Topic: SegWit losing Bitcoin Unlimited winning -> Moon soon - page 4. (Read 13507 times)

So they did it, but tried to continue the illusion:

Yes, the Segwit miners have had some luck the past 24 hours.

A telling sign as well is the number of community and miners that have not yet signaled either Segwit or BU but are prepared for one or the other.




https://coin.dance/poli

Isn't that just bog standard variance? The same way that BU was over 40% for a day or two. It would need to continue for a string of blocks to be able to get full sense out of it.

Right now Segwit has more support than BU
Segwit=34%
BU = 33,3%

Because BU givers miners pretty much unilateral control over block size. So they become kings of the whole thing. They could make big pressure by changing block size at will. "Support us or else meet our massive hashrate" is their weapon. People are delusional giving away power to money obsessed chinamen.

Bigger blocks=BU right? So adopting BU means less fees. Why do the miners support BU when they are collecting less fees because of it?

Core wants to raise the block size, no one in Core (except the guy that actually wants smaller blocks) wants to stay 1MB forever, but we must do things right, that means segwit must be activated before any blocksize increase since it solves quadratic hashing problem and so on.

BUcoin can do nothing, they are incompetent. They will last 2 seconds in the wild after a hard fork, tons of bugs and exploits ready to kill it in the case they hard fork, nobody will trust it with their money.

Miners going against a 80%+ of nodes are obviously out of their mind and will meet their mistake via PoW change. Smart devs will guarantee BTC does not become exploitable during this period of reorganization.



Increasing block size = less fees. I don't see why people trust the miners with BU, they could block the blocksize forever and never increase it to keep milking as-high-as-possible fees. The idiot miners supporting BU are either bribed or are stupid enough to not see beyond short term profits.

PS: Yes, we can do nothing against PoW hashrate centralization (thus far, maybe in the future someone comes up with a better idea to end up centralized long term), but at least lets keep the network decentralized so average joes can run nodes and have a say to make balance against mining cartels. We lose this and we are lost.

I understand that. And it is even worse than you represent. There are no promises in what I said above. I do not speak for BU. All I can do is relay my impression based upon my regular conversations with the principals.

My reaction is you need better communication with the token holders. My thought or idea is to raise the level of competence, PR, communication and planning on all levels BEFORE attacking.

You don't win my confidence by having incorrect technological arguments such as the unlimited block size equilibrium white paper which is a meaningless model and can only serve to fool n00bs, which doesn't impress those who try to understand the technology deeply. Core is able to impress us, because they get their technological facts more well organized.

And your promises are as trustable as Core's promises (e.g. to increase block size with HF after softfork is approved), so why should we believe BU will do what you say they will do.

Perhaps if you get more of the community behind your with better communication and admitting that the mining is centralized and there is nothing we can do about it, then perhaps more resources will come your way.

But I guess they've strategized on this already and have reasons for doing what they are doing? Perhaps the war is fake and pre-planned to shake cheap BTC from the trees? Or to sustain the illusion of decentralization? I think the last item is the most likely. Neither Core nor the miners want us to realize the system is centralized, so they fight proxy issues instead of going directly to the point:

We don't think of it as an attack, but as an upgrade. I haven't participated in mining in years, yet I am convinced that BU delivers more value to me than does the core plan.


Again, BU is not resistant to a malleability fix (at least as far as I discern). As recent events display however, we have a dev bandwidth issue. We must prioritize the things we wish to accomplish. Abolition of this stupid centrally-planned production quota is the most pressing problem faced by Bitcoin. So we are focusing upon that. Longer term, we would like to enable LN, but not with the current built-in anticompetitive disincentive for on-chain transactions (i.e., the aforementioned maxblocksize limit).

(And LN is still possible without a malleability fix, but that is kind of an aside, in that it is acknowledged that such is suboptimal).

Might be true. I've been pondering that today. If BU can successfully attack the token holders, then that should be proof that even small 1MB blocks don't stop mining cartelization/centralization.

In which case, larger blocks along with LN would provide more choice to users. As I wrote upthread, Core has masterfully fooled some people into believing they are rational with no ulterior motive.

But then I don't understand how Core could have ever expected to succeed, since the miners would naturally fork the protocol and increase the block size so they can get more revenue. Core's apparent goal of forcing users to use LN appears to be impossible to enforce (mining will always be a cartel and the cartel will not agree to be stripped of revenue).

But on the flip side, the mining cartel ostensibly doesn't want to allow off chain LN scaling (which is why they won't fix malleability) because that would compete with the miners for on chain fees.

Some have argued that enabling LN would increase overall usership and thus increase onchain transaction fee revenue.

So if BU was sincere, they could demonstrate it by including the necessary fixes to enable LN in their planned HF. Because otherwise we can look forward possibly to a monopoly on block size and thus miners squeezing the market for maximum fees inhibiting the scaling of Bitcoin.

(I'm duplicating this to two other places, because readers can't go clicking links off to so many other places to find the key points, but I am linking it here, so you can decide to reply just here if you want. Your decision obviously. I'd like to finish this discussion asap if possible.)

I don't know why you are compelled to replicate discussions all over the board. Fine. I'll play along by copying my reply:


You have stated that, yes. That was my assertion. My point is that this is outcome is not affected by the cap on maxblocksize.


Justification of this assertion would require explaining away the almost linear annual doubling of the average block size, up until the saturation point.

Honestly I haven't refreshed my memory about all the things in SegWit. I did some research on it for my whitepaper but since forgot most of it (effect of the meds I've been on).

So I've been taking the stance that probably we don't even need most of SegWit, just the malleability fix perhaps.

We could wrangle on and on, but let me refer you to this other thread of discussion for my ongoing pondering about our options:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/miner-cartel-bankster-cartel-or-an-altcoin-your-choice-1837136

See you over there.

Copying this from another thread, since it continues some discussion that started over here:


There is no outcome that is outside a majority-collusion environment. I explained that unbounded block size cannot reach an equilibrium outside a majority-collusion environment. You said you must have missed it and I explained you did miss it.

You are conflating that the fact that the equilibrium is reached inside majority-collusion with your thought that I haven't stated what occurs outside of majority-collusion. But I have stated what happens, which it is always devolves to majority-collusion.


Conflation is conflation. (Meaning you apparently entirely missed the relevance of the point)

I'm trying to be respectful, but please don't waste my time. You see I have too many messages to reply to.


Everyone was incentivized by the fact that once the 1MB limit was reached, then the destruction of Bitcoin would ensue as is currently happening with the battle between the miner and codester cartels.

It was the 1MB protocol limit that provided the barrier that everyone had to try to swim far from. Also miners had an incentive to get minimum level of fees and they didn't yet have enough centralization to extract higher fees. And the decentralized miners at that time before ASICs also had an incentive to keep spam low since as I explained to @dinofelis today that it wasn't a fully connected mesh so propagation time was a bigger deal than he realized. Also the decentralization at that time when people were still mining on GPUs, meant there was more of an altruistically driven Nash equilibrium than now.

That not at all like the cut throat, big money economics situation now. As @dinofelis pointed out, the only altruism (and internal discord) from miners now is probably all faked to make us think there isn't a cartel.

BU apparently thinks there is no bug since they reject segwit... I'm sorry after all this time I really can't take BU seriously anymore. I am not going to waste more time arguing against them as they've already clearly shown their incompetency several times. If you still don't see it for what it is, you're beyond hope or just a troll. Looking forward to see BU fail at their fork and take down Bitmain with them. I am for segwit and bigger blocks but very much against this amateurish attempt at taking over Bitcoin.

1. core have no bugs?  oh so segwit is not needed. because there is nothing buggy to fix? cant have one thing without debunking the other
2. native keys still work after segwit, malicious tx's will still be a thing. only segwit keypair users(just voluntary key users) are disarmed not bitcoin network
3. by being diverse with different code bases. if a few nodes get exploited. network continues(no big deal). if everyone uses one codebase. boom(2013 all over again)

@krile, upthread I was arguing for continuity by sticking with Core (at least then we know Bitcoin won't likely fail due to a bug). I agree with you. I want Bitcoin to remain viable, because it is enabling other things...

But...


Then we are fucked with a 1MB blocksize forever, because afaik the mining cartel will never softfork adopt SegWit?

Either way, Bitcoin is looking more and more clusterfucked.

You keep repeating that, but it is important what is the comparison. Nothing is something without a comparison to how that something is not nothing.

Bitcoin is not competing with perfect. It is competing with the legacy banking/financial infrastructure.

I would say that PoW is not perfect unicorn land decentralization. But that PoW is more decentralized than the existing system.

If it were all that simple and if that statement was true (that PoW is not decentralization) a scaling solution would be forced much faster.