Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Mengerian]

I am not worrying about trying to control anyone. It is just that in the event of attackers trying to hardfork without consensus, the incentives are structured such that the economic majority rallys behind the existing rules to defeat the attack. Even those that agree with the rule change (like me) rally behind the existing rules to protect the system. This looks like it is working and Classic is being defeated. If the defeat against Classic is resounding it should deter further attacks.

"Let's say Core released a version that allowed the operator to OPTIONALLY show support for BIP109 (2MB HF at 75% activation). Would you consider that an attack?"

That would be totally fine, even if it were not optional that would also be fine. I have no issue with a client that flags support or "shows support" for anything. Just like all the 8MB or BIP100 votes miners put in their headers, they are fine. My issue is a client that activates a hardfork without consensus. Classic has a methodology that means it activates with exactly 25% miner opposition. Classic is therefore clearly an attack client. Make it activate at 95% and I would not regard it has an attack. Make a client that flags support for 1,000GB blocks tomorrow, (that mentions it only activates when there is 99% opposition or more), or that "shows support" for murdering all the children in the world, I would not regard these as attacks, these are not attacks on Bitcoin

OK, so you call a client that "activates" a hard fork without consensus an attack. But what actions are involved in "activating" a hard fork?

A node can say "I will keep track of blocks that other clients may reject". This is what Bitcoin Unlimited does. Is this an attack?

A miner can say "I will put my own real world resources into building proof-of-work on top of a block that others may reject". Is this an attack?

An investor can say "I will exchange my own money for tokens on a ledger that others may choose to reject". Is that an attack?

It seems to me these are all non-coercive actions. No one is seizing control or disrupting the operation of other people's systems. People who want to keep enforcing the old rules are free to do so, so one forces them to accept the new fork. How can this be considered an attack?

 

[freetrader]

Having Classic out there is seen as a huge negative by many people.

Ok, let these people, who feel in charge of Bitcoin, take the responsibility for the declining price and users migrating to other currencies because they (Core + affiliated miners) could not get their act together about increasing capacity.

When you're the government, you have to take responsibility. If you're completely inept and run the country into the ground, then calling popular movements which arise to replace you an 'attack' is just a further demonstration of your inadequacy.

In other news:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4k6vci/charlie_lee_confirms_eth_and_ltc_will_be_added_to/

Everyone's talking about Ethereum, but somehow the LTC news gets sidelined. Part of me is hoping that Coinbase will at some critical stage pull a payback move on LTC's founder.

 

[Zarathustra]

Can you guys please withdraw the attack, negotiate and collaborate and then get behind a hardfork to 2MB with a 95% activation threshold and 6 month grace period. Then you can finally be successful and fork away the small block extremists like Luke and Gregg who you do not like. Rather than this constant counterproductive failure.

Do you not get basic politics, there are extremists on both sides and in order to win you need to capture the middle ground?

Can you guy please stop your extremist and counterproductive call for collaboration with catholicist psychopaths, vandals, scammers and other terrorists, destroyers and traitors?
There is zero need to collaborate with such people. A fork is needed, and many people are forking already to blockchains that are not hijacked by psychopaths.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Why do you insists on calling this new system bitcoin to create confusion?

I don't. Call the protocols whatever. The ledgers are both the Bitcoin ledger, so it doesn't matter to me.

Why not change the signature types and avoid the mess of conflicting and non conflicting transactions across the two networks? Please also consider changing the hashing algorithm.

Yes, and yes I agree, one of the protocols will likely have to change the hashing algo as well (likely the minority one).

Stop trying to convince the solid majority* behind Core to adopt your changes.

Why?? Is trying to convince people an attack of some kind?

Do this and I would be totally fine with you creating a new alt, but with the existing holders. Hopefully I could make some money by selling my new coins, so it would be good news for me.

That's the exact idea. It's win-win, at least from each camp's perspective. Core supporters get a chance to make money off the "deluded" Classic supporters by selling off the "dead-end ClassicCoin altcoin" for more "bitcoins." Classic supporters get a chance to make money of the "deluded" Core supporters by selling off the "dead-end CoreCoin altcoin" for more "bitcoins."

Note: * 85% of nodes, 95% of miners, 85% of developers and 85% of coin holders support core.

Perhaps those are the percentages running Core software. That is quite different from "support" in any kind of lasting team affiliation or blanket approval sense. There are many reasons for people to run Core even if they hate Core and fully expect to switch to Classic if Core drags its feet beyond a certain degree.

I do not understand why we do not all work together in a calm, sensible and collaborative way to get these people to upgrade there nodes and increase the limit. Please stop with these counterproductive and confrontational attacks which are damaging the system.

I like'd your post about thresholds because it gave a good perspective on the reasoning of the Core supporters. Classic may have achieved more if it had adjusted the threshold and grace period. Still, anyone can fork Classic to change those parameters.

The bizarre part of your comments continues to be this idea of "confrontational" (especially if you mean @Peter R's posts) "attacks" (I just showed why a fork is win-win from everyone's perspective).

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

There is some value in having the current Classic patch out there just to provide an emergency option if demand suddenly spikes, but it should have been released as the 'emergency patch', and Gavin should have released another one with more conservative parameters and focused on getting support for that one.

"More conservative parameters"?
Are you fucking kidding me? What does that mean?
1.00001 MB instead of 2 MB?

 

[jonny1000]

I like'd your post about thresholds because it gave a good perspective on the reasoning of the Core supporters. Classic may have achieved more if it had adjusted the threshold and grace period.

Thankyou, you are finally getting it. It is not too late, you can still withdraw Classic and put forward Classic 2.0 with a 95% threshold and 6 months.

Still, anyone can fork Classic to change those parameters.

Do you not understand why Core are not willing to do this? The priortiy of the Core team is to defeat Classic. The best way of doing this is sticking with the status quo, so that the users who do nothing end up being on Core's side. Splitting the "Core team" into two would help Classic win. Core can only do this once the Classic attack ends. That is why the "Classic team" should adjust the parameters.
[doublepost=1463734555][/doublepost]

The bizarre part of your comments continues to be this idea of "confrontational" (especially if you mean @Peter R's posts) "attacks" (I just showed why a fork is win-win from everyone's perspective).

Agreed, if its done right. Classic would be a destructive mess for both sides, wiping two orders of magnitude off the ecosystem value. Giving it a new non Bitcoin name and changing the signature types would be fine.
[doublepost=1463734614][/doublepost]

then calling popular movements which arise to replace you an 'attack' is just a further demonstration of your inadequacy.

Classic is unpopular by every sybil resistant measure. This is of course ironic given the very strong support in favor of 2MB. Yet most Classic proponents continue to refuse to appreciate the unpopularity of the activation parameters.
[doublepost=1463734728][/doublepost]

"More conservative parameters"?
Are you fucking kidding me? What does that mean?
1.00001 MB instead of 2 MB?

He means the unpopular, counterproductive and destructive 75% threshold and 28 day grace period. Remember its not 75% or more, which would be tolerable, but its locking in exactly 25% opposition at the time of activation, which a strong majority of the network regard as totally unacceptable and an unnecessary defeatist indication of weakness. Of course you will most likely continue delude yourself and continue to believe the majority do not want capacity increases, as this is clearly easier for you to understand and makes it more simple for you to justify your position.

 

[freetrader]

Thankyou, you are finally getting it. It is not too late, you can still withdraw Classic and put forward Classic 2.0 with a 95% threshold and 6 months.

LOL. Why don't you change those two constants and get people to support that then, if you're so in favor?

If miners wanted that, they'd long have modified it themselves and started to run it - unless they're totally incompetent in which case they're probably not the miners we should be looking to if we want improvement.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@jonny1000

Interesting perspective that Core effectively cannot raise the blocksize until Classic is defeated. I'll have to wrap my head around that to see whether it makes sense.

Perhaps our views are closer than it appeared, with you seeming to say that it is some very particular aspects of how Classic went about their proposal that are the problem and not the general idea of forking with ledger-copy and appropriate changes. (Though I'll note more explicitly that what is called "Bitcoin" would likely differ in the two camps, and they would compete for new investors, which isn't a problem for current investors if they sit tight, since they get all the gains either way.)

I don't, however, see Classic's approach as damaging, since it either does nothing or it 1) pressures Core into action,* 2) activates and basically everyone goes along with it, or 3) activates and Core supporters are the ones to do the algo-changing ledger-fork we have agreed is safe above.

Also, I'm not sure why you are saying Core would be the one to fork Classic with better thresholds. Why not anyone at all, or maybe any respected developer?

One more thing: Maybe it is obvious to people more familiar with Classic, but I don't understand what you mean by the bold-underlined part of your last post. In what sense is the 25% opposition "locked in"?

*keeping in mind I haven't wrapped my head around your idea mentioned in the first paragraph above

 

[jonny1000]

Why don't you change those two constants and get people to support that then, if you're so in favor?

Interesting perspective that Core effectively cannot raise the blocksize until Classic is defeated. I'll have to wrap my head around that to see whether it makes sense.

It is simple game theory, which was explained to me by a prominent member of the Core team:

The current battle is as follows:

• Core supporters + all existing node operators/miners who do not upgrade vs Classic supporters

This dynamic is why Core is defeating Classic, because the powerful force of the clients who do not upgrade are on Core's side.

If somebody implements a change to 2MB, with reasonable parameters then it will be a three way battle:

• 2MB supporters vs Classic supporters vs all existing node operators/miners who not not upgrade + small block extremists

There is no telling what the outcome will be in this scenario, many old clients will upgrade but its not clear which upgrade choice they will make. This is why Classic should be defeated first. During these attacks the default policy is to defend the existing rules. Why else do you think we are still stuck at 1MB?

Also there are already 5% of miners flagging support for Classic, this may be enough to veto the hardfork to 2MB with a 95% threshold.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

He means the unpopular, counterproductive and destructive 75% threshold and 28 day grace period. Remember its not 75% or more, which would be tolerable, but its locking in exactly 25% opposition at the time of activation, which a strong majority of the network regard as totally unacceptable and an unnecessary defeatist indication of weakness. Of course you will most likely continue delude yourself and continue to believe the majority do not want capacity increases, as this is clearly easier for you to understand and makes it more simple for you to justify your position.

I don't have to make assumptions about what the majority wants or doesn't want.
The Bitcoin Core dev made it extremely clear that they don't want an capacity increase. And most miners agreed to keep running this software. These are the facts.
That a lot of core supporters are whining about the small blocksize now doesn't change these facts. Nobody gives a shit if you want 1 or 10 or 100 MB.

If you want bigger blocks use something else than Core. It is a simple as that. Everybody who keeps running Core and defending their position is preventing Bitcoin from growing. It's your choice and the free market will decide in the end. Whether it's Classic or an Altcoin.
That some core supporters begged their masters to change a constant will be completely irrelevant in hindsight.
[doublepost=1463739057][/doublepost]

This dynamic is why Core is defeating Classic, because the powerful force of the clients who do not upgrade are on Core's side.

I know. This is where the love for softforks comes from.
And everybody acting like this is a danger to bitcoin which makes a fork from Core away even more important. Everybody caring for Bitcoins success should use an alternative.
Core isn't just bad because of the 1 MB limit, it's also bad because of the tactics you explain here.
[doublepost=1463739137][/doublepost]

with reasonable parameters

And this is a fucking joke, sorry.
BIP 101 was reasonable. 2 MB with 75 % and 28 days grace period is super-extra-carefully.

 

[bluemoon]

This is all about BScore and securing its dominant position. Any alternative to BScore is an 'attack'.

If alternatives like Classic and BU are withdrawn, their proponents go away, and miners are not minded to create their own solutions (and it seems they are not), then miners have nowhere else to go. But then, how else is BScore to obtain SW?

So tell us @jonny1000, what did really happen in HK? Why should we believe you rather than @Jihan , who you so casually accuse of lying? And what is your relationship with BScore?

Edit: punctuation

 

[cypherdoc]

Seems to me like @jonny1000 is acting like the gvt; submit and we will save you.

"If you abandon Classic, then we can give you your 2MBHF. Nevermind that it will really activate SWSF."

You're acting plenty pitiful @jonny1000 by continuing to call Classic an attack. What it really is is an attempt to save Satoshi's original vision. You being a newbie to the space wouldn't understand this.
[doublepost=1463742488,1463741489][/doublepost]@jonny1000
Id really like to know your relationship to BS too. It's always been suspicious to me how your presentation was used to replace @Peter R's at HK Scaling especially since I didn't consider it that good. Sorry. And then you showed up at HK consortium, all the while still a newbie with no credibility. Sorry again. Meanwhile, people like the Classic devs were not in attendance.
That doesn't just happen.

 

[bluemoon]

Bitcoin UP?

Bitcoin hasn't been this crippled before, but we don't often see the money flow touch the red ...

 

[Zarathustra]

Seems to me like @jonny1000 is acting like the gvt; submit and we will save you.

"If you abandon Classic, then we can give you your 2MBHF. Nevermind that it will really activate SWSF."

You're acting plenty pitiful @jonny1000 by continuing to call Classic an attack. What it really is is an attempt to save Satoshi's original vision. You being a newbie to the space wouldn't understand this.
[doublepost=1463742488,1463741489][/doublepost]@jonny1000
Id really like to know your relationship to BS too. It's always been suspicious to me how your presentation was used to replace @Peter R's at HK Scaling especially since I didn't consider it that good. Sorry. And then you showed up at HK consortium, all the while still a newbie with no credibility. Sorry again. Meanwhile, people like the Classic devs were not in attendance.
That doesn't just happen.

The Hongkong Farce:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4k74cr/maaku7_i_dont_know_anyone_who_is_actually_working/
[doublepost=1463744096][/doublepost]@jonny1000 is right: Classic is an attack. An attack against Blockstream/Core, ...

"... which is the great slum where all the scum frotheth together!"

 

[lunar]

it's painful out there.

 

[sickpig]

It is simple game theory, which was explained to me by a prominent member of the Core team:

The current battle is as follows:

• Core supporters + all existing node operators/miners who do not upgrade vs Classic supporters

[sorry but can't resist, really]

Prominent members of Core team are still posting in thread like this one, and if you ask me using a tone that I find everything but appropriate. This is an example:

it's just that a couple of well meaning dipshits went to China a few months back to learn and educate about the issues and managed to let themselves get locked in a room until 3-4 am until they would personally agree to propose some hardfork after segwit. They're now struggling to accomplish the seemingly impossible task of upholding their agreement (even though it was made under duress and even though f2pool immediately violated it) while obeying their personal convictions and without losing the respect of the technical community. All this struggle is based on the mistaken idea that anyone external to the project cares what they personally committed to work on...

maybe his account has been hacked.

 

[bluemoon]

@sickpig

Looks authentic to me. And he's made a few posts since then. Thinks he is the bitcoin 'project' and battling 'attacks' and 'assaults'.

 

[freetrader]

@sickpig : Gmax still citing bitcoinocracy as if it means anything. Yet, as a security expert, he's not been willing to put his money against this statement?

http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/exposing-your-pubkeys-to-argue-on-this-site-is-not-something-a-security-professional-would-endorse

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@jonny1000

Thanks for the explanation, and for continuing to post where most people disagree with you. I for one don't think you're involved with Core/BS, though you may well have been snowed by them (still evaluating your idea...not sure whether it's a factor in why we are still at 1MB or just another of Core's excuses).

I must be missing something because I still don't see what the problem is with people not upgrading and being split. The miners decide mainly where the network goes (ultimately at the pleasure of investors), and the incentive for other miners and nodes to follow along seems overwhelming. Perhaps you simply mean that Classic locks in a fork on its own terms (if 75% is reached) even if Core then - during the grace period - responds by upping the blocksize to 2MB? That's an objection that at least makes sense. (Though I continue to find referring to the offering of open source software an "attack" as bizarre. In general, any software that can be offered should be considered already offered as it is trivial to do so.)

 

[cypherdoc]

That's interesting. Looks authentic to me too. Imagine if the 1MB cap had never been instituted and we were arguing about some such other issue. We would be cheering anti fragility. The cap was Satoshi's only mistake.

Just as a reminder, my account on BCT remains in some extortionists/hackers hands. Twitter and Reddit accounts are OK.

[sorry but can't resist, really]

Prominent members of Core team are still posting in thread like this one, and if you ask me using a tone that I find everything but appropriate. This is an example:



maybe his account has been hacked.

[doublepost=1463755424][/doublepost]What idiot would want to reveal their public key?

@sickpig : Gmax still citing bitcoinocracy as if it means anything. Yet, as a security expert, he's not been willing to put his money against this statement?

http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/exposing-your-pubkeys-to-argue-on-this-site-is-not-something-a-security-professional-would-endorse