Topic: On Segwit not being backwards compatible question (Read 1145 times)

Before we start another long debate again, can you first tell us what are "bridging nodes"? Are they regular Segwit nodes that can communicate to non-Segwit nodes in a "language" that they can "understand"?

If there is a Github repository for "bridging nodes", kindly post it.

back to the topic question

the blockchain format is not compatible backwards.

old nodes are not just relaying blocks along with everyone else byte for byte the same. they are not even relaying transactions the same.. the old nodes have been re-jigged around the network topology where they are just the tails/border/outer nodes of a network. that require segwit nodes to bridge/filter them data.

lukeJR, sipa, gmaxwell said it themselves.

also to prove it
if there was a fault with segwit nodes and they had to back date/downgrade back to a pre-segwit node
guess what.. problems would arise.
as their would not be any segwit nodes to translate(filter-bridge) the blocks
if people then accidently sent out segwit transactions whereby the network defaultd to non-segwit.. those transactions could be manipulatd.
(this is why although they pretend it was all soft and backward. the devs didnt release the wallets for segwit until after the mandatory split)
P.S.. by bing madatory and being a rule change requiring acceptance or rejected off the network.. that is not a soft fork. its a hard fork

and again ill emphasis it was a segwit block format that occured first in the timeline to change the concensus rule and direction.. which triggerd the rejecting of blocks and throwing people off the network

blame the miners?

did you even wake up and look at the events of summer 2017
signal for segwit by august first or get your blocks rejected

lets word it differently..
open your legs in the next 10 seconds or get shot in the head..
is it then the womens fault for getting raped?

as for saying no one can orchestrate it.
lukeJR and samson mow USAF - lets call them the threateners
barry silbert (who pays Luke JR, samson mow, blockstream, bloq)
gangraped the women(network)
one part offering the rough painful option. another offering a slow consensual option. and a third offering a compromise if she doesnt scream she wont gt scrwed... well she got screwed.

it was all a three seashell/card trick game of fake choice.
i also found it funny that the propaganda machine was at such a level that they actually stopped reporting orphans
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-orphaned-blocks?timespan=2years
check when they turned off the orphan checker to hide it  (hint 21st june)
then check your history of what happened
this is where by the pretense of offering a 2x version.. it falsy gave cores segwit % a jump from 35% to above 80%
kind of funny how fast 2x discussion dropped away as soon as 'segwit's bip91 got the lock it needed weeks later.  but then you look at who paid th 2x shell and you see the picture clearly

and lastly..

it was a bilateral split. the rules of segwit ARE DIFFERENT than the rules befor the mandatory split
its literally wrote in the blockchain at 478559

oh and bitcoin cashs version of different ruled blocks created a different block hours later.. meaning core rules changed first in the timeline. although it was same block numbers.
both core and cash had the same 478558
then core changed.
core even got to block 478601 (7:05pm uk time) before cash even made block 478559(7:12pm UK time)
yes core was pushing out segwit only accepted blocks for 42 blocks before cash..
(i told you weeks ago to check the blockchain before rebutting....)


maybe look at block data before defending certain people.
it is getting obvious you dont care for the network or the protocol changes or events. you just want to defend a particular team of people.

P.S jeff's 2x implementation was never sustainable, not due to bad coding. but due to it just being a ruse to coax miners into being raped under false consent.
jeff is another guy paid by barry silbert.
its all one big kardashian drama of pretend in-family fighting to get people to choose which family member they love the most. but in the end its all the same family and the drama would have played out in one pre-planned direction no matter what

atleast rmove your lips from a developers ass long enough to read some facts and even some blockchain data.. because you are starting to become obvious you care less for the network and only care for the desires of a few paid men

What more compromise did you want. Segwit already increased the block size and did it safely through a soft fork. Did you want 32mb? Why? That would bring more problems on the network than it would solve.

Plus the "2x" hard fork's failure was more of Jeff Garzik's fault because he made a bad implementation.

I'd say, many hoped that core d compromise as well - or split, if not

and we split

 

I agree, that might also be the correct answer, and it plays right in the point I was making. "Blame the miners, they did it". The Core developers cannot do anything, the community cannot do anything, but the miners did it. Was it then the fault of Barry Silbert, Jeff Garzik and the NYA signatories? Hahaha.

OMG

turn it as you wish

Miners wanted compromise - the 2x only got them on board.


W/O - no SW today.

Activation of Segwit was an inclusive soft fork that did not kick anyone out of the network. There was no "chain split", so there was no "bilateral split". It was Bitcoin Cash that changed the consensus rules and split from the Bitcoin blockchain.


Who, what, where are behind now us. The network has Segwit activated. Blame the miners, they did it.


Well some people in the community say that it was BIP91, not the UASF, that had Segwit activated. But blame the miners, they did it.


Blame the miners, they did it.


I will not debate to the rest of this post to make everything more confusing. It was the miners that activated Segwit, not the Core developers who most of them were against the UASF.

If Core did have control then it would have activated in one week. Blame the miners, they did it.

if bitcoin core did not change from the legacy rules .. bitcoin core would still only be using only the legacy rules

core split from the legacyrules by enabling weight to get the 4mb weight. and bitcoin cash just increased the base block to get their 8-32mb block buffer

they BOTH changed at the same time..
2 networks.. 2 different rules compared to the rule pre august.  = bilateral split.

as to WHO orchestrated it.. you could argue that is was not core... but then in 2015-2016 Luke JR backtracked out of a consensus agreemnt by saying he was not part of core.
so you can play the social drama of who is or is not part of the core supporters all you like. but if you follow their salaries, you follow who they prefer to side with and who they play these silly social games for. you will see which side was which. and.. guess what

the UASF was not to continue legacy. and was not to create clams 2.0(unnilateral) it was to to be part of a mandatory planned consensus bypassing split where at the exact same block 2 separate rules came into play and the legacy blocks got killed off on that date

after all it it was a whole network of pools wanting segwit and a whole network of nodes wanting segwit.. it would have got activated in december 2016-june 2017.. but the only supporters of it were those tight to a certain team.. but ill let you play around arguing the team game social games as all i care about is code that got implimented without true consensus.

put it another way

a few years ago. some dude copied the code and set up his own network that continued a blockchain from a certain bitcoin block in a different dirction while bitcoin core changed nothing.. that was called a unilateral slit (simple fork) and that guy named his alt CLAMS

but the whole BSCartel of the bitcoin core team, Barry silbert blockstream bloq all converved the august plan where BOTH bitcoin cash began and segit began

learn #478558 its an important number
bitcoin core network starting rejecting blocks that showed a legacy flag instead of a segwit flag and banned nodes that relayed such
so yes core nodes/network did change too

again if nothing changed and bitcoin core didnt fork/go in a new direction. segwit would not have activated
learn about #478558

as for advocating to change the PoW. that is foolish
first of all it will affct EVERY POOL and EVERY block. causing block hashing time delays

also making it a mandatory thing like the core advocates done to get segwit initiated is not consensus. ther would need to be a period of time to get a real true no banning/no rejecting consensus vote.. and then if there is enoughh advocation then a long period of transition to allow both algos to be acceptable to the rules before finally cutting off the old algo when the hashrate of the new algo is good and strong enough to work alone.

P.S no matter what algo is chosen big pools will be inncentivise to pool their rsources to get the biggst slice of the pie they can. so no mattr what do not think it will ever go back to a 1 cpu 1 block situationwhere everyone with a laptop has an equal chance.

a PoW change will not destroy ASICS. as ASIC manufacturers will just redesign and release a new asic and strangely enough they will actually make mor money out of it. while costing average joe more money having to replace old gear.

a PoW change should only happen if there is a flaw to current PoW. eg if sha256 was broke

Thanks for making the text bigger for easier reading. I will read them later and try to digest everything. Hahaha.

But I know what you are trying to tell me. Sometimes average people like me should put more effort to learn some difficult concepts that are easy for smart people. It also helps to be thick skinned, be called stupid, and question what the "smart" people tell you. We cannot accept everything you say as always "right".

Well, the miners are amoral, they will do whatever makes most sense to their pockets.



Changing the hashing algorithm is probably not enough, PoW needs to be redesigned to refine the incentives. The proposed BetterHash BIP (or recent threads in Development & Technical about proposed PoW redesign) demonstrates the need is widely agreed upon. And it's important to the value of BTC that PoW is redesigned as a planned, staged, long term change to improve decentralisation of the mining network. The changes needed could be too disruptive if they are enacted on a "last resort" timeframe, there needs to be alot of discussion, planning and most of all, notice given to make it as smooth as possible.

^ Bitmain sells miners - already to very different blockchains / PoW algos.

Their interest is clearly to sell as much miners as possible / diversify.

franky1, no sane Bitcoin developer will say that Bitcoin has "bilaterally split" into two. It was Bitcoin Cash that split into an altcoin, and the insane part of it is Roger Ver and his sock puppets believe and spread this misinformation that "BCH is Bitcoin".

I support that the Bitcoin Cash community have their big blocks and reenabled OPcodes, and I want to see it have more users. But ask anyone what Bitcoin is and they will say it is the cryptocurrency you call "Bitcoin Core".


If the miners truly believe that and would follow Jihan Wu to threaten to "kill" Bitcoin, then I believe Bitcoin will undergo a POW change as a last resort.

Some explorers still show "unable to decode" for segwit addresses. They aren't clickable in blockchain.info

https://blockchain.info/tx/f808c5ec3e1cefd2d3a9153128344b4f043bb2507274115b4cb2d839a72b93fc

Anyway, recently Jihan was asked: "Why are the miners still supporting Bitcoin Core? Is it just a short term profitability play?", he answered: "Yes, exactly."



Is Jihan serious about BCH or he is using Ver and Craig as useful idiots to milk it while it lasts? or some or none of them are serious and just want more BTC?

edit: Well this is off topic tbh, I was too lazy to create a thread on that or search a thread for the specific subject, I need to go get some sleep now.

if btc did not fork(split) on august2017..
then btc would be using the exact same
block format as pre august2017.
transaction formats as pre august2017.
network topology as pre august 2017

but no, btc forked/changed/split in august. meaning a 2 way split.
both went in separate directions to the pre august 2017 protocol

go ask Luke JR why old nodes need "bridging nodes" to translate the full block data
go ask GMAX why old nodes need "upfilter nodes" to translate the full block data

especially how after august. a full archival blockdata is only relayed between peers using
MSG_WITNESS_BLOCK
and the 2009-2017 MSG_BLOCK no longer relays a full block data.. it only relays a stripped version (analogy: translated to pidgeon english from dutch)

analogy
august 2017 the blockdata changed from english(legacy) to dutch(sipa's prefered format) which new nodes can relay using the new MSG_WITNESS_BLOCK
legacy nodes that send MSG_BLOCK dont get the dutch data as is.. instead its a dutch TRANSLATER(segwit node) that strips the blockdata and changes it into pigeon english. which is not 100% accurate/validatable by english(legacy nodes). but deemed close enough to ignore the issues it cant understand

this does not mean the blockdata is legacy compatible. it means a segwit CLIENT has to be used as a translater
bitcoin (network: the blockdata) is not compatible... it needs a translater(segwit client)

bitcoin WAS the blockchain. but now because the blocks are in sipa's prefered format that cannot be just downloaded from a torrent as is but needs sipa's codebase to be a filter/bridge/translator for legacy nodes..
this does not make bitcoins blockchain compatible. it just means core as a TRANSLATOR can pidgeon english the data to trick legacy nodes into thinking the blockchain is acceptable. yet legacy nodes cannot fully validate very transaction clearly, nor can legacy nodes relay this new data as is. thus not compatible.

again the blockchain is not the same as pre august and legacy nodes are not part of the relay network. thus not compatible

P.S
carlton banks is a fanboy not a codeboy. its useless asking carlton about code, so ask luke/gmax/sipa
also i do laugh at the lukes many backtracking statements(2mb bad.... 4mb good). but if you ask him a straight question. using words that cannot be denied as they are in code. he does eventually admit the truth. so be sure to mention how full archival data is no longer served via MSG_BLOCK, and he will have to admit things have changed and when they changed. thus admitting the fork of 2 directions (bilateral split)

don't sweat it WindFURY, these characters have been around a long time, and it only serves to illustrate how strong Bitcoin is. If the only way to attack Bitcoin is with name calling, alternative "facts" and ghost stories, you can safely ignore it most of the time

https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1003350409157726208

I hope that this will put franky1's claims to rest that Bitcoin "bilaterally" split into two to BTC and BCH. That tweet is right from a Bitcoin's developer's mouth like he asked.

Plus Bitcoin Cash is nothing but "centralized sock puppetry". Try to guess who said that.

If you take a look at achow101's post above, there's apparently no evidence that any miner was ever running BIP91 code, only that they were signalling for it in the blocks they mined. This was enough to get 95% of miners to signal BIP143 (that activated mainnet Segwit). BIP91 was essentially a MASF (miner activated soft fork) that was possibly never deployed widely, or even at all, but the contemplated losses from getting blocks orphaned was enough to get BIP143 above 50% signalling, and that's enough to convince the remaining 45% needed to activate a soft fork to signal (and start making blocks with a client compatible with the soft fork) too. The miners/pools are not going to be confident enough that remaining on an incompatible client won't lose them money, and in the case of BIP91, they knew that if it was really being run, then they could be totally confident they would lose money. So you're right that an economic consensus was reached amongst the miners.

Twisted buzzwords? That's only a history of all soft forks and hard forks Bitcoin had.


I believe it was the UASF that gave pressure to the miners to activate BIP91. If UASF flag day happened, the miners would have no choice but to bow to the community than risk having a chain split.

It seems like franky1 has warped his mind so badly with his own propaganda that he no longer remembers events as they actually occurred.  

Hey franky1, maybe tell us how many miners were still actively producing legacy blocks on August 1st?  The main thing I remember about August 1st was that BCH forked out of nowhere with barely any support and they couldn't even find a block until much later in the day.  Everyone was expecting drama and fireworks, but it was more of a sad, disappointing, wet fart.  



True enough, miners certainly had a fairly big role to play as well, so I'll edit my post to include that.  But the users ultimately agreed with the miners and elected to go for SegWit.  If the miners had activated SegWit and the users didn't want it, the chain wouldn't have lasted very long.  Plus, it was the /BTC1 client (which was not maintained by the Core team, so it's baffling as to how franky thinks it's their fault) that got the ball rolling.  



For the record, I was never personally a fan of the UASF, to put it mildly, heh.  That's not quite what I meant when I said it's the users who make the decisions.  Miners can't make changes unilaterally without users -and- users can't make changes unilaterally without miners.  Well... either can try, but probably won't get far.  There's an equilibrium to maintain.

I'd only encourage a UASF to witness the spectacle of it falling flat on its face.