Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Roger_Murdock]

That was not my point though, my point was not that in the 28 day grace period more miners may upgrade. My point was at the time Classic nodes make an irrevocable decision to remove the 1MB rule, there is 25% miner opposition. Please acknowledge this fact.

Well, but that's just not correct. In fact, it's possible that the first activation could be triggered at a point in time when 100% of the network's hash power has already begun mining Classic. But even if we assume that the first activation is triggered with exactly 75% of the network hash power mining Classic, that doesn't mean there is "25% miner opposition." We simply don't know why that minority hash power is still mining Core. Some of that hash power could represent miners who support Classic in principle but are simply lazy, or (more charitably) who rationally conclude that their support is unlikely to tip the scales and thus that it's not worth their time to go to the hassle of switching. ("I'll just switch to Classic during the grace period if and when it activates.") Similarly, some of the miners who haven't upgraded yet might simply be indifferent on the issue (which obviously gives them no motivation to take affirmative steps to "vote" one way or the other).

On the other hand, if Classic activates, we can confidently say that, at that moment, there is at least (approximately) 75% miner opposition to the status quo.

 

[albin]

Adding the 1MB was a new rule and therefore a softfork, old nodes that did not have the 1MB rule, regarded the new blocks of less than 1MB as still valid. The old rule was less than 32MB, the new rule was less than 1MB, since 1MB is less than 32MB, it was a softfork. Nodes were therefore not required to upgrade to stay on the main chain and if they did not upgrade, the chain would not split.

The difference between hardfork and softfork was not invented at that time because it was a fairly meaningless distinction when any node client was capable of meaningfully generating.

Also the 32MB "rule" was never a consensus rule for determining block validity, it was part of the p2p networking protocol. The way 32MB was enforced was identical to Bitcoin Unlimited FYI.

 

[jonny1000]

Welcome to this labyrinthine discussion @pekatete

@jonny1000
To clarify, the difference between a hard-fork and a soft-fork is that soft-forks maintain forward compatibility of old versions of software, hard-forks do not. That is all.

This explains it in more detail:
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/soft-fork-bip101.461/#post-5600

Exactly, so the new 1MB rule was a soft fork, since the 1MB rule was compatible with the old clients at the time. Agreed?

 

[johnyj]

My evidence that the users do not support Classic is as follows:

• 88% of nodes against Classic
• 85% of investors against Classic, in the only poll I can find
• 95% of miners against Classic
• 85% of developers against Classic

Where is your evidence of the users supporting Classic? It is clear I am very unpopular here, but please recognize any actual metric shows the strong economic majority is on my side, whether you like it or not.

If a simple 2MB hard fork does not have enough user support, then I just don't understand how come a super complex and virus like segwit sf will have any user support at all? Can you explain to me how this magic is done? Given average users are not able to tell if a simple 2MB hard fork is good or bad

Or, there could be another scenario: 90% of the nodes and hash power are actually run by a few people that support core. I think this is very likely to be the truth

You can also check the vote results on slush pool, classic vs core is like 1:2, and I guess that 1 represents people who understand how bitcoin works, since majority of people do not have the ability to understand a 2MB HF is good, they are just like you, worshiping their core lords

 

[jonny1000]

Well, but that's just not correct. In fact, it's possible that the first activation could be triggered at a point in time when 100% of the network's hash power has already begun mining Classic. But even if we assume that the first activation is triggered with exactly 75% of the network hash power mining Classic, that doesn't mean there is "25% miner opposition."

Ok, what about this then. There is 25% miner opposition using the same measurement metric used for activation. Do you agree with that?

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@jonny1000

No, because the measurement metric used for activation is: how much hashpower is effectively saying, "I'm going out of my way to make a conscious vote for one or the other." A miner running Classic qualifies, but a miner running Core doesn't.

 

[Roger_Murdock]

Ok, what about this then. There is 25% miner opposition using the same measurement metric used for activation. Do you agree with that?

Sorry, no I don't think that's fair either. Again, activation doesn't even imply that 25% of the hash power is still running something other than Classic. And I think the two metrics in question ("percent hash power running Classic" vs. "percent hash power running Core") are apples and oranges when it comes to gauging "opposition" for the reasons I previously outlined (and as just now further explained by @Zangelbert Bingledack).

 

[jonny1000]

I just don't understand how come a super complex and virus like segwit sf will have any user support at all

One of the things I really like about SegWit is the 95% activation threshold, even though its only a softfork and doesn't even need 95%, as in theory it can be imposed on us by "Nakamoto consensus", unlike a HF. I see voluntary decision to use 95% as a sign of respect to the users and indication of respecting the network and desire to keep everything robust.

Other great things about SegWit:

• Large c2x capacity increase
• Malleability fix
• Linear scaling of sig-hash operations
• Makes it easier to upgrade signature types in the future
• More flexibility in decisions about how to run a node
• More logical data structure

 

[johnyj]

Welcome to this labyrinthine discussion @pekatete

@jonny1000
To clarify, the difference between a hard-fork and a soft-fork is that soft-forks maintain forward compatibility of old versions of software, hard-forks do not. That is all.

This explains it in more detail:
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/soft-fork-bip101.461/#post-5600

I like the word "labyrinthine".

Typically when a technical discussion has reached beyond certain level of complexity, further discussion will not make anybody any wiser, just like the century long fight between Einstein and Planck's different philosophy of the universe

So people would take another approach to do decision making. In this case, a better approach is through ethical standard. If you think about long term, no one can guarantee to be always right, but an honest person would frankly admit his fault and take responsibility to quickly correct his fault, thus the whole community is informed and the communication is totally transparent. This kind of person should be suitable to make decisions

So far, what core devs have been doing is terrible, they cheat, they lie, they hide, they even baked malicious behaviors into their code, thus becomes untrustworthy. When the trust is gone, nothing can be established further, anything from them becomes suspicious

So for me, the decision is super easy to make, it is not about the technology, just about people
[doublepost=1465358906][/doublepost]

"I just don't understand how come a super complex and virus like segwit sf will have any user support at all"

One of the things I really like about SegWit is the 95% activation threshold, even though its only a softfork and doesn't even need 95%, as in theory it can be imposed on us by "Nakamoto consensus", unlike a HF. I see voluntary decision to use 95% as a sign of respect to the users and indication of respecting the network and desire to keep everything robust.

Other great things about SegWit:

• Large c2x capacity increase
• Malleability fix
• Linear scaling of sig-hash operations
• Makes it easier to upgrade signature types in the future
• More flexibility in decisions about how to run a node
• More logical data structure

I just don't understand that how come a normal people who can not even tell the difference between "2MB block size" and "2MB block size limit", would be able to understand all this noises you generated here, especially given he knows that core devs usually lies

 

[jonny1000]

So for me, the decision is super easy to make, it is not about the technology, just about people

I want Bitcoin to be an environment where development decisions are based purely on technical merit, not on the character of any individuals perceived to be relevant.

For example I like the fact Luke says such nutty things about religion, which would be unacceptable in most situations in the legacy financial system, this demonstrates development decisions are based on technical merit not character, marketing or the ability to be enigmatic.

This features help make Bitcoin unique compared to the dominant financial systems, where character is very important, and ensures the system remains robust.

 

[Richy_T]

25% opposition "AT THE TIME OF ACTIVATION" e.g. at the exact point Classic nodes make an irrevocable policy change to accept 1.01MB blocks, 25% of the miners oppose the move. I mean exactly that. This is clearly true. Please stop denying this fact or try to make out I mean something else.

TIL "at the time of activation" == "locked in"

 

[jonny1000]

"TIL "at the time of activation" == "locked in""

Locked in, in the sense that Classic can't activate with 76% miner support, for example, it can only be exactly 75%.

You may not like to hear it, but believe me, the miners had a large problem with this.

 

[Richy_T]

Well, but that's just not correct. In fact, it's possible that the first activation could be triggered at a point in time when 100% of the network's hash power has already begun mining Classic. But even if we assume that the first activation is triggered with exactly 75% of the network hash power mining Classic, that doesn't mean there is "25% miner opposition." We simply don't know why that minority hash power is still mining Core. Some of that hash power could represent miners who support Classic in principle but are simply lazy, or (more charitably) who rationally conclude that their support is unlikely to tip the scales and thus that it's not worth their time to go to the hassle of switching. ("I'll just switch to Classic during the grace period if and when it activates.") Similarly, some of the miners who haven't upgraded yet might simply be indifferent on the issue (which obviously gives them no motivation to take affirmative steps to "vote" one way or the other).

On the other hand, if Classic activates, we can confidently say that, at that moment, there is at least (approximately) 75% miner opposition to the status quo.

Roger, you are absolutely right and this has been pointed out to Jonny before. He continues to persist with this dishonest representation.

 

[cypherdoc]

"You'll have to give an example for me concerning your Sybil concerns. "

There are no particular sybil concerns, in this adversarial climate I just ignore any polls without any basic sybil defence, its just a prudent course of action. I am just making a request, do you have any evidence, from a mechanism with reasonable sybil defense, that show support for Classic? Yes or no? Examples could include miner vote, node count, coin vote, prediction market, public in person meetings ect ect


"25% opposition at activation won't matter. A fork will probably be short lived. The 25%will capitulate quickly."

Yes, that is your view. That was not my point though, my point was not that in the 28 day grace period more miners may upgrade. My point was at the time Classic nodes make an irrevocable decision to remove the 1MB rule, there is 25% miner opposition. Please acknowledge this fact.

those polls are quite adequate i'm sure. there's too many to ignore across time and space. unlike your investor poll, which i've never seen, btw. link?

and as for your stats, those just represent stasis. you're trying to claim a mythical support for kore gang policies but you can't based on no change. what will be convincing is if you get support from both miners and users for CSV, SWSF, & LN. it doesn't look good.

you still going on about 25% opposition at activation? ridiculous.

 

[Richy_T]

"TIL "at the time of activation" == "locked in""

Locked in, in the sense that Classic can't activate with 76% miner support, for example, it can only be exactly 75%.

You may not like to hear it, but believe me, the miners had a large problem with this.

So if 100% of miners switched to mining Classic blocks tomorrow, it could never activate?

Quick, get Core on this. This seems like a master plan to avert the "Attack".

 

[jonny1000]

"On the other hand, if Classic activates, we can confidently say that, at that moment, there is at least (approximately) 75% miner opposition to the status quo."

That is false, 70% of the miners could support Classic, and then they get lucky and cross the 75% threshold. In-fact, if you make assumptions, including that support for Classic gradually increases over time, then statistically speaking, Classic is most likely to activate with only 71% miner support.

 

[Richy_T]

Classic can't activate with 76% miner support, for example, it can only be exactly 75%.

Classic is most likely to activate with only 71% miner support.

+++ERROR, DOES NOT COMPUTE+++

 

[johnyj]

I want Bitcoin to be an environment where development decisions are based purely on technical merit, not on the character of any individuals perceived to be relevant.

For example I like the fact Luke says such nutty things about religion, which would be unacceptable in most situations in the legacy financial system, this demonstrates development decisions are based on technical merit not character, marketing or the ability to be enigmatic.

This features help make Bitcoin unique compared to the dominant financial systems, where character is very important, and ensures the system remains robust.

Technical merit is irrelevant at this stage, since every solution always have pros and cons, and it is only a balance. Even chinese miners are enough smart to point out this last year

If you want to see a list of why segwit sf is bad, you can search for it, there are countless posts, no time to repeat them again, and what you said about segwit's benefit have mostly been debunked to be false long time ago. It seems you have missed all we have discussed during the last 3 months

The conlusion is: Segwit SF is a virus, it is an attack to the bitcoin network, we should stop it at all costs (Jeff happened twitted the same concern )

 

[cypherdoc]

One of the things I really like about SegWit is the 95% activation threshold, even though its only a softfork and doesn't even need 95%, as in theory it can be imposed on us by "Nakamoto consensus", unlike a HF. I see voluntary decision to use 95% as a sign of respect to the users and indication of respecting the network and desire to keep everything robust.

Other great things about SegWit:

• Large c2x capacity increase
• Malleability fix
• Linear scaling of sig-hash operations
• Makes it easier to upgrade signature types in the future
• More flexibility in decisions about how to run a node
• More logical data structure

remove the discount and make it a SWHF with a+b<=4MB and i might support it.

 

[jonny1000]

+++ERROR, DOES NOT COMPUTE+++

Sorry, When I say 25% opposition is locked in, I am talking about the metric used officially by the activation methodology.

When I say statically 71% is most likely, I mean actual miner support at the time. Yes it is correct, it is possible for actual miner support to be 100%.