Topic: The only answer against Miners Mafia is UASF - page 2. (Read 7672 times)

how many people actually know what the ins and outs of a uasf would look like? there seems to be a tendency to jump on new ideas without knowing enough. has it actually been pored over properly?

A HF doesn't make Segwit more than trivially simpler than it already is. EC is actually the bigger problem when it comes to KISS. Flextrans is garbage FYI, just an attempted copycat of Segwit which was riddled with tons of bugs.

Wrong. You don't even understand it, yet you are attempting to spread "knowledge" to others.

Stop subversively promoting BU. If you care about decentralization, you'd be running away from BU not towards it.

Relevance to Segwit? None. Relevance to UASF? None. #Tactics.

What makes you think there's only one 'DNS seed'.  Anyone can theoretically create a routing system and there could easily be many ways to route.

sgwit is not a yes or no. the activation is meaningless in relation to the "fixes"
the activation just changes who's ontop as a seeder(upstream filter) and who's a leacher(downstream cesspit, not full node) while actually opening up more attack vectors.

the end user 'benefit' / functionality gesture of segwit is about the keypair utility, but even this does not 'fix' things at a whole network level. it only affects those who voluntarily disarm themselves
if you think that the 46m outputs of native keys will all happily be segwit outputs magically without causing issues .. then please run some scenarios

segwit is not really about LN. (its just 'sold' as needed as one of many last ditch plea's to get their way)
anyone at any time can set up a multisig and then have many ways to communicate to another person to agree on who owes who what

ive been doing it for a couple years. even escrows have been doing it for a couple years.

my fear of LN is more about who controls the DNS seed as i can see a few attack vectors/control issues with it.
my fear of LN is more about who controls hubs and how blackmail and CSV(real world chargeback) as i can see a few attack vectors/control issues with it.

yes LN has a place in the bitcoin eco system as a voluntary side service for the niche users that need it (day traders/gamblers/faucets) but should not be treated as the end goal of bitcoin solutions because even LN has limits

Franky,  I wonder if you're worrying about the wrong thing.  Either segwit is going to be used fully
by the network or its not.

I'm much more interested about tier network implications for the LN and how we can
create decentralized routing.

UASF is just any random node throwing a comment into the useragent but still waiting for weeks after 'activation' to actually get an implementation that does anything more than the tier network.

where as using the implementations that have dynamics actually start allowing blocks over1mb to be built without needing to be spoonfed yet another release download.
where everyone thats part of the network are all on the same level playing field of a peer network, not tier network

(understand the difference between peer and tier)
 learn the consequences of the tier network, the dilution of full nodes that are not equally syncable to each other, where the downstream cesspit of prunned, stripped, nodes that cant sync and become RELIANT on upstream nodes.
think about it (using the bitcoin network hat, not the blockstream defender hat)

peer networks is where people dont need to move funds to new keypairs and everyone can benefit from real extra space even using native keys and everyone is equal full node.

Jonald: "We the market, should choose BU"

We the Market: "Uhhhh, no, let's use the same power of choice to user activate Segwit instead"

Jonald: "Bu... bu... bu.... bu.... bu..... but that's buckling! Your choice is called buckling, when I want you to choose something, it's called choosing"


Take the hint Jonald, fuck off

core is 2 things.

1) master of bitcoin
2) slave of blockstream

 

poeple think EC is complicated, because the crazy scenarios in which EC could be leveraged to attack the network, are complicated as hell.
EC is itself is quite simple...

I spend far too much time on this forum.

I can assure you my grudge is real.

Yes.

this is almost perfect. almost...
its needs to revert all of segwit's "blockweight" aspects, and let EC determine the blocksize exclusively.
however their reasoning for letting segwit in AS IS, is a pretty Fing good reason...
I like this project.

What's it like to spend all of your time with some imaginary grudge against "Core" - do you even know what core is?

Do you not think segwit could be a better implementation as a hard fork? Perhaps it could even learn some lessons from classic's flextrans features. And BU's implementation of EC could be considered over complicated, and a better KISS solution could be used.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18541674

UASF is the market deciding that it wants to upgrade.

If BU is forced, you are all settled. If Segwit is forced, you are preaching doomsday. I wonder why the implanted bias exists.

No. I'm comparing healthy apples to rotten ones. You need a soft fork + hard fork or a hard fork that incorporates both at the same time. This is the project that you're looking for: https://bitcoinec.info/

I don't think we will get a bilateral split. The economic actors and mining actors will come to a consensus rather quickly. If Segwit as failed both a MASF and UASF, then it's time to call it deadwit and not waste any more time on it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1865966.20

You are comparing apples with pears. The two solutions don't have to be mutually exclusive, and could be used complimentary. What is the best technical method of implementing these solutions?

i would rather see a split network than one that buckled to UASF.  At least then I'd own both coins and we could see what the market really wants over time.
If segwit is forced, i'll still hold some bitcoin but i'll slowly sell it off for ethers or whatever is the main competitor.

lauda the activation of segwit itself is meaningless..
if segwit is so 'compatible' then why even need deadlines, threats. bribes ans blackmails.. they could just turn it on right now, right.. because 'its fully compatible' -as they say

but segwit activation does not give the bitcoin network any positives..

what it does do. is for the people who have a segwit node (under100%) who THEN...
wait around for weeks.. and then later download yet another spoon fed implementation just to get the real segwit wallet functionality
and then. of those that download they future release voluntarily move funds to segwit keypairs WEEKS - MONTHS after activation(even lower amount of people).. disarm themselves from performing quadratics, malleation, etc.

but this is where your not comprehending BITCOIN as a whole network.

- does it eradicate malleability (emphasis: for the network).. no
- does it eradicate quadratics (emphasis: for the network).. no, infact it makes things worse (4ktxsigop becomes 16ktxsigops)
- does it ensure all full nodes are full nodes (emphasis: for the network).. no, infact it makes things worse

you live in the dream world of an only blockstream/DCG existance, you can only see the world from the point of view where only blockstream/DCG software is rnning

forget about defending blockstream/DCG,
when you come to this forum.. try real hard to look in the mirror and ask yourself what hat your wearing.. and if the answer is the blockstream/DCG defense cap.. then dont reply to any posts.

stop defending them as kings of the utopian castle. and realise that bitcoin is beyond your kings.

anyway.
back to the question at hand.
would you blame and call ATI an attacker for using openCL if a year after GPU mining started gmax found an issue in gmaxes code that caused gmaxes code to not be as 'compatible' and as he promised

try to learn about bitcoin. because you have subtly omitted you have wasted the last year not learning. but do try to learn about bitcoin beyond a 2 paragraph blockstream/DCG script. and then reply using the cap of bitcoin network understanding

you do realise bitcoin will and should be around for centuries but blockstream/DCG wont be. so vesting your entire mindset around defending blockstream/DCG is a temporary thing that wont last and you will regret it later once their experiment is over and they have moved on to hyperledger

There is no 'one single entity' in Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not ETH, therefore does not have a supreme high king. Bitcoin Core is not an entity, it's an open source software project. If you are indirectly talking about BU in this analogy, then by following it we can conclude that the plane crashed already once and all the passengers are dead (the massive exploit that crashed all the nodes, for those that don't remember or are trying to shove it under a rug).

We have moved past that long ago considering that Segwit is clearly superior to EC, which is a radical and dangerous change. That said, the market is doing what the market wants. This is clearly visible by the super majority support by the users, nodes and economy (see all the signed statements either wanting to list BU as an altcoin (BTU) or in support of UASF). A vocal minority or a mining cartel is not to be in decision of what Bitcoin is or is not.

But at the same time, do you only allow one single entity to design all planes?  If another entity designs a plane, does that constitute a hostile takeover or a power grab in the aerospace industry?  Surely it's healthier if multiple entities come up with their own designs and then passengers decide which plane they want to board based on their own preference.

As a community, we still can't manage to square the circle that while we think open source software and users having a choice over which implementation they choose to run are good things, at the same time, anyone running or supporting a different implementation isn't a good thing?  It's completely contradictory.

We've clearly moved past the stage of "I think plane A has a superior technical design to plane B" and have now arrived at the "we're going to make everyone use plane A by threatening to change aviation rules to put Plane B out of business" stage, so I can't help but wonder if we still respect market freedom if we're willing to go to such lengths to enforce the status quo.  I'd like to see SegWit activated, but I'd rather it wasn't at the expense of healthy competition.  Moving the goalposts to obtain your goal is almost always considered poor form.