Topic: Moving towards user activated soft fork activation - page 9. (Read 24466 times)

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.

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
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!

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.

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
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

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.

cut the crap, Bitcoin doesnt "need" anything.

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)?

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

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.

I understand that the miners don't want the lighting networks and I understand why - because it goes against their interests.

How do we move forward? Let's do it

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.