Topic: The blocksize war - page 2. (Read 546 times)

SegWit falls under the first group (main scaling should occur on second layer and the first layer should scale without hard fork), otherwise you are right that SegWit also offers an on-chain scaling by increasing the block size but it is through the soft-fork as I said in the first category which makes it a limited scaling.

It's a bit off-topic but bcash has implemented more of SegWit than you know. From the SegWit way of transaction serialization for sighash all the way to the bech32 address format.

I would add segwit. Which virtually increased block size and was not implemented in bcash and other forks.

It is somehow a on chain scale.  So now we have on chain and off chain scale solutions, with lighting network

if you actually read the block data of which flag bits in blockheaders reached which thresholds to trigger which events, you will see it was actually the NYA agreement that triggered segwit activation.. they just back tracked on the later promise of the 2x base limit.. becasue their actual agenda was just to get segwit activated using the blackmail of rejecting blocks that didnt display their flag bit in blockheader

if still unsure who to believe.. check the immutable blockchain data.. and which bits were associated with which proposal method of activation



the blue line(NYA) https://dcgco.medium.com/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77
 needed 80% which then triggered the red line(segwit) to then reject non compliant blocks and achieve the unnatural 100% because all outliers were rejected leaving only compliant blocks being seen

note how segwit didnt even get 50%(upto july) demand until the blackmail of the mandated activation was a thing
note segwits unnatural clean linear line to 100% . its unnatural has no wiggles due to the block rejection campaign of the mandated activation proposal triggered due to the NYA agreement
https://dcgco.medium.com/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77


other thing to note.. the other proposal of a UASF didnt even get 20% at all..


the reason why core were demanding segwit activation before november 2017 is because they were sponsored to make segwit(a feature to offer gatways to corporate subnetwork of middlemen payment charging routes) which had a deadline of from november 2016-nov2017 to activate or the core devs wont get their bonus

the NYA group are ofcourse the corporations that sponsored the core devs in the first place for segwit. rather than a rival.
the 2x element of NYA plea was never coded and was always an empty promise. just a false promise attempt to garner more support for what they really just wanted.. segwit

Thank you.


Yeap, that's what I thought.

Bitcoin.com has gone full scam and is now promoting Ethereum and a Bcash sidechain called Smart BCH in order to keep scamming people by selling them worthless tokens on their Uniswap clone called Verse DEX. They created their own token, where insiders like Roger Ver and Jihan Wu, were given early access through a private sale. Bcash's leaders will quickly abandon their principles at the first opportunity they see to make a quick buck. These people never cared about scaling, they just wanted to grab power for themselves so they would be able to build their scams on Bitcoin.

Read "The Long Road To Segwit: How Bitcoin's Biggest Protocol Upgrade Became A Reality" by Aaron Van Wirdum. He's definitely the most trustworthy person you can find that wrote about the subject-matter.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/the-long-road-to-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality

That write up will give you the history, what caused the "Scaling Debate", the context why, and why the the Core Developers chose the path where we are today.

It is interesting that almost everyone remembers the "block size war" as the end of it in 2017 and with the shitcoin called bcash. In truth this "conflict" about scaling bitcoin lasted at least 5 years and it definitely wasn't just bcash versus bitcoin with only 2 sides. There were many sides or better said many different proposals for different approaches which we may categorize in a simple way into 2 or 3 categories.

1. The group saying bitcoin should scale using the second layer and should not have a hard fork.
2. The group saying bitcoin should only scale on-chain (layer one and only layer one) by hard forking to a bigger block size
3. The group saying both at the same time. This was short lived and was very messy mainly seen in SegWit2x which had its own separate issues.

Of course this is an oversimplification since for example the second group consists of many different approaches like one saying we should have a one time fork to a massive block size while another saying we should let the miners choose to change the size at any time they wanted, etc.

SegWit activation and BCH fork ends "the blocksize war", so you might also want to read this article, The Long Road To SegWit - Bitcoin Magazine.


While that book have good rating on Amazon, have you read that book?


BSV isn't part of "the blocksize war" though since BSV forked from BCH in November 2018, while "the blocksize war" ended on late 2017.

You don't have to trust any of us and you definitely shouldn't. Whatever you're going to receive in this thread would be sprinkled with tons of FUD. If you want to get the most objective view, look at BIP102, BIP103, Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin XT. Those are several of the proposals and softwares that permitted block size increase. In addition, you should see the whole fiasco about the User Activated Soft Fork which is part of the series of events that precipitated the adoption of SegWit.

Segwit was ready, and make no mistake it is still in effect a block size increase indirectly and still increased the TPS of the network.

You would realize that tons of politics were at play and there were tons of disagreement among the key renowned developers and community figures. You would have to skim through the mailing list as well and come to your own conclusion.

Having lived it and watching what happened, I would recommend you look into the New York Agreement, who the players were, what they agreed upon as a compromise and why it went wrong. Then look at the comments of the developers after segwit was activated and their tune completely changed, trolling those who were dumb enough to trust them while being proud of their toxic behavior. That in a nutshell is why Bitcoin’s dominance isn’t >90% right now.

It's an expensive game, and in the past few years, apparently no one could afford to try something similar. However, it should be kept in mind that fork wars are not something that is a thing of the past, especially in the case that the spot BTC ETF is approved in the US, which in combination with what BlackRock stated in this context means that at some point in the future no one should be surprised with some new fork that will be backed by a fund with a capital of several trillion $.

Man you know you are old when you remember the days of crazy Roger Ver screaming at the camera in his hotel room saying “It’s Bitcoin CASH!!!” Not BCash, don’t call it BCash. And then he gives the camera the finger.

Surprisingly these days we don’t have these block size wars anymore. I guess people accepted and aside from the Ordinals, fees were low for most transactions.

It is important to remember that it gave birth to two coins Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV because it's about the blocksize being limited. That "war" made hard forks from BTC and it's been that ever since. Don't go trusting any of it. It's still better to use and buy BTC. That Bitcoin SV definitely not gonna be good because of the faketoshi.

I think a lot of people made a lot of money because of those forks, so maybe it's the thing that some people are thankful?

Regardless of all that war and disagreements that have occurred what matters is the end result.

The result of this war is clear to everyone on the ground, as we see the (original) Bitcoin in exponential growth because it is the most decentralized and safest, while all the currencies that chose another path and were divided by Hard Fork are almost dead.

You have not been in this space back in days of Blocksize war and Hashrate war so you can study about them backwards. Start from today, you will discover that most of forked coins from those wars now are dead coins.

Explore these wars and their consequent forks with How many Bitcoin forks are there

A biggest Bitcoin fork in history is Bitcoin Cash (BCH). They tried to scam Bitcoin community and investors but a few years later, that blockchain network has considerable drop in hashrate and its value can not catch BTC value.

See Historical hashrate chart for BTC and BCH, make your conclusion. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-bch.html#alltime

Their forum is dead too

bitmover has not got any responses correct

firstly several teams(not core) wanted to upgrade the bitcoin network in ways that would allow more transactions per block by increasing the blocksize.(the REKT era) core and their sponsored PR groups viamently fought against anyone not part of cores leadership of devs and their roadmap plan.

core(and their sponsors) wanted to upgrade to mess with scripting byte counting and formats to activate a feature that would allow other subnetworks for corporate middlement fee grabs. this feature also allowed fatter signature(script)space.. thus extending the blocksize.. BUT not really resulting in more multiples of transaction counts.
and thats the jist of the war.. both sides not getting consensus(mass vote) in 2015-mid 2017

 core proposed in mid 2017 a method to implement their upgrade that did not need majority users vote to activate cores method (due to 9 months of lack of even 50% demand for cores idea.. (nov2016-july2017))
the network upgraded eventually(unnatural 100% compliance in just a matter of weeks) using a mandated blackmail event(NYA agreement) which caused the fork. those that were on another team slinkered off to live on the fork caused by core and adapted their fork into something different due to realising core (emphasis on their name) became centralised powerhouse no one can fight

it did not require miners to write new code themselves.. instead it was core devs and their corporate sponsors that wrote code demanding that mining pools had to flag a new signal to accept the core upgrade or be rejected and forked off the network

core accomplished their goal

it was not a other team caused the fork. it was not average joe user nodes, it was not miners that wrote the code for segwit. it was corporate sponsored core devs that wrote the segwit code and blackmailed the wider community to comply or have their blocks rejected. where the corporations(NYA agreement) were the majority economic services everyone uses so had to follow or not have their coins seen by those services.

the mining pools did not even need to run the segwit code, they just needed to flag a bit of data in a block header that they were complying to avoid rejection.
the users nodes didnt need to pre-run segwit code to cause activation neither

i now expect certain cultish behaviour people to scream and cry their mantra of how they want to promote core as the saviours and leaders and how anyone going against core are agaisnt bitcoin.. and must be ignored, banned and told to f**k off

no
people can still admire bitcoin but despise cores centralist methodology, because bitcoin as a previously promoted decentralised network should not be complying to a central power house of blackmail. and no this does make those despising core be pigeon holed into supporting the forked team. nor does it mean anyone that wants to promote how core gained too much power should be told to shut up and just obey the cult mindset as a blind follower

It's also worth noting that the BCH chain barely survived its first few blocks because the hashrate was so low.  They had to implement EDA, or "Emergency Difficulty Adjustment" (effectively a cheat to artificially lower the difficulty), in order to keep the chain alive and make it easier to find blocks.  These forkcoins were vastly inferior from the outset.


//EDIT:

Public Notice:   Any threads about blocksize are invariably targeted by notorious forum troll franky1.  He will spread lies and disinformation about historical events because he hates Bitcoin developers and has absurd notions about how Bitcoin should work.  He is incapable of honesty.  Do not take anything he says at face value.  He will try to blind you with pseudoscience and technologically illiterate gibberish.

If a miner  wants to reject a new consensus rule, he just won't include blocks with that rule.

Miners vote with their processing power. And the longest chain, with more processing power, is always the main chain.

As bch chain (with the rules reject by the majority miners) was not the longest, that chain became a forked chain and a new coin.

It is all written in the Bitcoin white paper and in the links I showed you earlier.

What do you mean "rejected by the majority of miners"?

If a miner decides to change their code on their unique mining device, the changes wouldn't be accepted. I get that.

But if many miners decide to change their codes, do they need to be more than 50% of the total mining power to be able to do whatever they want?


How? From who? Sorry for asking, I am completely ignorrant on how this thing could work. I find it extremely stupid. Pardon me...

This forum has a search function, everything was said here as well.