Pages:
Author

Topic: The only answer against Miners Mafia is UASF - page 7. (Read 7672 times)

full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 101
Blockstream, of which Maxwell is an officer of, stands to profit from Bitcoin becoming a settlement layer. Settlement layer solutions are literally Blockstream's only products.

Do you have any proof to back up that claim?

From what I understand, the only products blockstream currently has are blockchain tech for banks, such as "confidential assets" and the work they did on IBM and Intel's "hyperledger".

They did not develop any lightning implementation, nor did they state they planned to run a lightning hub, and it doesn't make much sense for them to run one as the best businesses to run LN hubs are companies like coinbase and bitpay who already have a large base of users and merchants and are already doing offchain payments.
copper member
Activity: 2870
Merit: 2298
Greg Maxwell on the other hand stands to profit handsomely if Bitcoin becomes a settlement layer, regardless of the damage done to Bitcoin as a result of this.
Prove it.
Blockstream, of which Maxwell is an officer of, stands to profit from Bitcoin becoming a settlement layer. Settlement layer solutions are literally Blockstream's only products.

The financial incentives of Ver and Wu are clearly aligned with that of Bitcoin while those of Maxwell are not.
You are clearly very uninformed as to who is pulling the strings in this game. The incentives are everything but aligned with Bitcoin.
Why don't you enlighten me?

However, the sums I quoted were each of their likely current Btcoin holdings, of which would be very difficult to liquidate, even at fire sale prices. In order for either of them to realize the value of their bitcoin holdings, Bitcon's adoption needs to increase substantially.
 
Greg Maxwell also has a fairly long history of dishonesty, deception and the use of sockpuppets to further his agenda.
I guess if you've ever been something 'imperfect' in your life, you are too remain so. I feel sorry for all the evil CEOs who were mischievous children. Roll Eyes
He acted this way a decade ago, he behaved this way in Bitcoin's early days, he behaved this way 4 years ago, and there is evidence to support that he is still engaging in these behaviors today.
legendary
Activity: 4214
Merit: 4458
Greg Maxwell on the other hand stands to profit handsomely if Bitcoin becomes a settlement layer, regardless of the damage done to Bitcoin as a result of this.
Prove it.

to correct quickseller and to get around lauda's word twisting mantra:
Greg Maxwell on the other hand stands to clear the $70m+ VC DEBT easily if Bitcoin becomes a settlement layer, regardless of the damage done to Bitcoin as a result of this.

legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
Greg Maxwell on the other hand stands to profit handsomely if Bitcoin becomes a settlement layer, regardless of the damage done to Bitcoin as a result of this.
Prove it.

The financial incentives of Ver and Wu are clearly aligned with that of Bitcoin while those of Maxwell are not.
You are clearly very uninformed as to who is pulling the strings in this game. The incentives are everything but aligned with Bitcoin.

Greg Maxwell also has a fairly long history of dishonesty, deception and the use of sockpuppets to further his agenda.
I guess if you've ever been something 'imperfect' in your life, you are too remain so. I feel sorry for all the evil CEOs who were mischievous children. Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 4214
Merit: 4458
However my daily uploads are limited to 2GB,
My upload speed is a little slow, typically 50Mb/sec,

However I pay though the teeth for it,

50mbit/sec= 6.25mbyte/s = 375mbyte/min = 2gb/6min

6 minutes of uploading a video or any content of any kind(thats2gb+) and your blocked the rest of the day??
time for you to change your ISP
copper member
Activity: 2870
Merit: 2298
Since Greg Maxwell is the posterchild for integrity, and has never tried to mislead anyone in his life, it is safe to take his word for it without any evidence. /s
He's certainly more trustworthy than the likes of Ver, Jihan, 
Both Roger Ver and Jihan Wu stand to each lose tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars if Bitcoin is harmed over the long run.  Greg Maxwell on the other hand stands to profit handsomely if Bitcoin becomes a settlement layer, regardless of the damage done to Bitcoin as a result of this. The financial incentives of Ver and Wu are clearly aligned with that of Bitcoin while those of Maxwell are not.

Greg Maxwell also has a fairly long history of dishonesty, deception and the use of sockpuppets to further his agenda. He was even caught vandalizing wikipedia pages maliciously in 2006 by his peers, and once he was temporarily banned for this, he used sockpuppets to do the same.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
That is like saying multiplication is an abuse of addition.   Avoiding needless work is a basic optimization technique.
False equivalency fallacy; as expected by the likes of you. An exploit is an exploit; that is an undeniable fact.

Also just exactly how can SegWit block AsciBoost?  
It does not block it entirely. It blocks the covert usage of it. Segwit changes the block header in a specific way, which prevents the covert usage of Asicboost. In fact, Asicboost as is implemented in current Bitmain devices is incompatible with a lot of potential upgrades (which change the block header).

Since Greg Maxwell is the posterchild for integrity, and has never tried to mislead anyone in his life, it is safe to take his word for it without any evidence. /s
He's certainly more trustworthy than the likes of Ver, Jihan, Peter R and the other charlatans.
copper member
Activity: 2870
Merit: 2298
Also just exactly how can SegWit block AsciBoost? 
The coinbase transaction in a SW block contains the hash of all the transactions in a block, forcing a miner employing ASICBOOST to spend more resources on calculations so that the advantage to employing ASICBOOST is removed.


Anyway Bitmain has stated they aren't using AsicBoost
But Greg said that he has proof that a miner has implemented ASICBOOST, and that this is why they are not signaling for SegWit.

Since Greg Maxwell is the posterchild for integrity, and has never tried to mislead anyone in his life, it is safe to take his word for it without any evidence. /s

and are holding out for 2MB blocks with SegWit.   Which actually sounds like a reasonable compromise at this point.   https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/
The problem with increasing the max block size at all is that doing so will create a precedent that the max block size will be increased once it needs to be increased (aka when blocks become full). However in order for LN and other settlement layers to be economically viable, tx fees need to be very expensive (prohibitively so), and if one option is to increase the max block size, then tx fees will never be prohibitively expensive. 
wck
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
AsicBoost is just an improved mining technique, it isn't about blocksize.  
1) Bullshit. AsicBoost is not an improved mining technique, it's abusing a weakness in the PoW function.
2) It is everything about Segwit. Segwit would prevent covert use of it, therefore Bitmain and mr. big child Jihan does everything to secure these profits.

That is like saying multiplication is an abuse of addition.   Avoiding needless work is a basic optimization technique.   Also just exactly how can SegWit block AsciBoost?   Maybe you are just repeating random nonsense you'll heard from someone in the Bitcoin core that should know better.     Anyway Bitmain has stated they aren't using AsicBoost and are holding out for 2MB blocks with SegWit.   Which actually sounds like a reasonable compromise at this point.   https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/

As for the rest of you nonsense, it isn't even worth replying too.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
AsicBoost is just an improved mining technique, it isn't about blocksize.  
1) Bullshit. AsicBoost is not an improved mining technique, it's abusing a weakness in the PoW function.
2) It is everything about Segwit. Segwit would prevent covert use of it, therefore Bitmain and mr. big child Jihan does everything to secure these profits.

The developer community is divided and no where near unanimous.  If what you claimed was true there wouldn't be so many competing Bitcoin forks.   Even the Bitcoin Core isn't unanimous if you listen to the devs that were kicked out.    
What developers? Hearn, Garzik, Andersen (bank sell out, unknown, CIA sell out)? None of them have made any real contributions in the past few years.

Again I stand by my claim, UASF seems only to function to try and force SegWit.    It is just more confusion being thrown out there.  
There's nothing wrong with USAF. If the supermajority of the ecosystem want it, then it is happening with or without North Korea Jihan.
wck
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
The number of nodes is meaningless. It is trivial for someone to spin up 100's (or thousands, or more) nodes with little to no cost. This is especially true when discussing short term trends.

Setting up a node today is not a joke. Have you tried setting one up at litte to no cost as you said? I think you havent tried to. The yearly bandwidth costs alone could set you back a decent amount.

You must live in the internet backwaters, maybe the USA?   While I'm not running a node now, I did from my home and it wasn't a problem.   However my daily uploads are limited to 2GB, although I've never been shutdown for going over it.   Downloads are unlimited.   My upload speed is a little slow, typically 50Mb/sec, download speed typically greater than 120Mb/sec.   However I pay though the teeth for it, the fiber optic service with IP phone run around $45 / month.   Kind of middle of the road for Japan.  

Seriously how much bandwidth is needed now?  

However to spin up 100's?   Just one was a real pain in the butt.   I think it took over two days to get the whole blockchain at when I did it.   Of coarse one could clone.   If you use something like AWS ... It is going to cost a bit to run 1000's of nodes.
copper member
Activity: 2870
Merit: 2298
The number of nodes is meaningless. It is trivial for someone to spin up 100's (or thousands, or more) nodes with little to no cost. This is especially true when discussing short term trends.

Setting up a node today is not a joke. Have you tried setting one up at litte to no cost as you said? I think you havent tried to. The yearly bandwidth costs alone could set you back a decent amount.
Someone that wanted to setup, say 100 nodes would only need to download the blockchain once. They could then rent cheap VPSs in various datacenters, and set their blocks to 'blocksonly' and enable pruning to some very low number. If you really know what you are doing, you would not even need to send each of your VPSs the blockchain, as you could simply program your node to accept 0000000000000000001523891872bed55d9cfdb60702a47722fc016e503b9602 as the hash of block 460909 (or whatever other actual hash of whatever other block number).

These nodes would really not be *actual* full nodes, however no one from the outside would be able to tell the difference.
sr. member
Activity: 868
Merit: 259
The number of nodes is meaningless. It is trivial for someone to spin up 100's (or thousands, or more) nodes with little to no cost. This is especially true when discussing short term trends.

Setting up a node today is not a joke. Have you tried setting one up at litte to no cost as you said? I think you havent tried to. The yearly bandwidth costs alone could set you back a decent amount.
copper member
Activity: 2870
Merit: 2298
And: Let's have UASF. But let's try to bring more people on board. At least, F2Pool.
The founder of f2pool recently tweeted something that effectively said that he is not going to support SegWit. This was not long after Greg Maxwell made unfounded claims that Bitmain's miners were reverse engineered by himself, and that Bitmain was actively engaging in using ASICBOOST, and that this is why they are against SegWit.
Can you provide a link, very interesting...
https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/850053367988592642
https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/850060922349432833
https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/850061625059024896

The last one appears to effectively be a vote of no confidence for core
newbie
Activity: 32
Merit: 0
And: Let's have UASF. But let's try to bring more people on board. At least, F2Pool.
The founder of f2pool recently tweeted something that effectively said that he is not going to support SegWit. This was not long after Greg Maxwell made unfounded claims that Bitmain's miners were reverse engineered by himself, and that Bitmain was actively engaging in using ASICBOOST, and that this is why they are against SegWit.
Can you provide a link, very interesting...
copper member
Activity: 2870
Merit: 2298
And: Let's have UASF. But let's try to bring more people on board. At least, F2Pool.
The founder of f2pool recently tweeted something that effectively said that he is not going to support SegWit. This was not long after Greg Maxwell made unfounded claims that Bitmain's miners were reverse engineered by himself, and that Bitmain was actively engaging in using ASICBOOST, and that this is why they are against SegWit.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 6249
Decentralization Maximalist
The reason those high profile members support BU is very simple - their money lay Not in bitcoins now, but in some altcoins like Eth, dash etc. Even Buterin (guy with some programming skills) mumbles something against Segwit and LN, he understands what it'd mean for his alt.
Сonsequently they don't want any good for Bitcoin, because if Bitcoin green all forks are red.
A very balanced view, full of knowledge and love. Genius!

Don't you want to relax a bit? It feels better. Have some beer, some sex.

Apart from that, every time when Bitcoin went down in price altcoins soon followed. So that's not an argument.

And: Let's have UASF. But let's try to bring more people on board. At least, F2Pool.

wck
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
I added the UASF-SegWit-BIP148 user agent string to my node.

Of course, I don't support this ridiculous UASF proposal or Segwit, and neither does my node. It could never work!

This is why we unfortunately can't rely on such statistics like the ones in the first post.
because of one moron? I don't trust anything that says btu shills, never saw 1 trustworthy post from them

That attitude shows my main objection to SegWit.   I see this a lot from SegWit supporters.   I don't get it.

SegWit and BU are just two possible solutions.   It shouldn't be the cult of SegWit.   
sr. member
Activity: 277
Merit: 250
I added the UASF-SegWit-BIP148 user agent string to my node.

Of course, I don't support this ridiculous UASF proposal or Segwit, and neither does my node. It could never work!

This is why we unfortunately can't rely on such statistics like the ones in the first post.
because of one moron? I don't trust anything that says btu shills, never saw 1 trustworthy post from them
wck
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
as for chek2fire's image of the trolley growing double the size in half an hour.

the realisty is much more like

nodes set consensus.h at 8mb (calculated as network safe for at the moment)
nodes set policy.h at thier own personal preference amounts BELOW consensus.h

nodes publish their preference in the user agent

...
pools see all the lower preference limits and determine a safe majority of preference.. EG lets say it was 75%-95% say 2mb is ok

pools then make a block that is 1.000250mb and dip thier toe in the water testing the orphan risks or other issues, much like detecting if there was a 2013 leveldb bug when surpassing 500k limit even with a 1mb hard limit
and then progressively grow in small increments which they deem safe, up to the majority PREFERENCE of ~2mb
where by the minority nodes that had 8mb consensus but under 2mb policy preference. would be alerted that their policy preference is going to get dynamically altered up to 2mb

all of which are still blocks well under the main consensus limit of 8mb.
meaning nodes can cope and the blocks dont just go "gigabytes by midnight"




That is close to what I understood.
Pages:
Jump to: