocks.

Core Devs and their supporters seem to be the ones unwilling to be open to others opinion and unwilling to compromise.

Glad we agree on that.


IF it can be proven they have been using it while claiming they weren't, I would say that is dishonest and deceitful and harmful to Bitcoin, absolutely.   They secured a patent and wrote functions to use it, but there is no actual proof (such as transaction re-ordering) that they have been using it.  They may have merely prepared to use defensively if other miners started using it.  The fact that they did agree in the HK to segwit+8mb or segwit+4b whatever it was plus the fact that Jihan said (before this 'scandal') that he supports extension blocks (also incompatible with asicboost) supports the idea that they indeed haven't been using it.  Also my understanding from reading a r/bitcoin thread is that it requires a pool to allow and there's no evidence of antpool or any other pool allowing it.

Anyway , I would support a BIP to block asicboost generally speaking.  Not really that interested in further debate on it.   Have a good weekend.