Pages:
Author

Topic: Moving towards user activated soft fork activation - page 7. (Read 24460 times)

legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1252
Oh.. right... But what about the miners who are blocking segwit due to other reasons?

Are they free to keep doing their job the way they like, or are you also planing to find some dirt on them? Smiley

Good for these miners. It is great they are inspiring us to develop a UASF and further test a POW HF backup because these are both long overdo.

If we can't survive Jihan and Ver attacking Bitcoin than we deserve to die. We will come out stronger in the end.

Exactly.  Honey Badger eats up cupcakes like those two and will be stronger after shitting them out.

If the Gavinistas didn't exist, we'd need to invent them!   Grin

If Bitcoin dies from something as absurd as the Unlimite_ clown fiesta (it won't), we'll simply move on to new and improved versions of the experiment.

We all know Jihan is a cancer for bitcoin currently, but you convinced UASF proponents are all failing to explain what is the point of UASF at all when node count can easily be gamed.

Not to mention, it's yet to be seen what will happen if the hashrate is bigger in BUcoin than the original chain.

"Node count" is easily gamed.

"Economic node count" not so much.

You really believe shaolinfry, Cøbra, Adam Back, and I don't know the difference?  Hint: we do, but it seems you don't.

Your presumption that those of us who remember the NotXT and NotClassic and PseudoNode version signaling wars suddenly forgot about sybil attacks is so hideously stupid as to be laughable.  In this very thread, I already posted a *cough* joke *cough* about spinning up "a few proxies."   Wink

SWUASF may or may not work.  The larger point is it signals a turn in the tide of the battle.  Core is going on the offensive and now Unlimite_ must defend.

Thanks to Ver and Jihan's assclowning, it's clear the future of Bitcoin requires the miners be demoted and letters of reprimand placed in their permanent records.  That will happen sooner with segwit or later with Low-Latency Delayed TXO Commitments.  Doesn't matter; either way the miners are going to be put back in their place, hopefully once and for all.

Finally, on signalling SW - it's not a vote, it's a process designed to allow you to signal your readiness for the upgrade. Miners are not supposed to be setting the rules of Bitcoin's protocol. Jihan's attempt to change that is guaranteed to fail - the only question is whether he takes the entire system down with him.

Yes, I don't fully understand this, im trying to learn.

What do you mean with "Economic node count"?

What is difference between "regular node" count and "Economic node count"?

Also is this true?:

I`m pretty sure that most of the miners don`t care about bitcoin,they care only about their profits.
If they can make more profits with some shitty altcoin,i`m sure that they would leave bitcoin immediately.
The "divide and conquer" strategy won`t work against bitcoin.


Proof-of-work: miners' interests are not aligned with interests of users. They are two different groups of people.


Proof-of-stake: users hold tokens and secure the network with the staking power of tokens. They are the same people.
legendary
Activity: 4228
Merit: 1313
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.

Thanks
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
@shaolinfry
You are a Litecoin dev, why don't you try this your "great" idea on Litecoin first? Wink

OK, sure.  But only if we test the "great" ideas from Unlimite_ on Dash first.   Grin
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035
Suddenly everyone is a bloody bitcoin expert who knows a way to control the protocol by other means than mining majority.

It is the most worked Valid chain (not simply longest). Even if the miners fork BU with 75%, 90% of all bitcoin nodes will simply reject those blocks and ban all BU nodes relaying those blocks and treat the BUcoin as a hostile alt. This isn't a matter of opinion , but simply a fact of the way bitcoin was designed.

Any fork with a majority hashpower will be short lived as the minority chain has an advantage(in addition to being the economic majority) .A really neat aspect to this is the minority hash chain would have several advantages in this trading. First advantage is the original coin would have 25% or less hashpower therefore it will be easier to transfer the BUforkcoin to an exchange. BU supporters wanting to dump their original btc on exchanges will have to wait for seriously delayed confirmations while the original chain supporters will be able to get quicker confirmations to quickly devastate the price of BUforkcoin. BU miners will lose a lot of money here before running back to follow the profits and insure they don't go bankrupt.
legendary
Activity: 2053
Merit: 1356
aka tonikt
Suddenly everyone is a bloody bitcoin expert who knows a way to control the protocol by other means than mining majority.

If Satoshi is still alive he must be having loads of fun watching you idiots trying to break his system. I know I am... Smiley
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1261
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.
staff
Activity: 4270
Merit: 1209
I support freedom of choice
@shaolinfry
You are a Litecoin dev, why don't you try this your "great" idea on Litecoin first? Wink
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
Oh.. right... But what about the miners who are blocking segwit due to other reasons?

Are they free to keep doing their job the way they like, or are you also planing to find some dirt on them? Smiley

Good for these miners. It is great they are inspiring us to develop a UASF and further test a POW HF backup because these are both long overdo.

If we can't survive Jihan and Ver attacking Bitcoin than we deserve to die. We will come out stronger in the end.

Exactly.  Honey Badger eats up cupcakes like those two and will be stronger after shitting them out.

If the Gavinistas didn't exist, we'd need to invent them!   Grin

If Bitcoin dies from something as absurd as the Unlimite_ clown fiesta (it won't), we'll simply move on to new and improved versions of the experiment.

We all know Jihan is a cancer for bitcoin currently, but you convinced UASF proponents are all failing to explain what is the point of UASF at all when node count can easily be gamed.

Not to mention, it's yet to be seen what will happen if the hashrate is bigger in BUcoin than the original chain.

"Node count" is easily gamed.

"Economic node count" not so much.

You really believe shaolinfry, Cøbra, Adam Back, and I don't know the difference?  Hint: we do, but it seems you don't.

Your presumption that those of us who remember the NotXT and NotClassic and PseudoNode version signaling wars suddenly forgot about sybil attacks is so hideously stupid as to be laughable.  In this very thread, I already posted a *cough* joke *cough* about spinning up "a few proxies."   Wink

SWUASF may or may not work.  The larger point is it signals a turn in the tide of the battle.  Core is going on the offensive and now Unlimite_ must defend.

Thanks to Ver and Jihan's assclowning, it's clear the future of Bitcoin requires the miners be demoted and letters of reprimand placed in their permanent records.  That will happen sooner with segwit or later with Low-Latency Delayed TXO Commitments.  Doesn't matter; either way the miners are going to be put back in their place, hopefully once and for all.

Finally, on signalling SW - it's not a vote, it's a process designed to allow you to signal your readiness for the upgrade. Miners are not supposed to be setting the rules of Bitcoin's protocol. Jihan's attempt to change that is guaranteed to fail - the only question is whether he takes the entire system down with him.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1252
Oh.. right... But what about the miners who are blocking segwit due to other reasons?

Are they free to keep doing their job the way they like, or are you also planing to find some dirt on them? Smiley

Good for these miners. It is great they are inspiring us to develop a UASF and further test a POW HF backup because these are both long overdo.

If we can't survive Jihan and Ver attacking Bitcoin than we deserve to die. We will come out stronger in the end.

Exactly.  Honey Badger eats up cupcakes like those two and will be stronger after shitting them out.

If the Gavinistas didn't exist, we'd need to invent them!   Grin

If Bitcoin dies from something as absurd as the Unlimite_ clown fiesta (it won't), we'll simply move on to new and improved versions of the experiment.

We all know Jihan is a cancer for bitcoin currently, but you convinced UASF proponents are all failing to explain what is the point of UASF at all when node count can easily be gamed.

Not to mention, it's yet to be seen what will happen if the hashrate is bigger in BUcoin than the original chain.
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035
Sorry, I still don't know what "signalling for BU" means in practice.

Although I understand now that they use BU scheme to indicate that they want the max block size to stay at 1MB.

But what is the big deal about it?
Aren't almost all of the other miners also indicating that they want the max block size to stay at 1MB?
Except that they do it without adding "/EB1/" to the coinbase...

No, miners advocating for segwit are advocating for larger blocks because segwit literally increases the blocksize.
Additionally, if you read the article, they are only signally EB1 as a temporary measure because because Bu lacks an activation mechanicm and they will increase this number around 75%.

My guess is Jihan is bluffing , still running core nodes, but false signalling BU to try and renegotiate(not going to happen).

Regardless , we should treat this threat seriously and prepare for the worst as this is essentially the start of a  51% attack because HF consensus without a doubt has not been reached.
legendary
Activity: 2053
Merit: 1356
aka tonikt
Sorry, I still don't know what "signalling for BU" means in practice.

Although I understand now that they use BU scheme to indicate that they want the max block size to stay at 1MB.

But what is the big deal about it?
Aren't almost all of the other miners also indicating that they want the max block size to stay at 1MB?
Except that they do it without adding "/EB1/" to the coinbase...
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035


Are you kidding me?
What kind of a technical reference some chart on some coin.dance flashy website is?

Please refer me to a spec, or a source code that defines the criteria upon which this specific block is "signalling for BU".

Why do I need to hold your hand?

EB1/AD6

https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/miner-guide-how-to-safely-hard-fork-to-bitcoin-unlimited-8ac1570dc1a8#.q665ncaok

Sorry, you must speak English to me, if you want me to understand.

The article says that "EB1" actually means that the pool which made the block wants to use max block size of 1MB.
Or am I not getting something?

excessiveblocksize=1000000
excessiveacceptdepth=6

this has nothing to do with bitcoin and means they are signalling for BU because that is BU terminology. Since BU has no activation mechanism it by itself will activate at 51% thus the article I provided explaining how ViaBTC recommends EB1 to not cause havock at 51% than they can decide to fork at 75%
legendary
Activity: 2053
Merit: 1356
aka tonikt


Are you kidding me?
What kind of a technical reference some chart on some coin.dance flashy website is?

Please refer me to a spec, or a source code that defines the criteria upon which this specific block is "signalling for BU".

Why do I need to hold your hand?

EB1/AD6

https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/miner-guide-how-to-safely-hard-fork-to-bitcoin-unlimited-8ac1570dc1a8#.q665ncaok

Sorry, you must speak English to me, if you want me to understand.

The article says that "EB1" actually means that the pool which made the block wants to use max block size of 1MB.
Or am I not getting something?
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035


Are you kidding me?
What kind of a technical reference some chart on some coin.dance flashy website is?

Please refer me to a spec, or a source code that defines the criteria upon which this specific block is "signalling for BU".

Why do I need to hold your hand when the info is very clearly displayed ?

EB1/AD6

https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/miner-guide-how-to-safely-hard-fork-to-bitcoin-unlimited-8ac1570dc1a8#.q665ncaok

Are you even aware how BU works?
legendary
Activity: 2053
Merit: 1356
aka tonikt
It antpools first block signalling for BU - https://coin.dance/blocks/unlimited

0367f506234d696e656420627920416e74506f6f6c20626a352f4542312f4144362f022058bdab6 efabe6d6d3abbc4fd04647f22af1d514e7fba1c861fd335f4cb9ec0ce5b4a2c67fd8f3c6d040000 00000000006709000019440000
gõ#Mined by AntPool bj5/EB1/AD6/ X½«nú¾mm:»Äýd"¯QNº†Ó5ôËžÀÎ[J,gý�

Sorry man.
Which part of the block says that it is "signalling for BU"?

Its in HEx == g#Mined by AntPool bj5/EB1/AD6/ Xnmm:d"QN5˞[J,g
I gave you a link to coin.dance to help you ... no bother because Antpools third mined block was not supporting segwit so looks like another transparent and feeble bluff.

Are you kidding me?
What kind of a technical reference some chart on some coin.dance flashy website is?

Please refer me to a spec, or a source code that defines the criteria upon which this specific block is "signalling for BU".
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035
It antpools first block signalling for BU - https://coin.dance/blocks/unlimited

0367f506234d696e656420627920416e74506f6f6c20626a352f4542312f4144362f022058bdab6 efabe6d6d3abbc4fd04647f22af1d514e7fba1c861fd335f4cb9ec0ce5b4a2c67fd8f3c6d040000 00000000006709000019440000
gõ#Mined by AntPool bj5/EB1/AD6/ X½«nú¾mm:»Äýd"¯QNº†Ó5ôËžÀÎ[J,gý�

Sorry man.
Which part of the block says that it is "signalling for BU"?

Its in HEx == g#Mined by AntPool bj5/EB1/AD6/ Xnmm:d"QN5˞[J,g
I gave you a link to coin.dance to help you ... no bother because Antpools third mined block was not supporting segwit so looks like another transparent and feeble bluff.
legendary
Activity: 2053
Merit: 1356
aka tonikt
It antpools first block signalling for BU - https://coin.dance/blocks/unlimited

0367f506234d696e656420627920416e74506f6f6c20626a352f4542312f4144362f022058bdab6 efabe6d6d3abbc4fd04647f22af1d514e7fba1c861fd335f4cb9ec0ce5b4a2c67fd8f3c6d040000 00000000006709000019440000
gõ#Mined by AntPool bj5/EB1/AD6/ X½«nú¾mm:»Äýd"¯QNº†Ó5ôËžÀÎ[J,gý�

Sorry man.
Which part of the block says that it is "signalling for BU"?
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
Oh.. right... But what about the miners who are blocking segwit due to other reasons?

Are they free to keep doing their job the way they like, or are you also planing to find some dirt on them? Smiley

Good for these miners. It is great they are inspiring us to develop a UASF and further test a POW HF backup because these are both long overdo.

If we can't survive Jihan and Ver attacking Bitcoin than we deserve to die. We will come out stronger in the end.

Exactly.  Honey Badger eats up cupcakes like those two and will be stronger after shitting them out.

If the Gavinistas didn't exist, we'd need to invent them!   Grin

If Bitcoin dies from something as absurd as the Unlimite_ clown fiesta (it won't), we'll simply move on to new and improved versions of the experiment.
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035
Anyways , I'm getting my paperwallets ready to dump the split coins as Antpool just started mining BU blocks -

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/00000000000000000204cd2c9840023f1434f3dcdd7f471e4b8c8638d14d7006

Eeee... what is so "BU" about this specific block?

The only pool I know signalling BIP109 (2MB blocks) is Slush.
Which is also the first pool that started signalling segwit.

It antpools first block signalling for BU - https://coin.dance/blocks/unlimited

0367f506234d696e656420627920416e74506f6f6c20626a352f4542312f4144362f022058bdab6 efabe6d6d3abbc4fd04647f22af1d514e7fba1c861fd335f4cb9ec0ce5b4a2c67fd8f3c6d040000 00000000006709000019440000
gõ#Mined by AntPool bj5/EB1/AD6/ X½«nú¾mm:»Äýd"¯QNº†Ó5ôËžÀÎ[J,gý�
legendary
Activity: 2053
Merit: 1356
aka tonikt
Anyways , I'm getting my paperwallets ready to dump the split coins as Antpool just started mining BU blocks -

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/00000000000000000204cd2c9840023f1434f3dcdd7f471e4b8c8638d14d7006

Eeee... what is so "BU" about this specific block?

The only pool I know signalling BIP109 (2MB blocks) is Slush.
Which is also the first pool that started signalling segwit.
Pages:
Jump to: