Topic: You all can thank Roger Ver and Jihan Wu for crashing the market (Read 3668 times)

While this is a reasoned observation, the extent of the powers of the organization extend only to the activities of the organization itself. It is merely an overlay to Bitcoin, which remains permissionless. At best, it may lead to quicker resolution on community-wide decisions. At worst, it is simply irrelevant.

Refuted? WTF are you talking about? I did not make an assertion. I asked to see the model upon which the conclusion was drawn. You can't say that a request for info is refuted. That's not defensible for any definition of the word 'refuted'.


That's possible. I asked you a couple questions regarding your assertions on another thread. Perhaps your answers will lead to me understanding. If that is the thread when such questions were asked, let us continue the dialogue there.

like the past 8 years limit X was a known thing.
and pools only made blocks below limit X, thus acceptable to nodes
even now pools know the block limit today is 1mb so pools have set their maximum as being 0.999mb but actually produce blocks below that.

pools can look at the nodes of the network. remove the obvious amazon server ones and other server hosted nodes from a tally and then see what useragent suggestions which the remaining real home-nodes are flagging

if say 94% were randomly set above 2mb. 1% at 2mb  and 5% randomly between 1mb and 2mb.
they would make a judgement call that 2mb was the 95% safe limit where orphan risk was manageable.
they would make a judgement call that maybe 3mb was the 75% was okish limit where orphan risk is higher but depending on depth allowance maybe manageable.

next they make blocks from 1.000250 and test the water, see what bugs might fly out (like the 500kb bug of 2013 due to a berkely/leveldb crossover that wasnt peer reviewed properly by core devs)

if 1.000250 block didnt kick up fuss they increment a bit more. 1.000500, and so on and so on..

as the pools get to the random minority of nodes below 2mb they start to push the nodes preference of that minority and see whats possible without causing much if any orphan drama. once it gets to a certain point where the blocks are getting too much resistance or getting to the minority/majority cut off. pools settledown and see if the network of nodes move their preferences up or hold out at a certain limit.

now here is the thing.. this node limit (majority of 2mb) is actually a LOWER limit.. and there is more of a hard limit in the background which would suggest right now that 8mb is ok.. pools wont jump above 8mb (if thats what the nodes have) they would stay below 8mb and aim to stay below the majority of the lower preference limit(2mb) in this example.

...
another way to imagine it is take the old 1mb limit as being the upper limit from 2010-2016 with a preference of say 250k in 2010. that over the 6 years rose to 500k and then to 750k.. and then 0.99mb where by nodes had more control of the preference below 1mb rather than just accepting anyblock under 1mb.EG the leveldb bug could have been overted if nodes had a lower limit to warn pools not to push so fast above 500k if the nodes couldnt handle it or just prefered not to go above that


miners with the biggest hash just means their attempt maybe a few seconds more luckier at getting a block than their competitors.
it does not mean someone with 25% might get it in 10 minutes and a second pool with 24% might get it in 20minutes24seconds

a few pools nd up being just sconds apart but not counted or even spotted because someone has already taken the lead.

so if 25% were cut off the time wouldnt drastically change and so the cat and mouse games between the pools could still cause issues  unless clear majority of pools and nodes

Time to dump all the coins, too much uncertainty about the future of bitcoin, hostile takeovers, splits, change in PoW, value is going down, time to take profits and wait for some stability.

If you notice bitcoin without a central agency had a hard time solving its problems and has created many factions that lead to continuous cycle of debate without getting any consensus to make win-win solutions to the current problems bitcoin network has. That is possibly why bitcoin unlimited groups wanted a democratic system of governance in their operation to make all the operations smoothly. But in the long run this will have a big problem since it there is already a central control and if by chance a mischievous official was placed to oversee the overall operation then the corruption in the government could also occur in BTU.

You were refuted:


And Bitcoin Unlimited is even worse. You don't understand the technology, game theory, and economics of unlimited blocks.

I liked how both of you are still conveniently replying to only the first half of my original post while ignoring my second half.

Kindly explain the consensus on block size to be mined and try to explain how the miner operator with the most miners and hashrate literally decides what block sizes to have without caring for anyone else as he already has the majority?

Oh, but you can if you have enough money. You just cause some sort of crisis on the one technology and start pumping the other, then when the price increase to make enough profits, you simply dump it and take the fiat. Roger has the advantage, because he has a cult following. If he says Dash is King, they start buying and when he says Dash is trash, they start selling. ^LoL^

Now, he has some miners in the bag too, so this makes things even more complex. Miners = Nodes

shoe on other foot...

Adam Back, Ph.D.
CEO

GMAXWELL
Chief Technology officer

Rusty Russell
Infrastructure Tech Engineer

Pieter Wuille, Ph.D.
Infrastructure Tech Engineer

why not just call them devs for all purposes

I liked how both you and franky conveniently replied to only the first half of my post while ignoring my second half.

You do not need two specific people with specific sounding roles to make sure that everything is operating the way it should be. Even if the two people are needed, they do not need fancy sounding roles.

You can call them the site admin and integrity judge for all purposes, why insist on calling them the president and the secretary? If you give them such roles, their legal repercussions should anything happen otherwise to their roles should be equivalent, they should be able to be held accountable in case things go wrong , if not, how different are they from any other two part of bu's development?

BU supporters are living under the delusion of they having more support because they get a hardon when they look at sites like coin.dance and see a bigger % of hashrate going for BU above segwit, when ultimately is just a monopoly of a single guy, Roger Ver, and the bunch of losers on /r/btc

It is the psychological power of a bigger number regardless of the context.

I can't wait to see how all of this unfolds. And yes, im yet another pissed off holder at seeing my portfolio losing value because of Jihan playing minecraft with the ASICs instead of signaling for segwit.

You can produce very eloquent arguments for BU, but the bottom line is that Roger and BitMain have chosen to try and pass BU using a fear campaign. If BU's vision would be better for Bitcoin, I'd love to hear about it - but I know it won't matter because of the strategy they chose to gain support. I don't know if you know this, but BU is highly unpopular on social media. People are looking at BU as the reason why BTC is losing value and these other useless coins that no one wants to accept are pumping. In the world of politics, BU has essentially labelled themselves as the bad guys. That's kind of a major problem for BU.

Jeebuz.... They're not meant to be the President and Secretary of _Bitcoin_, just of the confederation. Their powers are outlines specifically.

President: makes sure BUIP numbers are assigned properly
Secretary: maintains a website

Get a grip!

because BU is not talking about owning bitcoin.
BU is just one implementation. if core adds dynamic code.. core can play on the same level playing field of the PEER network and core can have their own president A.Back and secretary g.maxwell.

other implementations such as classic/xt/bloq [already dynamic capable] can work on the same PEER network and have their own president and secretary..

but ultimately there are many diverse implementations working together on one dynamic peer network..

.. unlike core
that only want core to be at the top of a core TIER network where core (thier own words):
core is the core/engine/reference client of bitcoin
core is the upstream filters of bitcoin

and all other nodes are either downstream second class nodes, or banned/split from the bitcoin network into their own alt

you need to realise an ASIC does not contain a hard drive. it does not store the blockchain or validate transactions.

ASICS are just handed a hash and a taget to hit.. (less than a kilobyte of data)

it doesnt matter if blocks are 1mb or 1000000000000000terrabytes.. the hash a ASIC receives is the same length.
meaning no cost to ASICS.

... sorry to burst that bubble of yours

I for one have no idea why BU would want a public facing president and secretary role if bitcoin is and should have been decentralized forever. Not sure about the technical details but if an increase in block limit is made by consensus, wouldn't the mining pool operator with the biggest miners and hashrate be able to decide the block size to be mined with his majority consensus alone?

I'd be interested to see your mining cost model, that allows you to claim that moderately larger block sizes invariably leads to greater centralization.


Why should BU add prevention for transactions to be mined on competing chains? To do so would be to ensure that there could never be a healing of the forks. This is simply bad policy. Hence, no plans to do so.

Besides, clients are easily able to build transactions in a manner that avoids this issue altogether. Protocol changes are not needed.


B does not follow A. Exchanges will deal in the majority chain, or be bankrupted by others that do.

There is no dialogue. Thus no way to resolve this. Bitcoin core is fine with status quo. So if
no path to compromise, there will be acting out by those not allowed at the table.

But they won't do what exchanges want for safeguards and change btc code (BU alt)
So unless btc devs of both flavors find a solution to why BU folk are pissed. BTC will be replaced
By alt coins where devs can work together

Imho, there is an underlying reason why these two guys can make such a stink. That is that bitcoin
core has not taken other views into account. They can't just dismiss stuff out of hand anymore.

Hell, a shared testnet would be a good start

These guys are simply the cheerleaders of the underlying issues and masses

The symptom, anyway some folk from both sides better step up on new solutions
Or we are beyond screwed

Yeah and if they can creatr chaos like that it will be a hard problem. This is one example. Even their tweets have come here with just someone reading it and now it can spread more creating more chaos and making some of us duml specially the panic seller. Then what? They will be switching to those BS.

Thank you OP. @Bitcoin_Mafia_Me @1Referee Yes, I'd suggest those needing refreshment on purpose of bitcoin to read up here: Hacks & puppets & forks - how to destroy bitcoin: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18256120 

...but I cannot recall a time when so many bitcoiners were using bitcoin for just purchasing gas, coffee, using as small ATMs - so I'd humbly challenge that notion.


Thank you.