Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Roger_Murdock

Active Member
Dec 17, 2015
223
1,453
as well, i'd bet that there is indeed a number of nLockTime tx's out there that could be HF'd out of existence. but that's part of the price to be paid for re-instituting Satoshi's Bitcoin to a p2p payment system. not ideal but necessary to get away from kore dev.
Well, but that's part of my question. It makes sense to me that they could be soft-forked out of existence, but how could they be hard-forked out of existence if hard-forking, by definition, involves beginning to apply a less-restrictive rule set?
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
What the heck, add another badge:

[_] accomplice in a hard fork

To earn this badge, you'll need to be of the conviction (pun intended) that accomplishments in cryptocurrency *require* accomplices.

Keep an eye out for such posters which might be popping up soon ;-)

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX and awemany

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Well, but that's part of my question. It makes sense to me that they could be soft-forked out of existence, but how could they be hard-forked out of existence if hard-forking, by definition, involves beginning to apply a less-restrictive rule set?
to answer that, you have to look at the precise scenario gmax outlined in his post.

he's presuming that the sigops fix that Gavin employs involves setting a max tx size limit, which as i said above, i think is wrong. Gavin originally was going to fix the sigops attack by limiting tx size to 100kB. i'm quite sure he changed that to a max sigops hashing limit per tx. but what gmax is presuming is that he is still using something like a 100kB tx limit and if Classic employs that and IF there are nLocktimess out there above 100KB due to multisig constructions, then those tx's won't be protected by the 100KB tx limit would be invalidated/confiscated. whereas they wouldn't be with no tx size limits with SW and it's quadratic specific sigops fix.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX

Aquent

Active Member
Aug 19, 2015
252
667
Lmao, hardforks are illegal now according to Maxwell:

"Some people, under the view (and legal advice) that forcefully hardforking the rules of the system-- if successful-- would make them administrators of a virtual currency under regulatory rules (or just according to their personal ethics), will never have anything to do with one at least if there is any serious controversy around it."

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4l6ce3/emotional_fear_alert_hardforks_are_illegal/

Someone arrest Vitalik

Oh, and he calls it "virtual currency", LOL.

And of course Classic confiscates your money... lmao.

I need more popcorn.
 

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
Can one of you more technical folks comment on this? Also, if Classic is imposing a new (and presumably more restrictive?) transaction size limit, isn't that a soft-fork-type change (notwithstanding the fact that it may be bundled in with a hard-fork-type change to the block size limit)? I don't see how removing / broadening rules (which, again, I thought was the definition of a hard fork) could ever make old presigned transactions suddenly invalid? If anything, it seems that the reverse would be true and that this would be a danger of poorly-designed soft forks, or am I missing something obvious?
Here's how I understand it, I appreciate if any mistakes are pointed out:

First of all, it is very clear that the idea that hardforks are somehow easier to use to confiscate Bitcoins is so bogus that it hurts, but I still think it is very important to point out:

It is absolutely trivial to confiscate coins with a softfork: Simply have the miners decide with a simple majority 'we won't ever mine coins touching the following set <...> of addresses'. Bam, 50% direct soft fork direct coin confiscation. Hypotheticaly, Greg could push some changes to Bitcoin Core that will confiscate Gavin's and Satoshi's coins ('to not disturb the market') when activated through a soft fork.


Along those lines, I believe, is nullc's argument: The HF blocksize change will kind of add the soft fork part of less transaction size limit implicitly, and that might interfere with SegWit's operation and make large SW transactions invalid.

Very true!

However, who's to say that this is the HF's fault and not SegWit's fault of somehow depending on some side data area invisible to classic full nodes (the extra block data) for transaction validation?!

To an old node that never looked at SegWit stuff, there will be anyone-can-spend transactions that suddenly won't be spend anymore (when SW activates) - and then might again be spent, for example in the case that miners suddenly decide that SF SW isn't all the rage.

IOW: Do not use SW's features if you think it might not be ready for prime-time yet.

It is all a matter of perspective, as far as I can see.

If Greg would stop the bullshitting for a minute, he'd realize that his own circular reasoning makes a strong case for only doing hard fork changes - just like Mike Hearn described the situation.

Let me sketch what I see in Greg's quote from early 2013, line by line:

When Bitcoin's behavior is merely a system of computer rules you can trust it because you (or people you trust who read code) can point to the rules and say "it is so because of cryptographic proof, the mathematics of the program make it thusly". If the rules are up for revision by popularity contest or whatever system you like— then you have a much more complicated trust equation where you have to ask if that process will make decisions which are not only wise but also respect your needs.

He is dimly grasping toward the market. The rules are made and revised by the market, and that is why they reliably respect users needs, yet he believes they are made by having the rules be "immutable" like a social contract. He pins this on Nakamoto consensus and conflates it with "computer rules" which are irrelevant as far as what the market supports.
@Zangelbert Bingledack, this very part is the most to-the-point explanation of the 'consensus fallacy' (which would be my choice how to word it) that I have seen yet. Thanks a lot.
 

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
to answer that, you have to look at the precise scenario gmax outlined in his post.

he's presuming that the sigops fix that Gavin employs involves setting a max tx size limit, which as i said above i think is wrong. Gavin originally was going to fix the sigops attack by limiting tx size to 100kB. i'm quite sure he changed that to a max sigops hashing limit per tx. but what gmax is presuming is that he is still using something like 100kB and if Classic employs that and IF there are nLocktimes out there above 100KB due to multisig constructions, then those tx's won't be protected by the 100KB tx limit would be invalidated. whereas they wouldn't be with no tx size limits with SW and it's quadratic specific sigops fix.
Kind of funny that gmax thinks of doing 100kB transactions with SegWit. 'Blockchain bloat', anyone? :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
@Roger_Murdock; @cypherdoc

According to BIP109, the max bytes hashed will increase to 1.3 MB. So any transaction that would have fit in a 1MB block will still be accepted post BIP109 activation. In other words, the new rules are more permissive.



There is also a slight change to the way signature operations are counted:



I believe the new sig-op counting rules are equal or more permissive too, but I am foggy on this point. [Are there edge cases where the new rules might be less permissive?]

Anyways, I think Greg is just trying to cause confusion.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
@Peter R

thx for finding that. saved me some work.

btw, even at 100kB per tx limit (Gavin's original proposal), i now doubt that there are nLockTime tx's out there that big. if the avg tx today is around 500B, an nLockTime tx would have to be 200x larger. highly unlikely for a multisig or p2sh. and that's ignoring what limits are actually in place as you've outlined.

such bullshit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
i don't understand why small blockists, like VanWirdum, understand certain concepts in one context but fail to understand the same concept in others?:

CoinJoin is not a new concept. But up until now CoinJoin was typically a bit of a hassle. As such, most people don't bother. And since most people don't bother, those who do bother could automatically be marked as suspicious; potentially defeating the purpose of using CoinJoin in the first place.

let me re-write with the concept of more users and the "hiding in the crowd" concept of greater adoption:

CoinJoin Bitcoin is not a new concept. But up until now CoinJoin Bitcoin was typically a bit of a hassle (due to high fees and delays). As such, most people don't bother. And since most people don't bother, those who do bother could automatically be marked as suspicious; potentially defeating the purpose of using CoinJoin Bitcoin in the first place.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/the-power-of-schnorr-the-signature-algorithm-to-increase-bitcoin-s-scale-and-privacy-1460642496
 
Last edited:

Mengerian

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 29, 2015
536
2,597
@Roger_Murdock interesting idea to view the block size limit rule by nodes as just another type of orphaning risk from the point of view of the miners. We can also look at it from non-mining nodes point of view and ask why they would be willing to orphan such blocks.

As @Peter R has pointed out, nodes can run today without a block size limit and follow consensus. My node (Unlimited) does not enforce the 1MB rule, and it follows the Bitcoin blockchain just fine. In fact there may be less risk, because it will also follow the longest proof-of-work chain in the event of a block size increase hard fork.

I have been reading Thomas Schelling's book The Strategy of Conflict. The title is a bit misleading, it is not mostly about pure conflict, it deals with mixed-motive situations where the interacting parties benefit from cooperating and bargaining.

We have discussed Schelling points here, but another major concept that he analyses is Commitment Strategies. A classic example of such a strategy is the UK going to war over the Falkland Islands. The value of the Falklands to the UK was far less than what it cost to conduct the war. But by demonstrating that they were willing to sacrifice resources to defend their territorial claims, they deter other challenges to those claims and thus make future conflict less likely. Their territorial claims are a Schelling point that they have committed to take risks and expend resources to maintain.

Similarly, I think Bitcoin nodes and miners are engaged in commitment strategies to defend their chosen Schelling points. Miners sacrifice resources to produce the proof of work, making it a strong Schelling point to form consensus on. The 1MB blocksize limit is another Schelling point that most nodes have implicitly committed to defend. As things currently stand, they will ignore the longest proof-of-work chain if it contains >1MB blocks. If most nodes make this threat, it will deter miners from producing such blocks. Where things could get interesting is if these Schelling points come into conflict with a significant proportion of nodes abandoning the 1MB Schelling point. How committed would the 1MB Schelling point defenders be? The cost they are committing to could be quite high, it is the risk of falling out of consensus with the economic majority.

Looking at things this way also reinforces the utility of nodes advertising the Schelling points they are committed to defend, as Unlimited does with the block size settings in the user agent string. It is an implicit threat to the miners: cross this line and we will orphan your blocks.

I haven't fully thought everything through yet, just thought I would share some ideas. It seems to me that participants in the network have fairly low incentive to defend Schelling points like the block size limit, but would likely be far more committed to defending things like the 21 million coin limit.
 

Aquent

Active Member
Aug 19, 2015
252
667
Utterly scathing:


It deserves full quote, for history:

"
taxed4ever [+3][S] 7 points 39 minutes ago

Here are my comments related to Chinese Bitcoin discussion:

"They are firm in their belief that your company is a scam and they aren't interested in Core any longer.

Right now, it's a choice between Unlimited, Classic and other options.

You are lying to the Bitcoin community."

"They aren't, this is a lie.

The problem is, Bitcoin needs solid leaders with-out a dent in their reputation. You simply can't have a team of developers with criminal histories.

How can anyone even argue that? They can't."

"The Chinese Bitcoin community do think for themselves, they were fooled by Blockstream. In fact, they are brilliant individuals that agree with Satoshi's original vision, the vision that has brought us to a $7B market-cap.

The developers and employees of Blockstream have lied to the Chinese community, they have stolen from its users and in their predictions, it is only going to get worst. All everyone on both sides wanted was a blocksize increase. They did not ask for Segwit or Lightning. You may have temporarily wined and dined a very small majority of them through words, they now see through it.

It is completely disrespectful to lie to the Chinese community and promise them visions you cannot deliver, visions that will only harm them and their users.

I'd suggest that Blockstream and Core stop spreading these lies that the Chinese community supports you. You don't speak for them and they don't support you.

Stop lying to the Bitcoin community."

"Your comment is reckless, to imply it is okay to have criminals working on our software that transacts billions each year. Individuals with a long history of being involved with scams that ripped off innocent people. Not just 1 individual, many of them.

Major banking institutions do criminal background checks amongst a variety of other verifications. Otherwise, it would be dangerous to have them working with their firm."

"To imply all Chinese are working on the "Liquid" sidechain is false.

It is true that the Chinese now see through Blockstream and Core's lies. There is no way to repair this, they are about honor and making money.

You're saying "every company is lying" and that "only Blockstream Core is right". This is such an idiotic statement, to point fingers at everyone besides yourselves. Nobody believes this, you are not fooling anyone besides spreading false statements in your defense.

The Chinese provided you with honor, a chance to work with them. You lied and destroyed this honor. These are the type of people who will never work with you again because of this.

pangcong is correct and he is a respected member of the Chinese Bitcoin community."

"Bitcoin suffers from a design fault in the sense that its direction can be altered by developer influence. Influence that you have peddled to stray Bitcoin away from its original plan. A plan that has successfully achieved a $7B market-cap and of which analysts predicted continued strong growth. Now, the direction of this influence has convinced Forbes that Bitcoin is falling apart, that it is in trouble. This is a serious warning to the investment community, Forbes has millions of readers.

In your second statement, you are saying everyone is a criminal. This is false.

Continue peddling these lies, it is public proof that you are liars."

-- Mr. Maxwell, If you find the truth hard to swallow, you shouldn't be in business."
 
Last edited: