Moving towards user activated soft fork activation - page 6.

classicsucks

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 504

Quote from: mezzomix on March 08, 2017, 04:30:05 AM

Quote from: classicsucks on March 08, 2017, 04:11:01 AM

There are so many different ways this UASF could fail catastrophically...

I'm waiting for the detailed analysis (minus the usual ad hominem) ...

You could've googled it yourself, but here you go:
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/antpool-now-mining-bitcoin-unlimited/

Quote

However, in a flag day soft-fork, the miner’s role becomes far more complicated. Assuming the entire network is mining with one client, non-upgraded miners are accepted by non-upgraded nodes, upgraded miners are accepted by upgraded nodes and non-upgraded nodes, upgraded nodes reject non-upgraded miners.

This is a mess in itself, but add other clients, such as Bitcoin Unlimited, and we have utter chaos. Alternatively, if non-upgraded miners are forced by easily sybilable upgraded nodes to upgrade, then we have a dangerous centralized point of failure as developers – who are just volunteers with no real stake – are given all the power.

classicsucks

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 504

Quote from: mezzomix on March 08, 2017, 04:30:05 AM

Quote from: classicsucks on March 08, 2017, 04:11:01 AM

There are so many different ways this UASF could fail catastrophically...

I'm waiting for the detailed analysis (minus the usual ad hominem) ...

I don't think a detailed analysis is worth my time (and may be beyond my expertise)... it's a stupid idea and it won't get off the ground.

Not an ad hom guy - you must be thinking of someone else.

mezzomix

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1261

Quote from: classicsucks on March 08, 2017, 04:11:01 AM

There are so many different ways this UASF could fail catastrophically...

I'm waiting for the detailed analysis (minus the usual ad hominem) ...

classicsucks

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 504

Quote from: chek2fire on February 27, 2017, 02:47:50 PM

the strange to me is why three days after this proposal not a single bitcoin developer except from Jameson Lopp bitgo eng has not tell us his opinion about this.
It seems that all of them keep mysterious silent... Huh

Hmm, and the proposal is posted from a new forum account with no posting history... Seems Legit...

Perhaps they're floating the idea to see just how much rage they'll face. Or possibly, they're trolling Ver. In this case, they want to appear adversial, but quietly they know full well that this proposal could never work.

EDIT: the troll theory makes sense given the double-whammy of Ver announcing 110% mining bounty for Unlimited clients and Antpool switching to BU.

Theymos has already weighed in.

inb4 GMaxwell urges caution and says Segwit is a "much better compromise".

classicsucks

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 504

Quote from: piotr_n on March 07, 2017, 06:49:56 PM

Nobody who understands what bitcoin is and how it really works supports it.
It won't work.

We can only hope that it won't work... This proposal is by far the WORST I've heard in recent history. Absolutely throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out. After all of Core's FUD and screeching about hard forks, this proposal makes a hard fork look like Sunday brunch in the Hamptons. There are so many different ways this UASF could fail catastrophically... Not to mention, excluding miners from consensus is revolting, and completely against the founding principles of bitcoin. As others have said, they're the ones with the most skin in the game.

If Core actually tries this, their reign as the custodians of the bitcoin code and the de facto creators of the bitcoin roadmap will end. At least we will get some lulz if Core writes another ten thousand lines of code that nobody ever uses...

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 07, 2017, 06:46:51 PM

I guess not.
I'm used to sarcasm being more obvious.
Your statement fell in line with some BU supporters ideas.

If you read my post above, you'll see I don't support UASF.

Nobody who understands what bitcoin is and how it really works supports it.
It won't work.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: piotr_n on March 07, 2017, 06:38:14 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 07, 2017, 06:33:15 PM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on March 07, 2017, 06:22:31 PM

Quote from: piotr_n on March 07, 2017, 12:43:48 PM

...
This solution would be much more resistant to 51% attacks and the nodes would be needing far less resources

+1 And so, the future of bitcoin was written.

Cool

Was that a proposed solution that relies upon a centralized system, controlled by a handful
of people, who are subject to laws and agencies of the countries in which they reside?
Sounds like we get rid of one attack vector to take on an easier one.

I'm I missing something here?

Obviously you don't even get it that we are taking a piss out of your ideas to "fix bitcoin" by removing miners out of the system.

I guess not. I'm used to sarcasm being more obvious.
Your statement fell in line with some BU supporters ideas.
So I thought it was genuine.

If you read my post above, you'll see I don't support UASF.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 07, 2017, 06:33:15 PM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on March 07, 2017, 06:22:31 PM

Quote from: piotr_n on March 07, 2017, 12:43:48 PM

...
This solution would be much more resistant to 51% attacks and the nodes would be needing far less resources

+1 And so, the future of bitcoin was written.

Cool

Was that a proposed solution that relies upon a centralized system, controlled by a handful
of people, who are subject to laws and agencies of the countries in which they reside?
Sounds like we get rid of one attack vector to take on an easier one.

I'm I missing something here?

Obviously you don't even get it that we are taking a piss out of your ideas to "fix bitcoin" by removing miners out of the system.

coblee

donator

Activity: 1654

Merit: 1351

Creator of Litecoin. Cryptocurrency enthusiast.

Quote from: piotr_n on March 07, 2017, 12:22:01 PM

Quote from: mezzomix on March 07, 2017, 12:14:08 PM

FYI, I'm fine with one blocksize increase up to a maximum of 8MB if segwit (or another linear transaction verification time method) is available and most of the community is supporting this change as well.

FYI, Bitcoin doesn't care about what most of the 'community' wants.
It's only what most of the miners want that matters.

That's wrong. It's what users want that matters. Miners may want to keep mining 12.5 BTC blocks during the next block having, but if users are not OK with that, miners will just fork themselves off the "Bitcoin" network.

The point of UASF is that users collectively have more control than miners. But because there's no easy way to gouge user desires, it's much harder to pull off a UASF. BIP9 miner softfork is used because mining solved the Byzantine General's problem and we can use it to measure exact support.

I think it's good that this UASF got people thinking about who is actually in control. But it's not for sure that UASF can be pulled off safely.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on March 07, 2017, 06:22:31 PM

Quote from: piotr_n on March 07, 2017, 12:43:48 PM

...
This solution would be much more resistant to 51% attacks and the nodes would be needing far less resources

+1 And so, the future of bitcoin was written.

Cool

Was that a proposed solution that relies upon a centralized system, controlled by a handful
of people, who are subject to laws and agencies of the countries in which they reside?
Sounds like we get rid of one attack vector to take on an easier one.

I'm I missing something here?

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: piotr_n on March 07, 2017, 12:43:48 PM

This solution would be much more resistant to 51% attacks and the nodes would be needing far less resources

+1 And so, the future of bitcoin was written.

Cool

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: mezzomix on March 07, 2017, 05:35:21 PM

...If this is impossible the better approach is to split the system. I'm fine with BU splitting the chain and following it's own way - without myself.

I agree.

A fork of the two communities may be the only answer now.
If you think we can continue to outmaneuver each other till one
side wins, then it may be you don't actually understand Bitcoin.

The ones shouting the loudest are actually not paying attention.
The fork is inevitable now and must be accepted and prepared for
as best we can. Shaolinfry's idea, though interesting and noteworthy,
is just a distraction.

Negotiation between the two groups has failed because we want separate
things that each contradict the others desires.

This is not a choice in the community now, it is a "fork" in the road.

mezzomix

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1261

At the end, money is a social thing - there is no value without peers. Everybody using the same system provides the maximum value. If this is impossible the better approach is to split the system. I'm fine with BU splitting the chain and following it's own way - without myself.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: mezzomix on March 07, 2017, 12:27:23 PM

Quote from: piotr_n on March 07, 2017, 12:22:01 PM

Quote from: mezzomix on March 07, 2017, 12:14:08 PM

FYI, I'm fine with one blocksize increase up to a maximum of 8MB if segwit (or another linear transaction verification time method) is available and most of the community is supporting this change as well.

FYI, Bitcoin doesn't care about what most of the 'community' wants.
It's only what most of the miners want that matters.

In this case the nodes would not need to verify the blocks against the consensus rules. In reality all nodes have to verify and accept the blocks. Even if a majority of the miners create invalid blocks the other nodes will not accept these invalid blocks. Every node has to decide what is valid and what is invalid.

Sure, that sound like a good idea...

But why don't you optimize it even further..?

Make the nodes not even needing to connect to the bitcoin p2p network!
Instead they'd just fetch the 'distributed ledger' from a github repo controlled by 'the people who are actually writing code and using Bitcoin for products and services'

This solution would be much more resistant to 51% attacks and the nodes would be needing far less resources

mezzomix

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1261

Quote from: piotr_n on March 07, 2017, 12:22:01 PM

Quote from: mezzomix on March 07, 2017, 12:14:08 PM

FYI, I'm fine with one blocksize increase up to a maximum of 8MB if segwit (or another linear transaction verification time method) is available and most of the community is supporting this change as well.

FYI, Bitcoin doesn't care about what most of the 'community' wants.
It's only what most of the miners want that matters.

In this case the nodes would not need to verify the blocks against the consensus rules. In reality all nodes have to verify and accept the blocks. Even if a majority of the miners create invalid blocks the other nodes will not accept these invalid blocks. Every node has to decide what is valid and what is invalid.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: mezzomix on March 07, 2017, 12:14:08 PM

FYI, I'm fine with one blocksize increase up to a maximum of 8MB if segwit (or another linear transaction verification time method) is available and most of the community is supporting this change as well.

FYI, Bitcoin doesn't care about what most of the 'community' wants.
It's only what most of the miners want that matters.

mezzomix

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1261

FYI, I'm fine with one blocksize increase up to a maximum of 8MB if segwit (or another linear transaction verification time method) is available and most of the community is supporting this change as well.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

There was a man on this forum who once said:

Quote

The block size will be raised, that is the overwhelming consensus among the people who are actually writing code and using Bitcoin for products and services that it needs to happen.

And there is a tiny minority of people who will loudly proclaim that isn't true and that the core developer are going to destroy Bitcoin if the block size is raised.

Now there is apparently much more men who say:

Quote

The segwit will be activated, that is the overwhelming consensus among the people who are actually writing code and using Bitcoin for products and services that it needs to happen.

And there is a tiny minority of people who will loudly proclaim that isn't true and that the core developer are going to destroy Bitcoin if segwit is activated.

Isn't that funny?

FYI, I am not against segwit myself - personally, I'd like to see it activated..
But I want to point out that if you try to change protocol with this kind of arrogance, you will fail and end up in the same place as the man before you; at the bitcoin developers' junkyard. Because as ridiculously as it sounds, Bitcoin will simply get rid of you.

mezzomix

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1261

Quote from: cr1776 on March 07, 2017, 10:33:09 AM

Quote from: mezzomix on March 07, 2017, 02:00:50 AM

As a first step against hostile pool operators blocking the evolution of the system, I would not start with dropping their blocks but I will not relay their new blocks anymore. If a large number of nodes do not relay those blocking blocks, there will be a chance that a good block with the same height is found. In this case the blocking block is dropped and the good block is the new head of the chain. If a good block is built on top of a blocking block the blocking block is accepted as well. If a lot of nodes use such a rule it will lead to bad luck for hostile pool operators.

I am curious what method you are using to accomplish this.

By patching my client to not relay any blocks without my preferred BIP9 flag(s) and by giving more weight to chains with a head block with these BIP9 flag(s) set.

It makes sense to make the feature configurable because if BU will follow the XT/Classic road, these guys will show up with the next "solution" and try to block further development of the system. Those guys will never stop bullying the Bitcoin community.

pedrog

legendary

Activity: 2786

Merit: 1031

Cutting out the miners and forcing features they don't want is a very bad policy, no one is more invested in bitcoin than the miners, you people keep bitching about having to spend a few more dollars in storage to run a full node, miners spent millions to build their operations and someone really thinks it is wise to simply cut them off?

Topic: Moving towards user activated soft fork activation - page 6. (Read 24442 times)