Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Zarathustra · Sep 5, 2016

jonny1000 said:
You need to stop campaigning to implement bigger blocks without consensus. You should join me in campaigning for bigger blocks conditional on strong consensus across the community.

We would need a brainullcer to march in fours with the campaign of that orwellian 6% veto-consensus of refusing to re-install the old rule (blocks must not be full).

freetrader · Sep 5, 2016

jonny1000 said:
We have already done this before with other Softforks. Did you complain then?

Yes, I complained about soft forks before CLTV activated...

I see you haven't refuted your statement which implied that those who choose to upgrade to SegWit, lose security. Could you explain how upgrading to SegWit causes a loss of security for those who do?

Norway · Sep 5, 2016

Bagatell said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/duplicates/518csg/onchain_scaling_conference_jeffgarzik_a_bitcoin/

Regarding Jeff Garzik's view on Bitcoin Unlimited:

He claims that BU is vulnerable to DDOS because people set their own limits and therefor can not make a collective effort against such attacs.

This should be taken seriously.
Is he right? How would it play out? Can anybody try to describe this scenario?

EDIT:
Let's say a bad actor control 10% of the hashpower and 100 nodes. He produces a 100 GB block and relays it.

He would just be orphaned, right? Even if he is lucky and find 3 blocks in a row. Or does Jeff Garzik see something that I don't see? (Which is very likely.)

pekatete · Sep 5, 2016

I know this thread is a touch quieter since the toys flew out of the pram, the serenity occasionally broken by no other than our very own village troll (please people, stop feeding the troll !), and wonder what happened to @cliff 's market updates .... (no match for cypher's but better than nothing). Much better than having to entertain the cyclical, flawed, pumped up arguments from the troll.

EDIT:
Anyone have a clue if this is a new pool? https://blockchain.info/blocks/101.201.31.79
From the blocks found in the last approx. 2.5 days, it'd account for 3.3% of the network aka approx. 54Ph/s

Norway · Sep 5, 2016

@pekatete The IP is from China.

pekatete · Sep 5, 2016

@Norway - Yep it is. Someone just pointed out to me on reddit that just the last block was mined to an individual address, the previous 11 blocks were mined to F2Pool. So possibly a miner who's been mining at a pool and (now) gone solo ... with 54Ph/s .... or could be F2Pool node.

freetrader · Sep 5, 2016

cliff · Sep 5, 2016

pekatete said:
I know this thread is a touch quieter since the toys flew out of the pram, the serenity occasionally broken by no other than our very own village troll (please people, stop feeding the troll !), and wonder what happened to @cliff 's market updates .... (no match for cypher's but better than nothing). Much better than having to entertain the cyclical, flawed, pumped up arguments from the troll.

EDIT:
Anyone have a clue if this is a new pool? https://blockchain.info/blocks/101.201.31.79
From the blocks found in the last approx. 2.5 days, it'd account for 3.3% of the network aka approx. 54Ph/s

@pekatete - i'm happy to go back to posting those, wasn't sure if they were getting annoying etc.

pekatete · Sep 5, 2016

@cliff - Unless someone said so and I somehow missed it, I don't believe anyone found the posts annoying. But I could be wrong, and then again if they did, all they have to do is ignore your posts .... many simply ignore the village troll after-all!

Dusty · Sep 5, 2016

cliff said:
@pekatete - i'm happy to go back to posting those, wasn't sure if they were getting annoying etc.

I, for one, liked your nice posts with roundup of recent and interesting bitcoin/finance news.

AdrianX · Sep 5, 2016

jonny1000 said:
There is loads of stuff one could do:

* Comments supporting bigger blocks on forums, while not campaigning for activation before consensus

* Campaign for miners to include flags in their blocks that support bigger blocks, in a non binding way.

* When a proposal for bigger blocks like BIP100 gets to 65% miner support in a nonbinding vote, begin to rally around that idea

* Release full nodes that flag support for larger blocks in a non binding way

* Put forward proposals on how to do a hardfork for bigger blocks in a safe way. E.g. 95% miner threshold, soft-hardfork, 1 year grace period

* When problems are put forward about larger blocks, respond to those issues in a mature, respectful and open minded manner. Address the concerns raised and recognize the minority rights of the people to veto the large block proposal if they are still unhappy you have not addressed all their concerns. Do not insult those raising objections

* Arrange meetings, conferences and other events

* Create a larger block testnet

* Do peer reviewed studies on larger blocks

There have been many meetings and discussions on both sides. For example the August 2015 industry letter supporting 8GB blocks resulting from secret closed door discussions

If a segwit softfork occurs, new blocks will be valid under the old rules. This means new transactions are full valid under the old rules and verified just as before. The old nodes still check the input and outputs. The person who receives a transaction has chosen not to have the signature verified by old nodes when they redeem the funds. That is within the rights of the receiver. Nobody loses security, except those who choose to upgrade to Segwit.

For those still reading this nonsense, while the advocates and beneficiaries of small blocks have their position enhanced by censorship many of the points presented are mute.

Many rational voices have been censored, prominent developers have been extirpated and silenced as well as attacked and insulted by Core Developers and incumbent small block beneficiaries.

Furthermore the studies that have concluded that bigger blocks are viable have been censored from the main discussion forums not to mention the poorly supported rebuttals remain inconclusive or just absent.

Despite the hypocrisy that many of those who advocate for limiting the block size also support the segwit fork that requires the network be capable of handling the equivalent of up to 4MB block limit in network traffic it's only the proponents for large blocks who have shown compromise.

Showing support for bigger blocks by running the BU or any implementation that shows a flag in support of a block size increase is the only way to show support for bigger blocks, what miners chose to do with the information is up to them, everything is just a bluff until someone actually tries to mine a 1.1MB block.

Users and miners don't need permission from a centralised authority to define consensus or majority consensus Bitcoin just need individuals acting in their best interests in a free market (free as in free of censorship too) .

jonny1000 · Sep 5, 2016

freetrader said:
Could you explain how upgrading to SegWit causes a loss of security for those who do?

Ok I guess you are right, the reduction in security is from those receiving funds when the witness is segregated, where they have not upgraded. Sorry.

adamstgbit · Sep 5, 2016

accept segwit or die.

xhiggy · Sep 5, 2016

jonny1000 said:
Remove him from what? He has no position as far as I know. The only thing we need strong consensus for is a hardfork. We do not need any type of consensus to "remove" Greg Maxwell from anything or to change the whole development team. Just run another compatible client written by different people and you have a new development team, its easy. The protocol rules will remain unchanged as the rules are very robust and hard to change, by design.

Greg has had a large influence on the bitcoin protocol, and on many of the uninformed, amateur enthusiasts that many in the bitcoin community need to pander to. I believe this influence may be trending to harmful. If people wish to diminish this influence, a good way would be to make his technology, the manifestation of his influence, less important.

Jonny, your arguments are not honest, and I do not believe you deserve an honest mans time. How can you say this?

"Just run another compatible client written by different people and you have a new development team, its easy."

freetrader · Sep 6, 2016

I invite you all to comment on user requirements for a Minimum Viable HF:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btcfork/comments/51egdu/invitation_to_review_and_comment_on_user/

@satoshis_sockpuppet : If you like USER-REQ-2, you might want to help us defend it's current formulation

jonny1000 · Sep 6, 2016

xhiggy said:
Greg has had a large influence on the bitcoin protocol

If the influence over others who chose to listen to him is a concern to you, then I guess there is not much you can do about that. People can listen to and be influenced by who they like. Anyway I think you greatly overestimate his influence.

I assume your view is that opposing Classic is a blatantly stupid, you therefore assume all the people who oppose Classic are either corrupt or naively brainwashed, therefore you overestimate the influence of Greg. If you were more open minded you may appreciate that Classic opponents are actually more independent minded and less stupid than you may think. Then you will realize that what Greg says does not actually matter that much.

All most Classic opponents are saying is that there are much safer ways to do a hardfork (e.g. 98% threshold and one year grace period), therefore why do it in a potentially dangerous way? That seems pretty reasonable to me.

xhiggy said:
"Just run another compatible client written by different people and you have a new development team, its easy."

What is wrong with that?

satoshis_sockpuppet · Sep 6, 2016

Haven't been paying too much attention the last days, what was this ViaBTC stuff about? A new pool that went from 2nd place to n+1th place in 48 hours? And the overall hashing power not changing significantly? Doesn't that mean, that some pools choose to point their power to this new pool for a few hours and then stop?

Does anybody has any explanation what this was about? And who is behind that pool?

Bagatell · Sep 6, 2016

@satoshis_sockpuppet

ViaBTC is yet another Chinese miner that has gone from nowhere to 2nd place in a couple of months. The hubbub started when they said they were testing BU.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/50sjvd/battle_of_hash_ratehe_quitted_tencent_and_started/

freetrader · Sep 6, 2016

https://www.hackread.com/hacked-bitcointalk-forum-database-on-dark-web/

cliff · Sep 6, 2016

///////////////////////////////////

-------------------------------------
AM TRIBUTE

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Well-Known Member

Moderator

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Moderator

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Moderator

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Moderator

Active Member