Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

bluemoon

Active Member
Jan 15, 2016
215
966
The HK “agreement” was a very long and difficult discussion about the blocksize that went on to around 5:00am. Tension was extremly high in the meeting. Many of the issues debated on the internet in public Bitcoin forums were discussed at the meeting.

Much of the discussion was around the wording of the commitment to a 2MB hardfork and how it would fit around SegWit. Jihan had quite a strong large block view whilst most others at the meeting were quite moderate. Adam Back had more of a neutral facilitator role, while most of the people actually involved in the development had more of a view against committing to a hardfork.

Nobody was happy with the outcome of the agreement, the small blockers and large blockers at the meeting were all extremely unhappy with the agreement. However most of the people present recognized that it was the most pragmatic way forward and a reasonable compromise between what each side wanted. Nobody liked the imperfect process. It was also accepted that those not present, on both sides of the argument, would also be unhappy and not accept the terms of the agreement. This was true in particular of the Core developers who were not present, who were extremely unhappy.
Thanks for that account.

It still leaves questions in my mind. From your description the meeting divided between small and large blockers, and also between hardforkers and anti-hardforkers.

Presumably the Blockstream/Core guys were the principal small blockers as well as being most strongly against a hard fork, while the miners were more generally in favour of larger blocks and less concerned about a hard fork?

Am I right in thinking Blockstream Core were mainly seeking to secure agreement from the miners to implement Segwit?

And that the miners were mainly concerned to see an increase in the blocksize limit, seeing the surest way to achieve that through a 2MB hard fork?

Jihan later said something along the lines that the miners were told Segwit would enable implementation of the Lightning Network, which would then enable such a large number of transactions off-chain that miners would be able to charge much higher fees for the related on-chain settlement transaction. This would necessitate a restriction of the blocksize limit to enable miners to allow those higher fees.

You have denied Jihan's account, even though it is consistent with Blockstream Core statements about the need to create a fee market and their desire to implement LN.

What then is your understanding of Blockstream's business model? Blockstream has had $70m of funding. How do its investors expect to get a return? Is it by exploiting LN or similar layers on top of bitcoin, and if so, is this not consistent with the widespread perception that Blockstream has a vested interest 1) in restricting bitcoin's blocksize limit and also 2) that they need Segwit for their own purposes?
 

molecular

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
372
1,391
Hmm, his profile on here says to me rocks was last seen Apr 13, 2016

Last word I had from him he was being kept busy with other work, and wanted to resume work on his fork. But it's strange that so much time has passed without him surfacing. He didn't strike me at all like someone who would just sell off his coins and cease work without informing. I hope he's alright.

In case he does not return, I plan to take Satoshisbitcoin's new POW algorithm and create a POW-change version of my fork which is still in development (originally planned as non-POW only, but the last few weeks have only added to my perceived value of a POW fork).
yeah, sorry, misquoted the date (doubled the day in my mind).

POW spinoff is back in my mind recently, too. So keep me in the loop if you need some help testing or whatnot...
 

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
You appear totally convinced by the unbalanced large block extremist narrative. Please try to listen to the other side of the debate and try to understand what they really want.
Please refrain from personal attacks. I have been trying way harder than I should for years to understand what the hell people want, and your fillibustering throwing everything but the kitchen sink at it is not helpful. If it makes you feel better to essentially call people stupid directly to their face, then that's on you, but it has nothing to do with any kind of discussion.
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
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.
You're coming across like an extremest, first off I'll take a guess the only reason your travel costs to fly to Hong Kong were sponsors was because of your irrational opposition to the status quo to adopt large blocks. Despite repeated calls for explanation you haven't given a rational reason not to increase the block size, you just state your not opposed to it.

I'd like to remind you why the majority of miners are not supporting Classic, if you recall there was a closed door meeting where Adam Back and a hand full of Core developers met with the majority of miners, the all day meeting that went on long pars 11:00pm ended when miners conceded to Core's (Adam's) demand not to run Classic in exchange for among other things $100,000's of benefits and Cores ongoing support. I'll venture a bet the threat of loosing assess to the Blue Matt Relay Network was among the reasons.

It's all about Politics, Blockstream may implement their changes, bitcoin may service their coup. All in all your banter here has highlighted how week the case for Blockstream Core centralization actually is and what a strong hold they have on Bitcoin, the net result is a surprising collation between your presence here and a rather large market sell off.

as this is an investors forum, @jonny1000 how would you speculate when it comes to leveraging this info?
 

Epilido

Member
Sep 2, 2015
59
185
It's a philosophical question, but I would say he helped, even if he didn't find a block.
We'll he positions himself as an authority. We should all listen... But he says he mined solo but never found a block. Math is simple and there were plenty of calculators available to determine whether solo mining vs pool mining would have been reasonable.

I can only judge a person by what he said and has done.

If he mined but was unable to find a block then either he was not mining correctly or did not pay enough attention to know that solo mining was useless at that time.

From this I can better make an assessment of the quality of his comments.

The only help to the network is valid proof of work. Without valid proof of work you might as well leave the refrigerator door open.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
@AdrianX

"the net result is a surprising collation between your presence here and a rather large market sell off. "

i was about to say. someone sounds very worried about their bitcoin investment. yes, that small triangle was supposed to break up. it didn't. that's b/c while the market has remained optimistic about a soln, we are getting to the pt where it doesn't look like one will come due to an uncompromising core dev. plus, the continued hypocrisy coming out of their camp in relation to HF's creates uncertainty and an awareness that we've been getting played for a coupla years at least. the fact that core dev is talking HF now is a positive in my book and is indicative of panic beginning to spread as the halvening approaches as we predicted. i don't care how much Bitfury tries to pretend they are prepared for July. i'll bet they aren't as well as all the other large miners, who i'd also bet are the most leveraged in the space. after all, that's how they got so big in the first place, leverage. i think there's an opportunity to get what we want out of this in terms of bigger blocks. the question is, will a HF have to come with all the other associated garbage that core dev is wanting to slip in?
[doublepost=1463775855][/doublepost]
We'll he positions himself as an authority. We should all listen... But he says he mined solo but never found a block. Math is simple and there were plenty of calculators available to determine whether solo mining vs pool mining would have been reasonable.

I can only judge a person by what he said and has done.

If he mined but was unable to find a block then either he was not mining correctly or did not pay enough attention to know that solo mining was useless at that time.

From this I can better make an assessment of the quality of his comments.

The only help to the network is valid proof of work. Without valid proof of work you might as well leave the refrigerator door open.
it's funny b/c a few months ago on Classic Slack i was bragging about how at one time i was 1% of the network in the early days and along comes Vladimir who said he was 50% of the network at around the same time. i couldn't stop laughing b/c i don't doubt that he was as i knew him at the time and he is a credible early adopter who supports Classic as well. i can't explain the thrill of solo mining a block; it's a rush and you bend over backwards to make it happen. like going in in the middle of the night to reboot your computers when they hang or doing whatever it takes to keep hashing. it's like every second counts. mining has changed today but the urgency is still there but at a larger scale. i wonder if @jonny1000 knows what it means to really compete at the mining level.
 
Last edited:

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
So you never actually helped secure the network and have no proof that you were mining correctly....
Thanks for speaking my thoughts. Just to clarify that concept of waste, mining or attempting to mine without remuneration from the network is by definition wasteful, just to clarify @jonny1000 cited instances of wasted mining effort due to orphan risk was not waste. It's merely a risk parameter to be managed.


If it's not understood or managed effectively, repeatedly make the same mistake that results in orphaned blocks is waste. - The Bitcoin algorithm compensates for that waste or ignorance by reducing the network difficulty without the need for centralized planning.


For the record, we still don't need the Core developers to limit block size to prevent the miners from making blocks with an increased orphan risk, miners will figure out the technological limit of the network on their own, and competition will ensure we all benefit from it.
 

molecular

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
372
1,391
We'll he positions himself as an authority. We should all listen... But he says he mined solo but never found a block. Math is simple and there were plenty of calculators available to determine whether solo mining vs pool mining would have been reasonable.

I can only judge a person by what he said and has done.

If he mined but was unable to find a block then either he was not mining correctly or did not pay enough attention to know that solo mining was useless at that time.

From this I can better make an assessment of the quality of his comments.

The only help to the network is valid proof of work. Without valid proof of work you might as well leave the refrigerator door open.
What about a share in a pool? Is that "helping"?

He might've found many "shares" (solutoins with lower difficulty) when solo-mining?

Or are you saying pool-miners only contribute when they actually find a block for the pool?
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
@AdrianX

"the net result is a surprising collation between your presence here and a rather large market sell off. "
LOL, I'm always here.

Just a reminder (and I'm coming to terms with it now) I sold the bulk of my bitcoin when I started flowing this thread (at the time bitcoin was about $9 and gold looked like a good bet :eek:)

None the less I'm sure some whales splash here, my trades are so small they shouldn't impact the price but still some times I'm surprised.
[doublepost=1463778534,1463777692][/doublepost]
What about a share in a pool? Is that "helping"?

He might've found many "shares" (solutoins with lower difficulty) when solo-mining?

Or are you saying pool-miners only contribute when they actually find a block for the pool?
Pool mining is shared risk it's not solo mining, When I had a relatively high hash rate I considers solo mining, BTCGuild would show me how many blocks I had found, it would have been more profitable for me to solo mine, but knowing I found blocks less than every 5 weeks - the variable difficulty meant my risk could not be hedged without predicting 2 difficulty adjustments. I was always too scared (conservative) to try.

still as @Epilido pointed out you have to do the maths, if you don't its like leaving the fridge door open out of ignorance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VeritasSapere

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
If he mined but was unable to find a block then either he was not mining correctly or did not pay enough attention to know that solo mining was useless at that time.
In terms of network security, solo mining is no different to pool mining. The only difference is you exchange huge variance for a smaller share of the profits when you find a block and a share even when you don't (but someone in your pool does)
 

Epilido

Member
Sep 2, 2015
59
185
What about a share in a pool? Is that "helping"?

He might've found many "shares" (solutoins with lower difficulty) when solo-mining?

Or are you saying pool-miners only contribute when they actually find a block for the pool?

Jonny1000 said he solo mined and never found a block.

Pooled mining is helpful to the network.

The pool will also tell you immediately if your shares are valid thus helping the network.

In my view saying that you solo mined but never found a block does not give you any credibility, in fact it hurts your credibility.

it's funny b/c a few months ago on Classic Slack i was bragging about how at one time i was 1% of the network i
I remember when the electric company called to enquire about my large bill and make sure that I wasn't doing anything illegal with the power. Never turned the heat on during a Lake Erie winter in my 4 story condo. Somehow all that electricity kept the place warm.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
It is simple game theory, which was explained to me by a prominent member of the Core team:
i'll bet we're talking about gmax here. he'd be one of the leading core devs who looks at this as an attack and the importance of "defeating" Classic.

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.
as someone upthread said, this is precisely why soft forks are so pernicious. you're presuming these ol clients are "on your side" when in fact they may not be. they might not have upgraded out of protest for all the crap inserted into the protocol against their will.
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?
that'd be quite convenient for you small blockists, eh? divide Classic support and conquer! why should we do that since theoretically we can block SWSF as is? furthermore, i see why you want to "defeat" Classic. if Classic wins, core dev stands to be displaced and would lose power. that is unacceptable. we already know that this is a major concern as articulated by Lombrozzo, Todd, et al. that'd be a shame ;)
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.
i don't think anyone is going to propose a change to 95% threshold. large blockists have already compromised way more than they should have.
 

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
i don't think anyone is going to propose a change to 95% threshold. large blockists have already compromised way more than they should have.
I know it's not you but the context in that quote just throws it into relief. 2MB isn't a large block. It isn't even small. It's tiny and 1MB is teeny-tiny.

I still remember standing outside a shop in Southampton, waiting for it to open so I could buy a couple of 512 byte ram chips to put in my Acorn Atom. Perspective...
 

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
i'll bet we're talking about gmax here. he'd be one of the leading core devs who looks at this as an attack and the importance of "defeating" Classic.
I'm always amused how "game theory" is invariably some batshit scenario a Core dev imagines in order to feed to internet sycophants, and not an entire field of study people actually get advanced degrees doing work in that builds on foundational work by absolute giants!
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
Everyone needs to ask themselves, what is it that prevents the Russian gvt or even the Chinese gvt from banning Bitcoin? Or even the flipside question, why is it that they would want to ban it? Why the year over year bipolar mania that these countries and others keep going through?

The answer is simple; it all has to do with Bitcoin being a currency. It has nothing to do with Bitcoin being a smart contracting system. They are both afraid and fascinated by it at the same time. And therein lies Bitcoins greatest potential. As money. Sound money.

This is why I fight so hard. It should be obvious by now.
 

jonny1000

Active Member
Nov 11, 2015
380
101
Release a client implementing "BIP 95" which has the goal of increasing the block limit to 2MB, along with BIP 109 clients, but only once 95% of hash power agrees, and 6 month grace period. It would have the following behavior:

- Miners signal "BIP 95" support in blocks

- "BIP 95" clients monitor blocks flagging BIP 109 support in addition to those flagging BIP 95 support. Once BIP 95 + BIP 109 support exceeds 95%, and after a grace period of 6 months - 28 days, also signal BIP 109 support. (For example, blocks could be 20% BIP 109 and 75% BIP 95).

I would be ok with this BIP95 and not regard it as an attack. It is a huge improvement on BIP109. However, I am unlikely to run it myself, I do not want to collaborate with an attack client. My preference is to put these 75% thresholds and 28 day activation period behind us. To me defeating the 75% and 28 day ideology is more important than the blocksize limit, we need to ensure the attack philosophy is defeated. People must stop trying to impose changes to the consensus rules on a significant number of others against their will.
[doublepost=1463802727][/doublepost]
In my view saying that you solo mined but never found a block does not give you any credibility, in fact it hurts your credibility.
Agreed
[doublepost=1463802852][/doublepost]
Am I right in thinking Blockstream Core were mainly seeking to secure agreement from the miners to implement Segwit?
I do not think the miners where that concerned about the details of SegWit. Many miners wanted the agreement to say the non witness data limit would be increased to around 2MB.
 

Members online