Bitcoin Forum>Bitcoin>Development & Technical Discussion

Pages:

Author

Topic: Miner activated hard fork (MAHF) (Read 428 times)

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on January 20, 2023, 07:02:55 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 20, 2023, 05:58:11 AM

Part of the Core Developers' argument was that it was a compromise for the block size increase, because Segwit did increase the network's capacity a little.

Sure, but the main argument for SegWit's support, was to fix the transaction malleability. This little increase in block size was rather an incident.

I was merely giving you some context when you said that Segwit wasn't relevant in scaling, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61614604

In fact, it was during the Scaling Debate. It was the compromise, the trade-off.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 20, 2023, 05:58:11 AM

List of Core Developers and important people that supported Segwit and different activation methods, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

I get it, almost all Core developers supported SegWit. What I'm saying is: I don't believe many of those consider voting with full nodes a wise option.

It could be debated that it wasn't wise option, but history showed the community that it was a necessary option. It was the "Ace in their sleeve", although risky.

Did you read the list? There are ten Core Developers who preferred BIP-148/UASF, found it acceptable, or wanting it.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 20, 2023, 05:58:11 AM

Part of the Core Developers' argument was that it was a compromise for the block size increase, because Segwit did increase the network's capacity a little.

Sure, but the main argument for SegWit's support, was to fix the transaction malleability. This little increase in block size was rather an incident.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 20, 2023, 05:58:11 AM

List of Core Developers and important people that supported Segwit and different activation methods, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

I get it, almost all Core developers supported SegWit. What I'm saying is: I don't believe many of those consider voting with full nodes a wise option.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on January 19, 2023, 09:12:10 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 18, 2023, 05:34:53 AM

I don't know what you're trying to argue, but the scaling debate was between the Core Developers who were debating for Segwit/Soft Fork, and the Big Blockers who were debating for a block size increase/Hard Fork.

Yeah, I just mean that the BIP 148 wasn't primarily for scaling purposes. The author proposed it mainly for the transaction malleability issue. The big blockers wanting block size increase was in spite of this problem.

Part of the Core Developers' argument was that it was a compromise for the block size increase, because Segwit did increase the network's capacity a little.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 18, 2023, 05:34:53 AM

Core Developers Eric Lombrozo and Luke Dashjr supported the UASF, and thought it was a necessary move to pressure the miners to activate Segwit.

They supported the soft fork, but I don't think they've ever stated that the soft fork is wise to be activated according to what most full nodes follow.

No, defintely Luke Dashjr was an ardent supporter of BIP-148/UASF, and Eric Lombrozo later showing support by wearing a UASF hat that was given by Francis Pouliot during a talk in a conference.

List of Core Developers and important people that supported Segwit and different activation methods, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 18, 2023, 05:34:53 AM

Core Developers Eric Lombrozo and Luke Dashjr supported the UASF, and thought it was a necessary move to pressure the miners to activate Segwit.

They supported the soft fork, but I don't think they've ever stated that the soft fork is wise to be activated according to what most full nodes follow.

Quote from: pooya87 on January 19, 2023, 12:13:12 AM

the problem was that they were arguing that block size increase should be the only solution to scaling bitcoin.

Which ironically isn't a scaling solution at all, let alone the only. Rising the limit doesn't scale. Scaling comes with compression, as it's happening with SegWit (slightly), Lightning, and now Taproot.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 18, 2023, 02:22:25 AM

I believe it's part of the experiment, and I don't think everything will fall apart especially in this part of Bitcoin's evolution when the self-interest of each participant must find some balance with the interests of the group. Eventually, the participants will come into consensus to find the balance where everyone is incentivized to keep everything running, and to keep everyone participating.

There are certain principles that Bitcoin was built upon like pillars. You can't say if these principles (consensus) are changed things won't fall apart because the result will no longer be Bitcoin as we know it.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 18, 2023, 05:34:53 AM

and the Big Blockers who were debating for a block size increase/Hard Fork.

Lest we forget, The problem wasn't just that they were arguing for bigger block size, the problem was that they were arguing that block size increase should be the only solution to scaling bitcoin.
Their proposals were also crazy like saying block size should be "unlimited" (eg. 2 TB blocks which later on turned into shitcoins like BSV) or they argued that the miners should have full control over the future of block size and decide whether they want to increase it and how much.

This is why their proposals never got anywhere, otherwise I personally believe that the block size itself should be increased by a hard fork at some point in the future but the main scaling solution should still be a second layer not the block size.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on January 18, 2023, 04:38:40 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 18, 2023, 02:22:25 AM

In the context of the scaling debate and the proposal of BIP-148 by Shaolinfry, full nodes = users.

BIP-148 isn't relevant with scaling, though. Did you mean another?

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 18, 2023, 02:22:25 AM

Anyone can spin up a thousand nodes, BUT what matters is the economic majority which includes Bitcoin users, merchants, exchanges, services = REAL USERS that can influence Bitcoin. That's different from a mere troll who spun a thousand nodes and went to fork "his network" alone.

And I insist: is there any rational developer who ever suggested that voting with full nodes is wise?

Core Developers Eric Lombrozo and Luke Dashjr supported the UASF, and thought it was a necessary move to pressure the miners to activate Segwit.

Quote

UASF rather sounds like it's backed by marketing.

If that's what you believe, OK. I personally believe that it was an educating, and eye-opening event in Bitcoin.

Shaolinfry's proposal for BIP-148/UASF, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/moving-towards-user-activated-soft-fork-activation-1805060

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: pooya87 on January 18, 2023, 12:01:47 AM

It's pretty simple, a CEX only exists to make money and they make the most amount of money if they list more coins on their platform.

Or if someone bribes them to deny one fork.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 18, 2023, 02:22:25 AM

In the context of the scaling debate and the proposal of BIP-148 by Shaolinfry, full nodes = users.

BIP-148 isn't relevant with scaling, though. Did you mean another?

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 18, 2023, 02:22:25 AM

And I insist: is there any rational developer who ever suggested that voting with full nodes is wise? UASF rather sounds like it's backed by marketing.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: pooya87 on January 17, 2023, 10:59:17 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 17, 2023, 01:48:10 AM

ۤThe UASF was where every belief/assumptions in the politics and incentives in protocol changed. It was also "discovered" that it's the full nodes that create the demand for what the miners produce. Blocks.

The problems start when you start separating different parts of Bitcoin network. You can't have miners without nodes and you can't have nodes without miners. If one group or a sub-group of a group starts forcing something on others, everything will start falling apart.

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on January 17, 2023, 12:56:04 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 17, 2023, 01:48:10 AM

The UASF was where every belief/assumptions in the politics and incentives in protocol changed. It was also "discovered" that it's the full nodes that create the demand for what the miners produce. Blocks.

The full nodes or the users? As said, anyone can spin up a thousand full nodes. I think what defines votes is purchasing power. If you own billions worth of bitcoin, you do have an opinion, because you can move a big part of the fork back to Bitcoin. (or oppositely, if you support the fork)

In the context of the scaling debate and the proposal of BIP-148 by Shaolinfry, full nodes = users.

Anyone can spin up a thousand nodes, BUT what matters is the economic majority which includes Bitcoin users, merchants, exchanges, services = REAL USERS that can influence Bitcoin. That's different from a mere troll who spun a thousand nodes and went to fork "his network" alone.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: ?? on ??

if the favoured CEX nodes are going to reject blocks

In reality CEXes are never going to do something like that. It's pretty simple, a CEX only exists to make money and they make the most amount of money if they list more coins on their platform. In case of a split (where they have to reject certain blocks) they make the most amount of money if they accept both chains!

Look back to what many exchanges did back in 2017 by listing chains that never even existed like "bitcoin unlimited" and sold virtual coins at virtual prices to people, coins that never existed and were never supposed to even exist!

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: takuma sato on January 16, 2023, 08:31:29 PM

Miners: "We have the most hasrate, join us or you will be transacting upon a less secure blockchain."

They have the most hashrate, but they better use it wisely to the chain with the most demand, otherwise they're going to mine useless coins.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 17, 2023, 01:48:10 AM

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 17, 2023, 01:48:10 AM

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on January 16, 2023, 08:08:33 AM

Quote from: pooya87 on January 15, 2023, 11:58:21 PM

I personally don't accept that 10% of nodes (not miners) signalling UASF forced anything on miners.

Me neither. I don't believe there's ever been an effective UASF, generally. My understanding is this: you signal or vote for the soft fork by running a node with the according rules. My question is: what prevents you from setting up a million nodes with these rules, pretending to be a million users?

They don't have to set up a million nodes. It will depend on who is active as the Intolerant Minority, because once you have influential community members, Core Developers, and some of the popular Bitcoin merchants and exchange owners supporting the UASF, the miners must be careful. Miners are also incentivized to do what the community wants. This is debatable but I believe they will have more to lose if they are at the wrong side of the fork.

Quote from: pooya87 on January 16, 2023, 09:25:02 AM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on January 16, 2023, 08:08:33 AM

My question is: what prevents you from setting up a million nodes with these rules, pretending to be a million users?

Absolutely nothing specially since the cost is very minimal. Also this is exactly why we are using Proof of Work algorithm not something silly like Proof of Node or Stake! and we use the term "1 CPU 1 Vote" not "1 Node 1 Vote".

takuma sato

sr. member

Activity: 317

Merit: 448

Quote from: Carlton Banks on January 12, 2023, 09:10:42 AM

Quote from: takuma sato on January 10, 2023, 10:10:08 PM

You need consensus from several parties for people to follow your HF.

is that not tautological though? "people will agree with you, but only if they agree to it"

any miner can "activate" or "lock in" a hard fork, such expressions arguably only serve as rhetorical devices, i.e.

bitcoin devs looking to reach consensus with users can use these sorts of words to make it sound powerful / empowering, to breed confidence
a hostile fork could equally use such language to scare users into believing there's no escape from this strong, unstoppable force

in other words, it's marketing/PR when anyone does it really, or at least it's become that way

as everyone says though, a miner unilaterally hard forking may find themselves mining an increasingly lonely blockchain.

Everyone will try to use their weapons to persuade each other. From their respective POVs:

Miners: "We have the most hasrate, join us or you will be transacting upon a less secure blockchain."
Devs: "We are the most technically competent developers, join us or you will be transacting over less secure code."
Exchanges: "We have the most liquidity, join us or you will not be able to buy/sell."
Hodlers: "We have the most funds, join us or we will rekt your shitcoin by dumping our split shares into your fake Bitcoin."

And so follows.

The fact that is so incredibly complex that somehow everyone agrees mutually makes Bitcoin a very solid protocol, probably immutable by now and thus valuable for anyone wanting to park money in there.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on January 16, 2023, 08:08:33 AM

My question is: what prevents you from setting up a million nodes with these rules, pretending to be a million users?

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: pooya87 on January 15, 2023, 11:58:21 PM

I personally don't accept that 10% of nodes (not miners) signalling UASF forced anything on miners.

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 7490

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: serjent05 on January 13, 2023, 06:41:32 AM

which is also stated in this article[1]

[1] coingeek[dot]com/fork-ahead-bitcoin-cash-will-fork-bigger-blocks-august-1/

That website basically is BSV propaganda, please don't use it as reference. Who knows what kind of false information they intentionally include.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on January 16, 2023, 12:06:12 AM

Quote

--snip--

Read Aaron Van Wirdum's depiction in "The Long Road to Segwit". I believe it's one of the most accurate retelling on what truly happened, and it also gives everyone the context of WHY and what caused those events to happen. Although the Flat-Earthers/Anti-Core trolls/gaslighters of Bitcoin would tell you that that information is blasphemous.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/the-long-road-to-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality

In fact, everyone should read all of Aaron Van Wirdum's writings. Cool

This article doesn't touch problem of block size in detail. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy should be good addition of Aaron's article.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on January 15, 2023, 10:26:29 AM

Quote from: pooya87 on January 11, 2023, 12:02:20 PM

Quote from: Nefelibato on January 11, 2023, 08:32:42 AM

SegWit is an example of UASF.

Wrong. BIP148, commonly known as UASF, made a lot of noise on social media but no real momentum in real life. It had very little node support and even less miners support. SegWit on the other hand had much more support and it was activated through another proposal known as SegWit2x although the 2x part of it (hard fork to double the weight limit) never gained any support so that part failed.

Is there a place where we, Bitcoiners post block wars, can read about this important part of the history? As far as I know, Segwit was user-activated, and miners followed.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on January 15, 2023, 10:26:29 AM

Is there a place where we, Bitcoiners post block wars, can read about this important part of the history? As far as I know, Segwit was user-activated, and miners followed.

Not really Tongue

People have their own interpretation of what went on and they report history differently too. What can not be disputed is the fact that like any other soft-fork miners started signalling for the change through S2X (verifiable on blockchain since it is reflected in block versions and coinbase scripts) and when the signalling surpassed the threshold, SegWit was locked in and was activated later.

I personally don't accept that 10% of nodes (not miners) signalling UASF forced anything on miners.

Things were a lot more complicated than that, we had people in social media pressuring miners, we had the largest spam attack in bitcoin history taking place making everyone angry (except miners I suppose), there were big businesses that used bitcoin pressuring miners, there were scammers like bcash people trying to threaten chain split with Bitmain turning into a P.I.A. with their support of "chain splitters", ...
Most of these things can be found in the news sites and on reddit and on this forum but I haven't seen anybody writing a full post mortem yet.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Pretty much what Carlton Banks said. Everyone's free to "activate" a hard fork, right as well as a soft fork. Reaching consensus is rather a marketing like talent, even though I (and he) could be wrong. What's needed for a network to reach consensus, is to spread the word. Unarguably there was consensus reached for the Bitcoin Cash hard fork, and it really doesn't matter how it emerged (UAHF, MAHF), especially when miners are themselves users.

Quote from: pooya87 on January 11, 2023, 12:02:20 PM

Quote from: Nefelibato on January 11, 2023, 08:32:42 AM

SegWit is an example of UASF.

Is there a place where we, Bitcoiners post block wars, can read about this important part of the history? As far as I know, Segwit was user-activated, and miners followed.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: pooya87 on January 11, 2023, 12:02:20 PM

Quote from: Nefelibato on January 11, 2023, 08:32:42 AM

SegWit is an example of UASF.

Wrong. BIP148, commonly known as UASF, made a lot of noise on social media but no real momentum in real life. It had very little node support and even less miners support. SegWit on the other hand had much more support and it was activated through another proposal known as SegWit2x although the 2x part of it (hard fork to double the weight limit) never gained any support so that part failed.

It was called the "Intolerant Minority", mentioned many times as a game-theoretical idea that a minority could force the miners to activate Segwit. It's debatable that UASF was "nothing", because it wasn't just "nothing". It had its role in the activation of Segwit. Eric Lombrozo and Luke Dashjr supported it.

What was truly nothing was the 2X part. It probably had only verbal support from the signers of the New York Agreement, the fork that had very very little support/no support. In fact it was rejected by the community, plebs, influential Bitcoin people, and some Core Developers. The code for "bc1" was also buggy.