Topic: Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin! - page 9. (Read 84845 times)

I've been reading a lot discussion threads about the ongoing changes on bitcoin.
Many mentioned bip91, bip141, bip148 and etc...
BIP is short from Bitcoin Improvement Procedure, do I get this right?
and where can I read all the specs/details on each BIP
I've been trying to find a thread explaining them, but seems elusive to find for me

Isn't there just a 'optimal' blocksize that is derived in a non linear optimization process, defined by the border conditions the real world implements?

That's not entirely true. Lots of mining entities want bigger blocks because $ignorance and $stupidity. They got it into their head that it was the best way to earn more fees long term and have been unable to believe anything else since.

Question:
When will we see BIP173 Base32 address format for native v0-16 witness outputs in Production-Software?

Wow - just throwing words around does not help your position.
Be specific - show the weaknesses, but i doubt you can.

For example:
Decentralized 2nd Layer Solutions have a stable Nash-Equilibrium.
The Nash-Equilibrium of Bitcoin might get unstable with Bitcoin Cash or bigger blocks, because a miner could gain an advantage by producing big blocks with nonsense data, if the miner knows that other miners/pools will have difficulties processing the bigger blocks.

"He has his own beliefs" because he is not really trying to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion, but is just in the practice of spreading disinformation based on improbablistic speculation.

If bitcoin cash is better, then so fucking what?  Let it be, and then we will all migrate over to that; however, the odds seem to be quite against bitcoin cash being better because they barely have a development team and they are already quite prone with a historical practice of fucking up things - and cannot really fault them except for the fact that they are trying to rush things without enough critical peer review (that critical peer review is already built into core's open system of participation as long as you know what the fuck you are talking about you can participate in core, but bitcoin cash is likely desperate and has a very small team of developers (so far) )


I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.  Seg wit is already agreed to and it is getting locked in and going active.  Why are you fighting a done deal?  Within segwit gotta put it to work and to see how well it works, and likely it is going to be a great asset to bitcoin that is not going to be in need to be rolled back, but if there happens to be some problematic issue with seg wit then there could be propositions to roll it back.  Your mere assertions of supposed complexity, seems to be just a talking point rather than what any non-technical person needs to do or know.  And, from my understanding, once seg wit is activated, folks can run seg wit or not run seg wit.. .. their choice.


what the fuck we give a shit about this stuff.  In any decentralized system there are going to be all kinds of actors doing whatever the fuck they want.  Some will be working for good, some for bad, and hopefully in the end, it all works out in the wash and our coins are secure.  As far as reputation, people can chose to use bitcoin or not use it, depending on if they see utility in it.  And if they don't like bitcoin, then they can find something else that they prefer, including traditional credit cards and banking... so yeah systems evolve and alt coins develop and people chose what they want to use based on what's available to them and based on whether they think it is going to work for them, personally.




Well, seem that in recent times, miners have been striving to employ their mining politically, but there still is no one "miners don't like."  Yet, even if it is true that "miners don't like" then they can set up their mining in different ways or remove their hashing power.  There are a lot of different miner set ups, so we cannot really say exactly what they are going to do and what they like and don't like because the main thing is how they chose to direct their hashing power - including in recent times, some miners had chosen to direct their hashing power towards attacking an spamming the bitcoin blockchain, and even though they seem to have let up in recent weeks, they certainly could resume this kind of spamming in the near future.. so developers are likely continuing to think about ways to keep bitcoin robust in spite of some miners choosing to direct their hash power towards spamming.   

Your strong /s risk ana finally convinced me, but  you ll simply run out of time.

Could my grandma cheat accidentally?

That is even better for decentralized off-chain, because the Nash-Equilibrium for a 2way payment channel is trivial.
2 parties
cheat/try to gain an advantage = loose everything

You repeatedly used this word, however you always fail to show, how a Nash-Equilibrium is even altered.

Back to topic:
IMHO the incremental increase in capacity from segwit adoption is a good thing, because we have no disruptive capacity event.

Big blocks is indeed a high risk strategy.
Segwit IMHO not.

2nd layers will have time to evolve.

First of all, you always forget one of the most important tasks miners have to follow, it is the Nash equilibrium. This is source for major security. From this comes all the rest you numbered down.

Second yes I understand very good on and off chain scalings thats not the point here.

I fear, no I learn, that no one here really understands risk management applied to insurance / financial industry in particular systemic and reputational risk as part of operational risk, but you all just platantly try to sale and deliver things where you have no clue about the inherent risks coming under the hood, but you ll learn when it s too late.

All your posts to this major - because money and reputation relevant-  questionary I do ends off topic and with more tech and specs that brings in new and more risk recursively.

You are just trapped still in the 'bitcoin is an experiment mode', so try it out but you ll never scale that immature way.

My advice is, learn risk management for finance and relevant software project management and come back.

This exactly shows how deeply you misunderstand 2nd layers.
What security is provided by the miners on chain?
To prevent possible rewriting the history - the blockchain.
To prevent double spends.
Maybe to uphold the consensus rules.
To provide censorship resistant means of storing data / sending payments.
Or with other words: Good PoW guards from Evil PoW

2nd layers have this features/security intrinsically (derived).

Of course software can fail - but you cannot buy miners for x MM USD and increase the security of the BU software on layer 1.
So what is your point?
2nd layers are not susceptible to those kinds of attack - therefore you don't need to put hardware millions worth of dollars to protect it on that front.
Did Bitcoin Unlimited paid Bitcoin.com when they had the 1 MB blocksize bug?
Did they pay node operators, when the software crashed?
You just need good software.

Yes - i will back that up with my own money on my own payment channels.

Thx for your help, but I m about the general issues that are coming in with 2nd layer scaling and the variety of security models and peoples agendas behind these.

If you are fine and see no issues with all that, so would you back up your sales manners with your own money, your own resources and your own reputiation? Means if harm comes in from these, you will compensate?

Sure you would never, this shows it has more risks as on chain, where miners back up with their multi million investments front up.

Further you put exacly miner's investments on risk or would you back up this as well with your money?

In the german subforum i explained this fact to hv_ numerous times - he has his own beliefs.
Even if it were a centralized payment channel system - hub cannot steal your bitcoins.

Except we don't know about all of the other implications about on-chain capacity such as bandwidth, storage requirements, computing requirements, etc. We only know what happens when we get the worst case scenario with 1 MB and how that effects the network. We don't know how the worst case would effect the network if we have larger blocks.

That's not how 2nd layer scaling solutions work. They are all decentralized, not some central thing that can crash or scam or whatever.

And miners wouldn't like increasing the block size either because that will lower the fees they gather in the short term. It would also mean that their nodes (which I'm told that many use fairly low end hardware) could be very negatively effected by various exhaustion attacks that come with larger blocks. So really miners want smaller blocks, not larger blocks.

No - that's not realistic. We think of mass adoption here and the (uninformed) mass-press and the outer (poor) world will disrupt Bitcoin to be not working. As simple as  usual.

if that happened it would only be core's reputation that suffered, not bitcoin's in the long run.

Yep - I guess in the end we want the same thing - get Bitcoin around the world - to all poor and rich.

My concerns esp with SW are

- it takes really longer time to get into proper and wished scaling mode (also achow101 says this upthread) - we could lose the race with poor Asian's BCH

- it is complex code (this is a reason for ^) - on-chain's safety (-SW)  we know for 8+ year, why give that away?

- it is sold to open many 2nd layer applications, but if there is only one (related to bitcoin for outer world!) is crashing / scam you name it -> entire Bitcoin gets the shit in the world press you name it  - do we want to risk Bitcoins entire reputation because a stupid 2nd layer shit is failing hard? Who does professional due-diligence here ?

- miners don't like it (this might b a reason ^ since all miners will suffer from that)

- too much splitting of community ^^^^

You mean that if no one runs segwit, then it is not going to do anything?

I think that a lot of folks will just run segwit and attempt to take advantage of its various features.  I agree that we have to see how it plays out, but if we do not really have sophisticated technical knowledge then it might take a bit of time to see whether there are any concrete applications that are built upon segwit that empowers the whole bitcoin system?

We both know how status is for now

Most node runners bought core's SW from shelf because they ever did
Most miners did not buy SW, until UASF came up with stupid force to split Bitcoin and break Satoshi consensus.
They did the only right move and compromis to not let it shit-split and keep consensus near 100%.

You are right - miners still can skip mining SW-TX, despite SW2x is more or less live.
We will see how this plays out.

Still SW looks not like a good Scaling Work  rather like a Split Wedge