Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Peter R afaik he didn't claim commits by satoshi, rather commits by sirius & gavin. That is indisputable:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/45g3d5/rewriting_history_greg_maxwell_is_claiming_some/

Latests highlight was, when Luke-Jr came to his defense with the reasoning, that Maxwell had no other choice (like using a dummy account) because "githubs TOS don't allow more than one user per person".

awemany made a good summary in the linked reddit post.

 

[Peter R]

@satoshis_sockpuppet: Right, it was commits by Gavin and Sirius that Greg claimed to his own account; thanks for the correction.

So Greg did assign commits of other people to his own account. Whether this was justified can be debated. Whether it happened cannot.

Greg is a fascinating persona. Instead of saying "looking back, I probably should have created a dummy account to assign the commits to instead of my own," he spins a complex web of half truths that leaves the reader confused about the basic facts.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Greg is a fascinating persona. Instead of saying "looking back, I probably should have created a dummy account to assign the commits to instead of my own," he spins a complex web of half truths that leaves the reader confused about the basic facts.

He is quite an extreme example for this kind of people.
These days my working hypothesis is to always assume, that he is lying. The few times he actually says the truth are rare. It's almost always at least a half-truth..

 

[Peter R]

@satoshis_sockpuppet:

I didn't kill my wife. The knife manufacturer did. They make their knives with dangerous pointy tips that aren't needed for preparing food. I stabbed her in the heart and the fact that my wife is now dead proves my point!

 

[Peter R]

You mean those *miners* who don't upgrade. Cause non mining full nodes are not forked off by definition in a soft fork.

This is another way to say that there's no such a thing as a soft-fork for miners. Every miners *have to* upgrade once a soft fork activates otherwise they will be "orphaned".

In other words, in a word where every full node is a mining node the difference between soft and hard forks is non existant.

edit: typos

Exactly.

Taking this further, we presently use the fact that common nodes can upgrade later than the mining majority to help coordinate soft-forking changes. By the same logic, we can and should use the fact that common nodes can upgrade earlier than the mining majority to help coordinate hard-forking changes.

But in the confused world of Blockstream/Core, a node with a looser rule set is an "attack" in the latter case and harmless in the former case.

 

[taxed4ever]

@Peter R Re: Wife - You are going to need a good lawyer

 

[lunar]

Profile of the Narcissistic Sociopath

(1) They are habitual liars. They seem incapable of either knowing or telling the truth about anything.

(2) They are egotistical to the point of narcissism. They really believe they are set apart from the rest of humanity by some special grace.

(3) They scapegoat; they are incapable of either having the insight or willingness to accept responsibility for anything they do. Whatever the problem, it is always someone else’s fault.

(4) They are remorselessly vindictive when thwarted or exposed.

(5) Genuine religious, moral, or other values play no part in their lives. They have no empathy for others and are capable of violence. Under older psychological terminology, they fall into the category of psychopath or sociopath, but unlike the typical psychopath, their behavior is masked by a superficial social facade.

 

[albin]

My favorite irony in the whole theoretical "debate" (which so far has been people coming up with ideas vs Core devsplaining) is that the one actual unspeakable attack on the protocol, the censorship of transactions, is inherently a soft fork!

 

[ascedorf]

Could anyone explain why in a SegWit softfork non upgraded Miners blocks would be orphaned,

Is it only if they try to spend an "any one can spend" SegWit tx (if this is even possible.)

What happens if they only include pre SegWit tx's.

Thanks

 

[Peter R]

@ascedorf:

Yes, if a miner tries to spend an "anyone can spend" segwit TX then his block would be invalid according to the segwit miners and orphaned. But since such transactions would appear non-standard to the non-upgraded node anyways, it would require effort to generate this case.

Another case where the block of a non-upgraded miner would be orphaned is if he mined a valid block built upon a block that he thought was valid, but was actually invalid according to segwit. For example, if another miner tried to spend an "anyone can spend" segwit TX and successfully mined such a block, the non-upgraded miner would think the block was valid. If he mined a block on top of it, then it would be orphaned because it had an invalid parent.

(A major change to the non-segwit portion of blocks once segwit is activated is the inclusion of the segwit Merkle root in an OP_RETURN output of the coinbase transaction. But this OP_RETURN output is optional if the block contains no segwit transactions. This is what allows non-upgraded miners to still produce valid blocks.)

TL/DR: non-upgraded miners are unlikely to have their blocks orphaned should segwit be activated.

 

[lunar]

Would be great if someone like Konrad S Graf could do a nice rebuttal of this, to be shared.

It's a dangerous argument because it's so seductive. Why are so many faux libertarian and cypherpunks in favour of central planning?

 

[AdrianX]

Andreas Antonopoulos sounding a little confused. Right now we have a central authority dictating transaction volume and indirectly but deliberately controlling the market for fees. We don't have a free market but we do have a manipulated market.

I think Antonopoulos is smart but I don't feel he's paying attention. It's not about affordability, it's about generating scales of economy in transaction fees to subsidizing blockchain security in a free market independent of centralized decision making.

He's backing the wrong horse.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@lunar
Andreas' level of explanation is disappointing for quite a while. He sounds like a salesman for Bitcoin (he kind of always was, but it's getting crazy now).
First he starts to tell people (correctly), that there always was a fee market and then he starts defending the central planned fee market as if it was an inevitable force of nature.
If you start a planned economy, you will lose against a free economy. All historical evidence is pointing in that direction.
We have a worldwide, barrier free marketplace. One product can be quickly replaced by the next. Restrict your money by central planning in critical areas (capacity) and it's guaranteed, that there will come a better product (the rise of altcoins to the point, that they're actually discussed as alternatives is already a sign for that).

There is a difference between a "market" and a "free market"..
Btw, funny how the 'gas' didn't 'fill the blockchain' for years..

And like any other core-sheep: Stop with the fucking Lightning talk. Andreas was a software engineer, wasn't he? Doesn't he see how he is just another idiot signing up for something that a) doesn't exist and b) isn't defined?
It reminds me of how in WW2, some Germans still believed they would win the war, when the Russians were already firing their artillery on Hitlers bunker. Because Hitler had his Wunderwaffen almost ready. All the while, the USA silently built the real Wunderwaffe.

There should be a rule for everybody that wants to be taken serious: If you talk about Lightning you should first explain, how the routing is done and how the network is supposed to look like. Would reduce the amount of bullshitting by 99 %.

Although he has point: He talks about layers above Bitcoin. He at least acknowledges, that they are not Bitcoin. (But I'm sure, that was just a slip.)
[doublepost=1484379535][/doublepost]

I think Antonopoulos is smart but I don't feel he's paying attention.

Let him explain LN in detail...

 

[awemany]

@awemany: I know you looked very careful into the issue of Satoshi's misattributed commits. When I read your synopsis, I was left with the impression that Greg claimed various commits made by Satoshi Gavin and Sirius. However, Greg vehemently denies this. But his denial seems to be more of "yes I did this but I did it for a good reason" without actually admitting that he did in fact attribute the commits to his own account.


So my question: is it an indisputable fact that Greg attributed commits of Satoshi's other people to his own account? (Leaving the rationale for why he might have done this and whether it was right or wrong out of it).

Yes, it is indisputable. Note that we are talking about commits on github. Due to the nature of git, misattributing git commits would be a much more involved endeavor. In the github issue report, he himself linked an IRC log admitting as much.

And for example, here are time-stamped screenshots of the sirius-m and gavinandresen commits that are mis-attributed. (Time stamps (SHA256 of png) can be verified here)

A couple further notes:

- These github commit misattributions had people confused, AFAIR even Mike Hearn

- He mis-attributed Gavin Andresen (His excuse is that he did so many accounts that that one slipped by, by mass-attributing to himself)

- He initially only fixed the issue half-assedly. I only found Gavin's commits after he fixed the sirius-m misattribution and this is all in my bug report linked above. (Curiously, there doesn't appear to be a way for Greg to mass-unattribute commits ) Also curious is that Greg asserts that he doesn't know how that happened - and again that is also in the bug report.

- He asserts that this issue has been reported to github. If you ask for evidence on this, it is always answered by silence. I believe the explanation is that no such report with github exists, but I cannot prove that. Someone better connected to github might want to research this further.
[doublepost=1484380847,1484379834][/doublepost]Two further things:

1.) @AdrianX : While looking through my old archives on the github issue to answer's @Peter R 's question, I came across this comment from you. I also came across this comment from the Blockstream CEO (in the same thread, 1.5 years ago!), saying that it is reasonable to raise maxblocksize now (now as in 1.5 years ago) to not do it at the last minute ...

Funny. Everything has been said a long time ago. As I said, I recently share these worries that you expressed there - more so since owning some hashpower.

2.) Several times in the past, it has been said by various Core supporters and people that 'no controversial changes to the Bitcoin Core code will be merged, only with consensus'. Given that RBF and everything surrounding it is contentious, I do really wonder still about the decision process for controversial non-consensus code changes within Bitcoin Core.

 

[awemany]

Rereading the BU founding articles for the implementation of the BU voting system, I was reminded that BU has an optional official 'BU mining pool' in its articles.

I wonder:

- whether any of the BU-mining pools would be interested to become 'the official BU pool'

- whether that would be a good idea or not PR- and otherwise (Issues I see are: 'Bias' and 'been bought' accusations, though they would still of course be 100% baseless - and the valid issues that come with preferred treatment of some BU members over others, potential for bad blood)

- what others think about the official BU pool idea now.

 

[AdrianX]

I like it however I feel it's a little controversial at the moment - my main concern is that it could be seen as a conflict of interest and spun as an attack on bitcoin.

Ultimately it would be great to run a pool as a non profit - income going towards maintenance and bitcoin development I envision it could be a non profit run like a Guild representing it members and miners and maintaining the bitcoin protocol. I imagine multiple competing implementations, BU's federation being just one form of governing how changes are considered and agreed, the broader bitcoin community/network being in ultimate control.

 

[adamstgbit]

Would be great if someone like Konrad S Graf could do a nice rebuttal of this, to be shared.

It's a dangerous argument because it's so seductive. Why are so many faux libertarian and cypherpunks in favour of central planning?

he's right tho...
the only thing he needs to do now apply the blocksize limit to this same type of argument
do we let a market determin block size or do we use an authority?

a fee market will form with a market driven block size, because the market will chose a blocksize which benefits them the most, and limitless block space for free isn't what's most profitable.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Adrian X @awemany
A non-profit BU mining pool to cover development costs etc. would be a great thing imho.
A development team, that actually profits directly from Bitcoin's success, I think that's a good thing.

conflict of interest

Hm. I find it hard to see a COI. I really don't understand the "thou shalt not mine" sentiment in the "bitcoinosphere". I think it would be very healthy, if companies, non profits and whoever in this space did some mining. You can't align your interests much better with bitcoins success than by being a miner. I'd like to see Coinbase, Bitpay, .. to do some mining. Gives you a possibility to cast a vote and actually helps to avoid COI.

edit: I've been told, that Coinbase asked around if they should be mining before they started their operation (no idea if it's true) and that the community advised against it.
If coinbase spent some money on mining hardware, the a) could have voted for the scaling solution of their choice and b) they wouldn't replace Bitcoin so easily with Ethereum, Monero, whatever...

 

[awemany]

@satoshis_sockpuppet : I can see @AdrianX's PR argument, though. At the moment, stuff is going well, so I am rather opposed to changing too much and jinxing it

On another note: A recent thread on reddit on orphan cost got me thinking. People (small blockers) running nodes are repeatedly worried about very low orphan cost and the resulting gigablocks.

But doesn't the same BU 'unlimited blocksize' apply to that line of thinking as well? A collective of individual node operators can drive up orphan cost just by being stubborn and rejecting transactions from going into their mempool. And they can freely set this parameter (already implemented IIRC) and thus already have a direct knob - like BU has on the blocksize - on effective orphan cost, even with widespread efficient block propagation.

 

[jbreher]

- what others think about the official BU pool idea now.

At the time of adoption of the constitution, I made a soft statement against the idea of an official pool.
I think that a pool with many members participating is a good idea. I still think it is a bad idea for such a pool to be 'official'. I think it dilutes the focus from what is truly important.
But I don't mine, so... read into my opinion what you will.