Pages:
Author

Topic: Moving towards user activated soft fork activation - page 9. (Read 24442 times)

legendary
Activity: 2053
Merit: 1356
aka tonikt
i dont agree with this racist view that the problem is miners because they are Chinese and  i really fell more secure with mining to China or any other country than USA with shadow organisation like NSA,CIA etc
The real problem is that miners has not the right to do political games with bitcoin. They are the only part of bitcoin network that get payed for what they done. For that reason they must activated every upgrade developers propose without any questions.

but why without any questions?

what if the developers get corrupted by shadow organisation like NSA,CIA etc?
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 1142
Ιntergalactic Conciliator
cut the crap, Bitcoin doesnt "need" anything.

When I remember all the things bitcoin "needed", but has failed to get, it makes me smile.

I remember when bitcoin needed more merchants, although less drug dealers because it was a bad press.

Then bitcoin needed to be much more user friendly - so much that even Gavin's granny could use it.

Then the client needed to be compatible with external hardware wallets, because they were the future.

Then it needed to have a bigger blocks, so it could "scale - or segwit for the same reason.

Then it needed to have tx malleability removed, so some people could deploy their existing side-chain solution.

(that's just from the top of my head, from the past 5+ years)

Today bitcoin needs to get rid of the miners, because... they are endangering its future by doing their job of securing the protocol Shocked
Plus nobody is going to admit, but it would not have been such a big issue if the miners had been Americans, or at least white.
Which brings us to: bitcoin needs to be in control of a white people! Smiley

Fuck knows what bitcoin is going to need tomorrow, in order to "succeed".
When I think about this, it's actually quite shocking that it has succeeded that far. Smiley

i dont agree with this racist view that the problem is miners because they are Chinese and  i really fell more secure with mining to China or any other country than USA with shadow organisation like NSA,CIA etc
The real problem is that miners has not the right to do political games with bitcoin. They are the only part of bitcoin network that get payed for what they done. For that reason they must activated every upgrade developers propose without any questions.
sr. member
Activity: 314
Merit: 251

When I remember all the things bitcoin "needed", but has failed to get, it makes me smile.

I remember when bitcoin needed more merchants, although less drug dealers because it was a bad press.

Then bitcoin needed to be much more user friendly - so much that even Gavin's granny could use it.

Then the client needed to be compatible with external hardware wallets, because they were the future.

Then it needed to have a bigger blocks, so it could "scale - or segwit for the same reason.

Then it needed to have tx malleability removed, so some people could deploy their existing side-chain solution.

(that's just from the top of my head, from the past 5+ years)

Today bitcoin needs to get rid of the miners, because... they are endangering its future by doing their job of securing the protocol Shocked
Plus nobody is going to say, but it's also noting that it would not have been such a big issue, if the miners were Americans... or at least white Smiley

Fuck knows what bitcoin is going to need tomorrow, in order to "succeed".
When I think about this, it's actually quite shocking that it has succeeded that far. Smiley

+1  great point

We will invariably move towards systems which successfully interface with Bitcoin as it works now.
legendary
Activity: 2053
Merit: 1356
aka tonikt
cut the crap, Bitcoin doesnt "need" anything.

When I remember all the things bitcoin "needed", but has failed to get, it makes me smile.

I remember when bitcoin needed more merchants, although less drug dealers because it was a bad press.

Then bitcoin needed to be much more user friendly - so much that even Gavin's granny could use it.

Then the client needed to be compatible with external hardware wallets, because they were the future.

Then it needed to have a bigger blocks, so it could "scale - or segwit for the same reason.

Then it needed to have tx malleability removed, so some people could deploy their existing side-chain solution.

(that's just from the top of my head, from the past 5+ years)

Today bitcoin needs to get rid of the miners, because... they are endangering its future by doing their job of securing the protocol Shocked
Plus nobody is going to admit, but it would not have been such a big issue if the miners had been Americans, or at least white.
Which brings us to: bitcoin needs to be in control of a white people! Smiley

Fuck knows what bitcoin is going to need tomorrow, in order to "succeed".
When I think about this, it's actually quite shocking that it has succeeded that far. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
The only way to take power back from the miners, is to take away the actual source of their power: mining ASIC processors.

i.e. change the proof of work to something that is too difficult/expensive to make ASIC processors for

How does that solve the fact that rich people can buy a big building and run a million computers running any software they want and that would count as nodes (votes)?

It doesn't.

It solves the problem of ASIC manufacturers taking advantage of the market. The development and production of ASIC chips is highly privileged endeavor; engineering talent available to design the chip is very scarce as well as expensive, and access to chip fabrication plants is also scarce and expensive. Not to mention, the number of chips produced in a minimum sized batch would need that big building to house the miners; a significant barrier to entry.

My proposal (really Meni Rosenfeld's broad proposal) would let people mine with CPU's or GPU/FPGA's again. It wouldn't prevent mining warehouses, but it would change the balance of opportunity so that small miners can participate with a similar barrier to entry as big miners.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1252
At the end of the day, a bad actor with a bunch of money, can buy a huge building and fill it with thousands of computers and run whatever software node they want.

This

The only way to take power back from the miners, is to take away the actual source of their power: mining ASIC processors.

i.e. change the proof of work to something that is too difficult/expensive to make ASIC processors for

How does that solve the fact that rich people can buy a big building and run a million computers running any software they want and that would count as nodes (votes)? It has nothing to do with mining/ASICS/PoW. We are talking about the NODES.

There's no way to solve this. Rich people can always corner nodes/hashing power/whatever.
member
Activity: 132
Merit: 12
This sounds like a great idea, but doesn't it require that lots of otherwise-disinterested parties be financially incentivized to start and maintain nodes?
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
I understand that the miners don't want the lighting networks and I understand why - because it goes against their interests.

They perceive it as going against their interests. But this perception appears flawed.

Bitcoin needs scaling improvements like lightning in order to thrive in the long term.
A non-scalable bitcoin will ultimately be overtaken by a better-scalable competitor.



cut the crap, Bitcoin doesnt "need" anything.

c'est la vie indeed.

legendary
Activity: 990
Merit: 1108
I understand that the miners don't want the lighting networks and I understand why - because it goes against their interests.

They perceive it as going against their interests. But this perception appears flawed.

Bitcoin needs scaling improvements like lightning in order to thrive in the long term.
A non-scalable bitcoin will ultimately be overtaken by a better-scalable competitor.

legendary
Activity: 2053
Merit: 1356
aka tonikt
It's actually quite funny for me to see all this spectacle on how the miners allegedly stop bitcoin from moving forward.

I consider myself an experienced bitcoin developer.
I understand that the miners don't want the lighting networks and I understand why - because it goes against their interests.
But how is it different for the major core devs preventing the ultimate block chain compression feature from being implemented?
Most people don't realize that their full bitcoin node can be quite functional needing only 3gb of disk and can bootstrap within one hour... And the core devs don't want you to know that. At least not yet...
So how is it different?
For me it isn't at all - they obviously  also have their own self interest in this and they don't have to explain themselves to anyone.
Just like the miners that you hate here so much.


The bottom line is: the miners are obviously  not going to help you in deploying your existing business solution by activating segwit.
Therefore better start rewriting your shit so it could work without it.
C'est la vie - welcome to the fucking club Smiley
legendary
Activity: 2053
Merit: 1356
aka tonikt
How do we move forward? Let's do it

What do you want to achieve?

I believe everyone wants cheaper transactions.
How do you get cheaper transactions without asking miners for permission?
Two ways:
1) centralized bitcoin banks that settle balances between each other
2) side-channel payments that are based on the current protocol

Both are possible.
We don't need miners permission to have cheaper transactions. Which is important because it's unlikely that we'd get it.
And the incentives to develop either of the two solutions are already there - high txs fees that have been and likely will be growing.

Stop trying to change a weather in order to build a house and start thinking how to build a house in the existing weather.
A developer's metaphor Smiley
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000
How do we move forward? Let's do it
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
At the end of the day, a bad actor with a bunch of money, can buy a huge building and fill it with thousands of computers and run whatever software node they want.

This

The only way to take power back from the miners, is to take away the actual source of their power: mining ASIC processors.

i.e. change the proof of work to something that is too difficult/expensive to make ASIC processors for
legendary
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1014
Proof of work = one cpu one vote.

That was the original design intent for the network.

The introduction of pools + ASICs has changed the nature of the system design.

So the original concept design was around a majority decision making process. Lots of different people voting with their nodes.

With large mining farms, the majority of hash power can be considered irrelevant as the original design also suggested that using IP addresses as a way to identify the longest chain was easy to sybil.

If the network wasn't so heavily biased towards pools and big central mining farms, a majority vote of the miners would be appropriate. But that is not the case at this present time.

The problem with having fixed rules is that the network isn't fixed. People innovate and the nature of the network changes. There should be a way to come to consensus on what the overriding principle should be and then make a judgement call on a case by case basis. While this can be gamed by politics, it makes sense to try and find a mechanism that adapts with the times.

Perhaps an agreed network governance process should be considered which regularly takes a view on such matters before any such voting is required. This should stop voting rules being tailored to suit a preferred outcome.

But at this time, it makes more sense to seek a super majority of the economic nodes (where most of the 'effort is') than the mining nodes - which are mostly just SPV's anyway.

Having said that, i'd edge for a segwit hard fork if at all possible. But if not, a softfork it is.

Everyone knows that Jihan Wu is currently a cancer for the network, but I fail to see how UASF will help in getting rid of it.

1 cpu = 1 vote sounds good, but isn't it ultimately the same as mining?

At the end of the day, a bad actor with a bunch of money, can buy a huge building and fill it with thousands of computers and run whatever software node they want.

At the end of the day, the rich can mold the system and aim it the way they want it to take a direction to... because at some point the masses may follow this strong single entity controlling a massive amount of nodes (sheep mentality, conservation/fear etc)

And also, even in a post UASF scenario, we still ultimately need the miners and this fucker got the biggest hashing power on earth as far as I know. So even if nodes don't agree with him, he still got the biggest hashing power. What will merchants do? And what if people running nodes get scared and switch places to whatever the biggest hashing power is supporting? I hope this question makes sense.
legendary
Activity: 2053
Merit: 1356
aka tonikt
How exactly is the UASF design going to prevent the hashing majority from conducting 50% attacks on the node ('users') majority branch after they'd split?

Because, as I understand it, they will split at the first tx spending a segwit output.  

Am I missing something or do we get to deal again with geniuses who try to change bitcoin protocol while not even having a clue about the basic of its security?

The whole reddit of idiots along with bitcoin news websites are suddenly excited on how someone allegedly found a way to kick miners' arses...
But has he? Because I don't think so.
After activation of such 'user fork' all the weapons would  still belong to the miners. Which would surely not hesitate to fire them on the rebels.

People should stop seeing bitcoin as an alternative to PayPal. Bitcoin is not a toy, or a computer game which rules can be adjusted and controlled by a ruling elite.
Bitcoin is a self regulating arm race - without the weapon you can't change the rules. And there is only one type of weapon: the mining farms.
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1087
anything that pisses in the face of people who wield amounts of power that never should've been awarded to them is fine by me.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
I love this, seriously, amazing work on this. I support this 100%.

Miners have no business deciding on new features. Maybe in the past it was assumed that miners would go along in the best interests of users, but now it's clear that miners have become too political and keen to push their own agenda.

^This

When is flag day?  I will spin up full nodes from here to Timbuktu....perhaps a few proxies as well....   Cool
hv_
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1055
Clean Code and Scale
User is counted by full node count?

So what speaks against that high capitalized miners just buy some cheap full nodes to vote for their intersts if needed?
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
There are too many people with to many agendas to ever get everyone to agree on any protocol changes.  The best you can hope for is to get a significant enough majority to agree to force the minority into submission.

If that was true, explain how the CSV opcode soft fork was activated only 6 months ago? It achieved +95% signalling and is activated and usable on the network.

I appreciate that Bitcoin will attain more protocol inertia as it becomes more widespread, but you seem to be suggesting that all possibility and time itself have finished (which would be typical of your character). You've taken too much inspiration from Dr Who storylines, it seems
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
Are we stuck with Bitcoin as is forever, and the only scaling solutions must be built on top of the current utterly fixed ruleset?

Probably.

I agree.  Likewise, given the difficulty of changes now as shown by segwit and block size changes, any further changes will be even more difficult to get consensus.  And this isn't necessarily a bad thing, changes should be very difficult to make barring something catastrophic (e.g March 2013).  Think about changing tcp/ip.

immutability is bullish af, just look at btc price now.
Pages:
Jump to: