Who moderates bitcoin-dev mailing list?

stdset

hero member

Activity: 572

Merit: 506

Quote from: classicsucks on April 14, 2017, 02:55:56 PM

So now we're going to change the block structure, the network protocol, the consensus mechanism, miners' role in the process, AND the proof of work? And you still think this unrecognizable Frankenmonster will be "the real bitcoin"? Dream on.

Every time reality strikes, there is another proposal to change things. Core can write all the code they want, it still won't change the facts on the ground:

People aren't drinking the Koolaid.

Nobody is going to change miners role. Their role is to provide consensus on the state of the ledger, on order of transactions.
Nobody is going to change the consensus mechanism. Chain with most accumulated PoW wins, provided that it's a valid chain.
PoW change is the last resort option, hopefully it won't be needed.
It's up to users to choose validity rules for blocks and transactions. It's that simple.

classicsucks

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 504

Quote from: stdset on April 14, 2017, 01:31:03 AM

Quote from: piotr_n on March 12, 2017, 06:33:03 PM

If miners had to 'find something else profitable to mine', they'd just start mining
double spends depositing BTC to the exchanges that are trying to fuck them up.

They won't, because in this case miners will get fired either through PoW change or by users switching to other cryptos or leaving cryptos altogether. Miners have strong economic incentive to obey and they will, provided that economic majority is indeed a super-majority.

So now we're going to change the block structure, the network protocol, the consensus mechanism, miners' role in the process, AND the proof of work? And you still think this unrecognizable Frankenmonster will be "the real bitcoin"? Dream on.

Every time reality strikes, there is another proposal to change things. Core can write all the code they want, it still won't change the facts on the ground:

People aren't drinking the Koolaid.

stdset

hero member

Activity: 572

Merit: 506

Quote from: piotr_n on April 14, 2017, 05:27:09 AM

Bitcoin protocol has been designed to resist governments and the financial oligarchy.

Yes, and this is one of possible ways to resist.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: stdset on April 14, 2017, 01:31:03 AM

Quote from: piotr_n on March 12, 2017, 06:33:03 PM

If miners had to 'find something else profitable to mine', they'd just start mining
double spends depositing BTC to the exchanges that are trying to fuck them up.

They won't, because in this case miners will get fired either through PoW change or by users switching to other cryptos or leaving cryptos altogether. Miners have strong economic incentive to obey and they will, provided that economic majority is indeed a super-majority.

No. The reason they won't is that they aren't going to waste precious mining resources for attacking a worthless UASF altcoin, while they can still use them for mining the good old bitcoins.

You guys really don't get it.

Bitcoin protocol has been designed to resist governments and the financial oligarchy. I'm talking about institutions that wage wars killing millions, just to benefit from it.
And it has resisted...

If you think that a bunch of users or some developers can achieve what the world's biggest money makers haven't, then you are obviously delusional.

stdset

hero member

Activity: 572

Merit: 506

Quote from: piotr_n on March 12, 2017, 06:33:03 PM

If miners had to 'find something else profitable to mine', they'd just start mining
double spends depositing BTC to the exchanges that are trying to fuck them up.

They won't, because in this case miners will get fired either through PoW change or by users switching to other cryptos or leaving cryptos altogether. Miners have strong economic incentive to obey and they will, provided that economic majority is indeed a super-majority.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: gmaxwell on March 13, 2017, 10:09:59 PM

Quote from: piotr_n on March 13, 2017, 04:20:21 PM

BIP16 had a full support from the miners.

No it didn't it had support from maybe about ~55% from what I recall and was opposed by the largest pool of the day (deepbit).

Quote

If it'd have at least a support of 51% of the miners

That is just simply untrue. Damn man your dogmatic ignorance is making me want to go read up on the proposal just so I can support it.

The users of Bitcoin define what mining is, if you cross them you are not a miner. In that sense, it is impossible for 100% of miners to not support anything that the user base has decided on...

1. Are you really telling us you haven't "read up" on UASF? I assume that's what you mean by "the proposal" here, since you just quoted Piotr
who was talking about that.

2. If you claim a UASF doesn't have to have 51% miner support, well then sure it doesn't "have to have" it...if you accept that (in the case of segwit) a network split would be the result
unless/until one side capitulates.

Greg, you seem to be doing a bit of doublespeak here: On the one hand, giving a thinly veiled nod of approval to the UASF, telling people: don't worry, it doesn't even need miner approval,
but on the other hand, trying to claim you haven't read up on it, presumably so you can say later you never officially supported it or ever advocated for something that
can cause a network split.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Yes, but to be fair, from my own experience, gmaxwell has always been an active defender of a freedom of speech - on any forum I've seen.

Although, it makes me wonder why he publishes such kind of (controversial) material on a forum that uses excuses of "In the name of Wu, this post shall not pass." to censor posts which are menat to provide feedback on the proposed solutions.

classicsucks

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 504

So now the censorship is hitting the dev mailing list?

And Maxwell is doing public interviews again, hyping up UASF? And Samson Mao is the new mouthpiece of Blockstream/Core?

This is getting crazy...

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: belcher on March 13, 2017, 08:40:37 PM

Quote from: piotr_n on March 13, 2017, 09:05:09 AM

Quote from: belcher on March 13, 2017, 04:37:39 AM

The money is on the economy's side. The economic majority is what gives value to the bits and bytes that the miners create. If the miners can't sell their bitcoins they are screwed. If they give up then new miners will arrive because bitcoin mining is a competitive market.

First of all, there is no such thing as "economic majority" - you're just making this up.

Second, the money (bitcoin) is made by the miners - they have it in the first place.
What you are saying is that either bitcoin will become like you want, or you are not going to buy it anymore.
But just how is it different from you (or your "economic majority") not buying it in the first place?
Seriously, bitcoin doesn't care - it will always find buyers, just like it has before.

And the third, I would love to live the time when you are activating your "UASF".
Honestly, I cannot wait. Just to see your faces...

I'm not making anything up, the phrase "economic majority" has been used at least since 2012, and the concept much earlier. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

Yes, it's an abstract construct. A theoretical entity that is allegedly capable of controlling the bitcoin protocol, but in reality its existence has not even been proven.

I might just as well say that bitcoin protocol is controled by God. The phrase "God" has been used since like forever. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
And therefore if you want to have segwit activated, you just need to pray... Tongue

Wouldn't that be a crazy thing to say?
And that's exactly how crazy I see your idea: 0% science, 100% faith.

Quote

Bitcoin miners do not make money, they make bitcoins. Unless bitcoins have a network of users willing to trade them for real goods and services then those coins are just worthless bytes on some hard drive. There's plenty of copies of bitcoin made into altcoins that also have miners, but something is obviously missing because they are worthless compared to bitcoin. Remember those miners who continued mining 50btc after the first halvening? They found out the hard way that it's the economic majority that makes the rules.

But bitcoin is money - it will stay being money, even after all the other money disappears.
And this money has value because since it was born there has been a demand for it.
Demand to buy the mined bitcoins, to buy bitcoins from the miners defined as mining majority.

Now you are saying that you can kill the demand for the bitcoins mined by the mining majority, and replace it with a demand for bitcoins created in a different way.
Are you sure you can do this?
Because I am pretty sure that you'd only create another "copy of bitcoin made into altcoin", while the old fashion bitcoins would go on and be just fine.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: gmaxwell on March 13, 2017, 10:09:59 PM

Quote from: piotr_n on March 13, 2017, 04:20:21 PM

BIP16 had a full support from the miners.

No it didn't it had support from maybe about ~55% from what I recall and was opposed by the largest pool of the day (deepbit).

Strange, because I already was in bitcoin back then and I don't remember any mined blocks rejected because a miner did not support P2SH.
I was actually using deepbit back then - haven't lost a penny.

Quote

If it'd have at least a support of 51% of the miners

That is just simply untrue. Damn man your dogmatic ignorance is making me want to go read up on the proposal just so I can support it.

It surely sounds like a threat.
You can support any crazy idea you want. Why would I care?

You probably think that you are so important that when you start supporting UASF, then its suddenly going to turn into a reality.
You're funny

And I'd rather be dogmatic, than naive.

Quote

The users of Bitcoin define what mining is, if you cross them you are not a miner. In that sense, it is impossible for 100% of miners to not support anything that the user base has decided on...

What you are saying is simply not true.
"The users of bitcoin" is a term that the protocol can't rely upon, as it cannot be objectively measured.
That's why the protocol is guarded by the miners of bitcoin.
It is the very purpose of the mining in this system, to guard the protocol against evil actors.

And I am very surprised that you don't understand it.

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: piotr_n on March 13, 2017, 04:20:21 PM

BIP16 had a full support from the miners.

No it didn't it had support from maybe about ~55% from what I recall and was opposed by the largest pool of the day (deepbit).

Quote

If it'd have at least a support of 51% of the miners

That is just simply untrue. Damn man your dogmatic ignorance is making me want to go read up on the proposal just so I can support it.

The users of Bitcoin define what mining is, if you cross them you are not a miner. In that sense, it is impossible for 100% of miners to not support anything that the user base has decided on...

belcher

sr. member

Activity: 261

Merit: 523

Quote from: piotr_n on March 13, 2017, 09:05:09 AM

Quote from: belcher on March 13, 2017, 04:37:39 AM

The money is on the economy's side. The economic majority is what gives value to the bits and bytes that the miners create. If the miners can't sell their bitcoins they are screwed. If they give up then new miners will arrive because bitcoin mining is a competitive market.

First of all, there is no such thing as "economic majority" - you're just making this up.

Second, the money (bitcoin) is made by the miners - they have it in the first place.
What you are saying is that either bitcoin will become like you want, or you are not going to buy it anymore.
But just how is it different from you (or your "economic majority") not buying it in the first place?
Seriously, bitcoin doesn't care - it will always find buyers, just like it has before.

And the third, I would love to live the time when you are activating your "UASF".
Honestly, I cannot wait. Just to see your faces...

I'm not making anything up, the phrase "economic majority" has been used at least since 2012, and the concept much earlier. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

Bitcoin miners do not make money, they make bitcoins. Unless bitcoins have a network of users willing to trade them for real goods and services then those coins are just worthless bytes on some hard drive. There's plenty of copies of bitcoin made into altcoins that also have miners, but something is obviously missing because they are worthless compared to bitcoin. Remember those miners who continued mining 50btc after the first halvening? They found out the hard way that it's the economic majority that makes the rules.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

This is how BIP16 was activated:

Quote

To gracefully upgrade and ensure no long-lasting block-chain split occurs, more than 50% of miners must support full validation of the new transaction type and must switch from the old validation rules to the new rules at the same time.
To judge whether or not more than 50% of hashing power supports this BIP, miners are asked to upgrade their software and put the string "/P2SH/" in the input of the coinbase transaction for blocks that they create.

On February 1, 2012, the block-chain will be examined to determine the number of blocks supporting pay-to-script-hash for the previous 7 days. If 550 or more contain "/P2SH/" in their coinbase, then all blocks with timestamps after 15 Feb 2012, 00:00:00 GMT shall have their pay-to-script-hash transactions fully validated. Approximately 1,000 blocks are created in a week; 550 should, therefore, be approximately 55% of the network supporting the new feature.

If a majority of hashing power does not support the new validation rules, then rollout will be postponed (or rejected if it becomes clear that a majority will never be achieved).

source: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0016.mediawiki

In the meantime UASF crazy idea makes no mention of "50% of miners".
At the contrary, it's actually saying that it can ignore what 75% of miners want.
Well, it can't - and that's why UASF cannot possibly work.

I mean, unless its goal is not to change the bitcoin blockchain protocol, but just to create yet another altcoin - for such a purpose it can definitely work.
But this altcoin would not stand a chance with the bitcoin miners as the risk of a possible 51% attack would make it useless.
It would need to use different POW function - and by this getting rid of the remaining 25% they had left.
And who would have bought it then? Except for some kids...

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Sorry, I mean that UASF can't possibly work without the miners majority supporting it.

BIP16 had a full support from the miners.
The solution to enforce it was pretty lame, but such was the quality of bitcoin development back then.
The point is: if BIP16 didn't have the miners support, it would have failed.

There is absolutely no way the UASF can work, without the miners' majority supporting it.
If it'd have at least a support of 51% of the miners - that's totally different story.
Then you might just start enforcing it by whatever means, without a need to give it a fancy name.
Then the remaining miners will follow, because the sooner they'd do it, the better for then.

But now segwit has only 25% support and therefore there is absolutely no way the UASF can work.

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: achow101 on March 12, 2017, 08:24:29 PM

I don't think that list of moderators has changed.

Rusty is not a moderator. I don't know who are moderators now.

Personally I don't go anywhere near that list. It's full of abusive people like Thomas Zander who just crappost relentlessly. It's a waste of time.

Quote

You're insane, man.
[...]
There is absolutely no way the UASF can work.

Meh. I don't know why you say that: BIP16 was flag day activated. I haven't really been following, but some people seem to think a controversial HF should work and a flag dayed softfork-- if it's a miner compatible softfork like segwit at least-- should be strictly simpler and less risky than that even in the worst case.

mezzomix

legendary

Activity: 2730

Merit: 1263

Quote from: piotr_n on March 13, 2017, 09:05:09 AM

And the third, I would love to live the time when you are activating your "UASF".
Honestly, I cannot wait. Just to see your faces...

Yes. Maybe the better solution would be changing the mining algorithm to get rid of the hostile pool operators. 4000 Nodes should be enough to mine future blocks.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: belcher on March 13, 2017, 04:37:39 AM

The money is on the economy's side. The economic majority is what gives value to the bits and bytes that the miners create. If the miners can't sell their bitcoins they are screwed. If they give up then new miners will arrive because bitcoin mining is a competitive market.

First of all, there is no such thing as "economic majority" - you're just making this up.

Second, the money (bitcoin) is made by the miners - they have it in the first place.
What you are saying is that either bitcoin will become like you want, or you are not going to buy it anymore.
But just how is it different from you (or your "economic majority") not buying it in the first place?
Seriously, bitcoin doesn't care - it will always find buyers, just like it has before.

And the third, I would love to live the time when you are activating your "UASF".
Honestly, I cannot wait. Just to see your faces...

belcher

sr. member

Activity: 261

Merit: 523

Quote from: piotr_n on March 12, 2017, 08:51:29 PM

Quote

But what's most likely to happen is the miners will swallow their pride and set up their systems so they don't mine invalid blocks from the point of view of the new soft fork rules.

It's not about a pride, but about the money.

You can't win it - UASF won't work, because the money is at the miner's side.
When you think about this, it's where the money come from.
Its going to stick to the mother

If the miners just don't mine segwit-invalid blocks then they'll be making the same money as before.

This is easy to do. The way they'll lose money is if they get into some whiny ragequit that's more costly to them than anyone else.

The money is on the economy's side. The economic majority is what gives value to the bits and bytes that the miners create. If the miners can't sell their bitcoins they are screwed. If they give up then new miners will arrive because bitcoin mining is a competitive market.

mezzomix

legendary

Activity: 2730

Merit: 1263

Quote from: piotr_n on March 12, 2017, 08:51:29 PM

You can't win it - UASF won't work, because the money is at the miner's side.
When you think about this, it's where the money come from.

If you are right here, this is the most important problem to solve. Which means with the next hard-fork, the mining algorithm has to be changed!

I would prefer a mining algorithm requiring the UTXO entries and the block entries for every round of the algorithm. This would definitely prevent pooled mining and cheap ASICs.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: belcher on March 12, 2017, 08:44:46 PM

I have no idea about the mods but this point isn't right.

Quote

If miners had to 'find something else profitable to mine', they'd just start mining
double spends depositing BTC to the exchanges that are trying to remove them from the business.

If miners do this then the exchanges can start waiting for many more confirmations, which will work as long as the attacking coalition is less than 50%

Since about two weeks after signaling for SegWit started, support has held steady at about 25% plus or minus small variance.

In other words, there are currently miners who are totaling ~75% of the network hasharate who would be against the UASF.

Also variance can let someone with around 35% or so of the network double spend a transaction with 6 confirmations, only this is horribly unprofitable because it will not work most of the time, and when it does not work, the miners would be giving up their block rewards.

I think the answer to piotr_n's question is:
"Someone who very much wants SegWit to activate"

Topic: Who moderates bitcoin-dev mailing list? (Read 3865 times)