Topic: Miners are obviously scared of UASF setting a precedent - page 2. (Read 1636 times)

Ok I follow you so far but there seems to be countervailing forces as well.

Right now nodes are run via altruism. That means only larger BTC holders will run one because the only reason to do so is to protect your investment by helping support the network.

I for example have finally accumulated a modest but large enough position in BTC over the last year or so that it makes since for me to start a node and I am looking into how to do so. Had BTC remained at $250 that probably would not be the case.

Will SegWit + 2Mb make it technically unfeasible to run a node from my home? If not I don't see the problem. As BTC grows in value the number of people who's holdings cross the node setup threshold will increase leading to more nodes as long as the overall resources demanded remain within the ability of the hobbyist.

barry silbert is part of the blockstream/btcc/coinbase cartel
not the 'bigger block band waggon'

until there is actual code to review, its just meaningless..
all this flag with your user agent but no actual code available crap is just whistles in the wind.

if silbert wants to actually redress and go back and actually meet the initial 2015 agreement of a proper blocksize growth AND segwit keypairs (thus not needing the 2merkle cludge due to a whole network upgrade meaning it can all be done cleanly as 1 merkle). then get some damned code released

We can't and must not put all miners on the same group, im obviously talking the Bitmain camp and all of his subpools.

I have been researching the whole thing for hours and I have concluded that the recent Barry Shillbert agreement is an obvious attempt at trying to stop UASF from happening.

Notice how they want a HF no matter what. What Bitmain wants is obvious: they are going to keep ASICBOOST if they HF.

A SF would stop ASICBOOST. That's why they want to HF at all costs. If segwit gets implemented with a SF, ASICBOOST is over forever.

If they get segwit with a HF, they keep ASICBOOST.

Also RSK is on board, which has attempted to modify the protocol to benefit ASICBOOST.

The whole thing is a Bitmain bribing scam. I dont like UASF, but it's the best option we have as of today, so im supporting UASF and running at least uacomment for now. If I get feed up, I will fire up an actual node.

You have a point, that's why the miners are always for the money; they need to break even or make ROI before they can start being flexible.

anyon crying less full nodes due to bigger blocks are just deluded.

1. no one is saying gigabytes by midnight.
2mb is not actually much of a change.. we are no longer in the days of 2010 when the min spec was: raspberry Pi1 and 512kbit adsl

things have moved on Raspberry Pi3 exists as the min spec, average computing/ram/hard drive sizes has moved on since 2010.
even bitcoin efficiencies has occurred. eg 4k txsigops.. libsecp256k1 being 5x more efficient.
the internet on average is no longer 3g / 512kbit adsl... but 4g 4mb adsl.. and in next few years gonna be 5g / fibre average.

2. what has more chance of killing the full node count is the cludgy going soft upgrades that create a tier network of nodes that cant fully validate, making it easier to change the rules without nodes vote/veto can kill the full node count faster.
other features like prunned/no witness(stripped/filtered/downstream) nodes can kill the full node count faster.

3. newbs thinking that nodes dont matter can kill the full node count faster.

what needs to be done is to not have the corporate cartel of VC's having closed door meetings about what should happen before even having code..
but instead have the code and let the community decide by doing a proper network consensus..  not corporate social consensus

so until i see some code with
2mb baseblock
REAL txsigops limit of 4k or preferably LESS which stays that low
and preferably it just being a single block of 1 merkle for both native and segwit to benefit from the same area without tier cludge
lastly a new fee priority formulae that actually works.

because all im seeing this week from the closed door drama is the same drama from late 2015 repeating itself that doesnt actually solve what it suppose to and wont reach the promises its expected to reach

yes


more data needed for full node = less people running full nodes

Ok so you disagree with what I wrote above because why exactly? I am willing to listen if you have an actual argument to make. Nodes are flat because there is no economic incentive to run one other then altruism or a large position in BTC. Obviously nodes are important and more nodes = better.

Are you trying to say that SegWit + 2Mb increase will lead to a significant decline in nodes. If so I am interested your argument as to why.

Price increase is a metric of general investor enthusiasm that a compromise is possible that will maintain decentralization and allow for some incremental increase in bitcoin scaling.

I have yet to see anyone present a technical reason why SegWit + 2Mb will not accomplish that. However, I am not a bitcoin expert. If you are and can present such an argument the floor is yours.

its all drama

barry silbert is the same closed door organiser as the blockstream roadmap..
you think its something new.. its not

its still bait and switches to try and get cludgy 2merkle segwit in (block inside a block) with a half promise of bigger baseblock later

the DCG portfolio partners are still trying to push segwit as is, as much as possible. but pretending it will lead to a different thing than core have offered.

sweep away all the fake promises and you see its the same crap since 2015 that is an empty promise and temporary gesture that wont "fix" the issues it pretends to fix

until i see code which has a baseblock of 2mb... its all just fluff and clouds
until i see code which has a baseblock of 2mb... that has a good consensus uptake by users AND pools... its all just fluff and clouds

the price is the wrong metric to be looking at, look at the node count (i.e. the decentralisation metric)

and it's flat. deadlining, essentially. And that means that those getting into Bitcoin in the current buying spree don't get why it's valuable in the first place, and it's difficult to adequately explain why the 6500 Bitcoin nodes enforcing the consensus rules are so important.

But it's easy to demonstrate that you're clearly not interested in that, the price appears to be telling you all you need to know. You should be learning about why the Bitcoin Network is what makes it valuable, not making unbacked schoolyard-esque assertions with zero computer science to qualify them

because i think they get more in fee now then when they activate segwit, miners now get many bitcoin with their huge fee, they like this and don't want to change, otherwise why do you think we are still stuck there undecided?  and UASF is done because of this reason, otherwise there will be never an greement on segwit

Which is now. Everything is lining up to encourage compromise.

Huge spike up in price with the potential for more is the carrot.

Loss of BTC market cap dominance coupled with the insult that currently Etherium miners are making more money then BTC miners is the stick. There will not be a better time to reach a compromise.

I have yet to see anyone argue that combining SegWit with a 2mb block size increase is technically unsound. Just a lot of whining about who gets to be "in charge" of bitcoin as if anyone is in charge.

Bitcoin is a decentralized consensus mechanism if an idea works improves upon the status quo and is able to achieve wide consensus then it is a no brainer. People need to set aside entrenched emotions and look at the issue objectively.

I think SegWit + 2Mb is a good idea. Its not perfect but its good enough for now and has the potential to drag the vast majority of the bitcoin community into consensus (if reluctantly). The market seems to think so too looking at the price.

 

I don't know about that.  I'm sure that there are plenty of technological innovations to include, but some are already included in SegWit and four months is just an addition to the well over a year that the debate has already been happening for.

I agree that it shouldn't be completely new code in just four months (that is rushed), but that's basically a temporary proposal that will die down.
Now we're getting into tin foil hat territory.  The only thing that we can judge from an objective standpoint are his economic incentives, which are broadly to let Bitcoin scale as soon as he feels altcoins are becoming a threat.

100% correct. This bullshit compromise is a pathetic attempt to subvert UASF. Very sadly, Jihans pockets are deep enough to get many a CEO to become a sell out in the process. These people and companies will not be forgotten after successful UASF.

Miners are scared of UASF actually being a success since it would set a precedent: If they don't follow economic majority, they will get weeded out.

This is why they are coming up with stuff like the closed door agreement with the software node by amateur developers.

The only way to get a reasonable hard fork, is if it's not rushed (4 months is rushed) and if it includes more technological innovations than a mere 2MB increase. There are lots of cool things we could add in a proper hard fork.

This is all about Jihad Wu's ego. He just wants to get something out of this.

I don't like the current situation, but we have to do something. Running software by some amateur devs that aren't Core is not on my plans so good luck with that.