Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 31. (Read 120014 times)

Or just being unthinking. As clearly listed above.

And to be clear, that list of possibilities was directly targeted at your assertion that "a central goal of big blockers is emotional, namely the heads on spikes thinking". As should have been clear, if you actually read and thought about what I actually wrote.

I get that you disagree that big blocks are necessary. I wasn't calling you out on that. I was calling you out on your mischaracterization of big blockers' motives. It's not like it's the first time that I have exposed your proclivity for doing so.

Well, I did not mean to be over critical on any personal level.. and maybe the nonsense accusation part comes mostly from the sense that there seems to be some parroting of talking points that make sense and seem logical, but they still do not seem to be based on actual evidence.. including assumptions that bitcoin is in some kind of emergency situation in which the blocks are full, blah blah blah.. The blocks are full merely because there is computing power directed at spamming the blocks in order to cause the appearance.. and yeah with the passage of time that becomes a bit costly to keep up that spamming.. but the spamming does create impressions and has real world impacts on transaction times and fees that impacts real users.

I am just going based on what I read and various interactions.

I will grant you that there is no one BIG blocker, so you likely got me in regards to possible over generalizations that I may have made.



I can do what I like in terms of ascribing, characterizations and my opinions about that - or how much weight to give to certain evidence.  Of course, if there is evidence that undermines my positions and opinions, then surely I am interested, and surely I hope that I am learning through this whole process of interacting with posters in this thread and this forum.



You seem to be attributing either malice or stupidness my various assertions, and it seems that you have not exhausted the range of possibilities.  Aren't there a variety of genuine folks who are not stupid, but they are trying to grapple with their understandings about what is going on in this space and how to weigh the gamesmanship and the various protocols that are out there, whether it is segwit2x, segwit, BIP91, BIP148 or some other combination of variables, including trying to figure out whether the running of actual software is going to trigger certain outcomes, such as segwit, including at what point segwit's locking in might become inevitable?  Aren't those legitimate concerns that can be confusing and even possibly contradictory?
 



Of course, this is a theme that we come back to for quite some time because it is a part of the discussion of this thread - and it is part of the questioning about whether segwit2x is going to contribute to facilitating such a goal in the short or long term. 

There are several contributors in this thread, including myself, who have asserted beliefs that the more likely scenario from the playing out of all of these games is to get seg wit first - while continuing with the various battles about 2mb hardfork or changes in governance - and so there seems to be some decently high probabilities that if bitcoin does not hardfork in the next 6 months (which seems decently likely)  we would be continuing to have these kinds of arguments 6 months from now regarding questions about a 2mb blocksize limit increase?  I think that it is difficult to predict for sure, but it seems that in 6 months we will likely have segwit locked in but no hardfork nor a 2mb blocksize limit increase.  That is my current and tentative thinking about probabilities based on what is currently understood by me, for whatever that is worth?

Haven't you figured out it yet?

It is not about the block size or scaling problems. It is about control. They (bitmain, miners, clowns, trolls) want to control bitcoin's future and make it as centralized as it can get. They don't want reasonable people doing their jobs.

They even use Satoshi's name to achieve their goals. If satoshi was alive, he would have gone H*tler on those fags but they are so shameless that they act like satoshi would support their troll ideas.

They are out of control. We better let them fork off. This level of toxicity isn't healthy for normal bitcoiners.

If Core was  supporting 8mb blocks, bitmain fags would come with a proposition of 16mb blocks or 8mb2x HF.

Who says anything about sticking to anything?

There is merely a point that if something is currently not needed, such as increasing the block sizes, then why implement it if it is likely bringing more problems than it resolves.

You act as if bitcoin is broken in some kind of way in some kind of technical level, and it is not.

And, your appeal to authority is utter nonsense.. who the fuck cares what Satoshi thought in 2010? We gotta role with the times and understand bitcoin for what it is rather than what it was theorized to be in 2010, no?

Could be very well possible (me talking nonsense), as it just an opinion, based on what I have observed  

And in my opinion, I am in favor of SegWit and a block increase as well. That doesn't mean I'm correct on that, nor ever did claim so, nor that I like the way how this whole bickering is being played (by whatever side); it's purely based on my own experience from a users interaction (and not a technical one), nothing more and nothing less...  

Do you realize that it is literally impossible for you to know the "central goals of big blockers" better than the big blockers themselves know their goals?

Stop ascribing to others things that are literally impossible for you to know. Especially when faced with a direct contradiction from those very persons.

i don't know if you are being super-stupid, super-unthinking, or super-dickish here, but that about exhausts the possibilities.

For the record, I advocate big blocks because I am convinced it will bring us more usability, more security, and more value. And I have conveyed this to you before.

What you and small blockers don't understand is that for Bitcoin to become more widely used, it will need bigger blocks to accommodate more transaction. Even Satoshi understood that. Sticking to small blocks isn't go to cut the mustard. That's the reality.

More bullshit if you are trying to act as if there really is some kind of technical issue in the protocol (beyond segwit and other projects that core is working on and Gmaxwell listed in his post) that would achieve the various objectives that you listed (eg.. more transactions, greater adoption, lower fees, faster confirmations).   

The reality is you are attempting to simplify the matter and to suggest that a 2mb limit increase through a hardfork is going to accomplish your listed objectives, but the reality, The One, is that a central goal of big blockers is emotional, namely the heads on spikes thinking.. which just is conspiratorial fantasy to keep asserting ill will of core and the various members and that core does not have the best intentions of bitcoin in their multiple disjointed heads.

The cat is out of the bag, and in that regard, these kinds of strange and confusing strategies are likely to continue.  You could be correct in your suggestion that if certain strategies fail, then they will not be attempted again, but it seems that the economic world does not work like that unless the punishment for attempting such strange and confusing strategies is extremely severe to clearly and unambiguously teach a lesson.

Actually, anyone that can create a wallet (a Core github fork or something new) that validates a single block (which is not validated on the existing chain) and only allows new blocks to be built upon the divergent block can create a hard-fork. Provided they can secure the hashrate to produce a single block (even if that block has to be created with a dif of 1 in order to be created), they can promise a hard-fork. Now, they cannot legitimately promise that said hard-fork will be adopted by anyone other than themselves, but anyone with more than 15 minutes on their hands can both promise and deliver a hard-fork..

Im a bitcoin user, and I don't want bigger blocks anytime soon. So what's your point again?

How do you measure what bitcoin users want in any case? Let me tell you what nobody wants: 2 bitcoins and a massive price crash.



Why is it so hard to understand for some that nobody can "promise" a hardfork?

You can show your intention, but you can't promise a damn hardfork.

I want an eventual hardfork, that includes more interesting improvements that a blocksize increase:

https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/

Do I want a hardfork to get 2MB in a rushed way in a couple of months? fuck no! im not insane.

I think you missed my point. All any given node has to do to avoid a reorg is to invoke invalidateblock for some block uniquely on the chain he wishes not to be reorged by. If a node that is following the legacy chain invokes invalidate block for a block uniquely on the UASF chain -- perhaps the first uniquely UASF block -- then that node will never be reorged by the UASF chain.

Of course, it may be that not all legacy nodes will invoke invalidateblock upon a uniquely UASF block. But all that do are protected from reorg. So it would depend upon incentives. Who might have an incentive to avoid such a reorg? How about every freeking node owner that prefers legacy over UASF. So it is likely that the overwhelming majority of nodes that do not adopt UASF will protect themselves thusly. Further, the incentive to avoid a reorg climbs as the chain grows, as more value gets locked up in blocks that differ between the two chains. So it is likely that any laggards on the legacy chain will protect themselves thusly as time goes on.

And that is just one mechanism -- one not dependent upon the actions of others. I quite prefer Jihan's plan, whereby a new client is adopted by those not adopting the UASF that encodes that any chain lacking a larger than 1MB block is invalid. Of course, this depends on mining support for this plan. Not only to be a valid chain, but more mining power must go along with this to avoid the ability of Jihan to 51% that chain.

So no -- there will be no reorg -- at least not for anyone aware.

The sooner "community as a whole" realizes that less than a handful of people control what Core is/does and how what Core is/does actually gives Core near total control of the protocol (even in direct opposition of the "community as a whole"), the better. 

I am not so sure. UASF only needs 51% minus the share of the biggest pool. If this pool is as big as it is said, then they need very little for all the other miners to have a clear incentive to move and not run the risk of being moved on.

I hope it fails, because of how it was handled. But I do not think it is farfetched.

Core does not control the protocol. They may appear to, but they do not. The community as a whole controls the protocol. The sooner we all realize this, the better.

Doubtful. I would expect that the legacy chain will leave the UASF chain in the dust, with no hope of ever coming close to such reorg. Even if it did, however, there are trivial means to ensure such a reorg does not occur (e.g., invalidateblock).

Now that you mention it, I've always had a hankering for one of these:



Sorry, JJG - just busting your chops. I think the word you were looking for was 'coup':

coup |ko͞o|
noun (pl. coups |ko͞oz| )
1 (also coup d'état) a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government: he was overthrown in an army coup.

And that actually doesn't apply, as the event you seem to be describing has been brewing for some time, does not involve fisticuffs, and is fully within the rights of those acquiring said power.

I'm all for someone explaining how it's all BM's fault now, but things on the list before BM even existed (back when the entire network hashrate was lower than what some random bumpkin in Arkansas now has in a 100'x100' barn) are still "future plans" that were "blocked by miners" way back then.....

Before any BSfanboy answers let me try:

"No, you and you miner idiots have blocked all that nice stuff for that long now. We are not guilty!"