Topic: The only answer against Miners Mafia is UASF - page 8. (Read 7672 times)

AsicBoost is just an improved mining technique, it isn't about blocksize.   

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.   

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.   

Antpool is holding out for a blocksize increase via a hard fork.   At least that is what they have stated.   

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"

Oh, that explains a lot ...

FTFY

Shows a lack of understanding about how Bitcoin Unlimited would work.   I don't understand these underhanded dirty attacks.

With Bitcoin Unlimited larger blocks could be produced but there is a tradeoff as too large of blocks probably would be orphaned.    The blocksize would settle around the sweat spot of the number of transactions and the transaction fees producing the maximum revenue.   Transactions not including transaction fees would probably not be any better off than they are today.   

It appears the SegWit changes would allow more transactions in the current 1MB block, but it isn't as clear to understand.   Later small transactions would be pushed to the yet to be built lightening network.   It is a fundamental change.   The developers also gain tools for making future changes.

Frankly I'm not very excited by either proposal.   It will be interesting to see how it works out with LTC.   

  Don't ask... don't ask...

Maybe he means extension blocks / bcoin

I don't get it. Why are you doing it, then

This is why we unfortunately can't rely on such statistics like the ones in the first post.

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!

Not sure I understand your post. UASF just enforces SegWit, it's not a different proposal.

I'm glad to see that there's a new (or at least something I haven't heard about) alternative to the base Segwit and BU. This is actually looking like something that might prove itself to be useful, and I think that it is possible for the blocksize debate to be solved with a piece of software that is actually pretty good and can benefit everyone who's involved, from the community to the miners, instead of letting just the miners run away with a ton of power and fees for the next long time to come.

I want to look into this more, but it is seeming to be the alternative I expressed support for.

The usual question: are these nodes actually supporting UASF or are they... "fake" nodes again?


The community is divided. One just has to spend 5 minutes here to understand that. Many may not like or side with "corrupt chinese" and "altcoiner Roger ver", however they are part of the community and make it move one way or another (fortunately or unfortunately).


First time I'm seeing this option too, I'll be using it from now on...


Which coin? Not really paying attention to alts...

I have to admit that this is the first time I'm seeing the 'uacomment' option. I was not aware of it's existence although I have long ago noticed the discrepancies in the client descriptions. That being said, I think that this is a very good idea to show support. I highly recommend spreading the exact command (as found in the main thread) along the main communication channels:
There is already 1 coin which has already activated SegWit.

This statement is nonsense. UASF is a decent proposal; definitely not a backdoor. SW has near unanimous developer approval, supermajority of users and the economy approval; AntPool is holding the network hostage due to ASICBoost.

---

Comedy relief:

This is a good news since the bitcoin holders such as us have a control on the nodes. If this continues then we will no longer mind the conflict between the core and the bitmain. But hope that someday the UASF will not also be controlled by greed and will not become problematic on the long run. Bitcoins success for this point of time will rely on UASF.

The difference is in attitude.  Some people pushing SegWit basically present themselves very poorly.   They attack people that disagree with them.  Often throw out wild statements like "Bitcoin was never intended to pay for a cup of coffee" and make false claims to try to shore up their supposed support.   Where there is smoke there is is fire.   It is fine that a group wants to fundamentally change bitcoin, but they shouldn't villainize people that just disagree with them.

While you claim BU is dead, there are more BU blocks than SegWit blocks being produced.  That shows there is a clear problem and disagreement.

What I do like about SegWit is it lays a foundation for making progress.   What I don't like about it is that it is taking steps way beyond what is necessary and not really focused on the most immediate issue.   I think a prudent thing to do would be to hammer out a compromise.   However calling a group "Miners Mafia" is really absurd.    

Now the LTC is going with SegWit it would be wise to let that coin lead the way and prove the concepts are sound.   This is an opportunity for Bitcoin to take a smaller more prudent step and come up with something that both the miners and users can live with.  

Getting back on topic it seems like UASF is just a backdoor way to try and force SegWit.    Seriously if SegWit can't stand on its own then there is a problem.  

I think it is looking likely that USAF will be the way to go, if there is more revelations on the reasons why miners are opposing Segwit in coming days/weeks I think the community will support USAF and Miners will lose their total influence in the space. I know they are trying to protect their investment but it seems they have gone to far

Was it not you that implied 780 BU nodes produce blocks?


And what difference does it make, BU is floating face down

You are really are being disingenuous.   How many of the 5700 nodes are producing blocks?   Not very many.   When one looks at which blocks are produced with which code sets SegWit was well behind BU. https://btc.com/stats/block-ver?bip_mode=SegWit.   SegWit accounts for less than 30% of the blocks produced out of the last 1000.

Most nodes are not involved in mining, but without mining there isn't any Bitcoin.   Well there are benefits of having more nodes, it is a much lower commitment to to set up node vs actually mining.    

It is disingenuous to discount the minority of nodes that is actually doing more beneficial work than the majority which is mostly just passive.   Clearly there isn't anything close to unanimous yet.   Maybe you should look up the definition of the word yourself.

I haven't made up my mind yet, although I find the lightening network concept rather vague and potentially dangerous.   It is too bad there there isn't more focus on the near term issues with SegWit.   Less long-term pie in the sky and more short term fixing the issues would have probably pushed SegWit to a quick success.