Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Norway]

 

[albin]

Here's the smoking gun on Blockstream, from their own website, written by Hill himself:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5qefog/blockstream_business_plan_today_key_players_in/

The business plan of Liquid literally involves easing friction in getting a confirmation.

 

[Norway]

Luke-jr is giving the miners a hardfork to 2MB ...
... in twelve years.

 

[adamstgbit]

@Norway

ya i saw that, this is what core likes to do...

waste everyone's time! including there own.

 

[AdrianX]

Luke's comments are being down voted to oblivion, but I felt we should read what he has to say so here it is:

note I'm compliant in that I added **np** in the URL

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5qg4li/bscore_make_good_on_their_hong_kong_commitment_to/

Honestly I'm in shock, how is it that BS/Core take bitcoin seriously and play such silly games.
BS/Core needs to be seen doing exactly what they are doing, they don't deserve the credibility they get.

 

[freetrader]

@Norway

ya i saw that, this is what core likes to do...

waste everyone's time! including there own.

I believe the expression is : STILL GOT PAID

And my reaction: this is PRICELESS

He just singlehandedly screwed Blockstream and Core's rep so hard, they will be walking funny for the remainder of their existences.

It's free popcorn for everyone as Theymos steps in to declare that

"Everyone knows that we need to reduce the max block size"

Apparently, not everyone - because SegWit SF doesn't do that. Someone, somewhere didn't get a memo.

Or this is some kind of good cop, bad cop game in the hope of activating SWSF. It's funny, carry on like that Core / BS!

@Norway : skål !

My new name for this BIP: THE 7-YEAR PLAGUE

 

[79b79aa8]

hi @BitFuryGeorge, @SysMan, hope you feel your capital is being protected by the Dream Team (see above).

meanwhile: https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/download

 

[bluemoon]

Luke-jr just did it for us. We couldn't ask for a better PR for BU. His hardfork BIP suggests to reduce the max blocksize to 300kb, and the grow so slow that we will get back to 1 MB in seven years.

Here's the smoking gun on Blockstream, from their own website, written by Hill himself:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5qefog/blockstream_business_plan_today_key_players_in/

The business plan of Liquid literally involves easing friction in getting a confirmation.

On the one hand, by minimising the blocksize, BS Core remain steadfast in ensuring everyone with the least interest - anyone with even a Raspberry Pi - can play their part in safeguarding the Bitcoin network.

On the other hand, having restricted block capacity to drive up fees and ensure only the largest holders can still afford to transact on the Bitcoin network, they offer LN and Liquid as their preferred alternatives for ordinary transactions.

Of course the centralised LN and Liquid hubs will be run only by BS's preferred well capitalised for-profit 'partners': the fabled Raspberry Pi operators will not get a look-in, except to pay the account fees, and will lose all the security and privacy advantages they're busy safeguarding for the big bitcoin holders.

 

[lunar]

Just leaving this here, for discussion.

Part 1 has been posted before and it's a fairly well written and balanced article.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/closer-look-bitcoin-unlimiteds-configurable-block-size-proposal/

Part 2 just out, is the smear campaign and full of misunderstandings with basic flaws in comprehension. Hack job.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/closer-look-bitcoin-unlimiteds-configurable-block-size-proposal/

Personally I think this is a step in the right direction, as it legitimises our proposal. I for one, look forward to seeing some well written rebuttals.

All the thinking has been done already in this very thread and i'm fairly sure it's been gamed out rather comprehensively. Finding the best quotes will be the hard work.

most of the articles game flaws can be summed up by answering ...

'Why do people not put their hand in the fire?'

 

[molecular]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/how-bitcoin-unlimited-users-may-end-different-blockchains/

so.. what are BUs answers to those objections?

 

[solex]

Our latest BU release is out.
To the hard-fork and beyond!

Announcing Bitcoin Unlimited General Release 1.0.0

Network Upgrade Version for On-chain Scaling

The third official BU client release reflects our opinion that Bitcoin full-node software has reached a milestone of functionality, stability and scalability. Hence, completion of the alpha/beta phase throughout 2009-16 can be marked in our release version.

The most important feature of BU's first general release is functionality to restore market dynamics at the discretion of the full-node network. Activation will result in eliminating the artificial full-blocks handicap, restoring a healthy fee-market, allow reliable confirmation times, fair user fees, and re-igniting stalled network effect growth.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/announcement-bitcoin-unlimited-general-release-1-0-0.1783/

 

[freetrader]

I'll bite.

If a minority of miners sets EB to one megabyte, and a majority of miners sets EB to, say, two megabytes, the network could split in two. As soon as anyone mines a two-megabyte block, a minority of miners will ignore it, and instead continue to extend the one-megabyte chain. The majority of miners, however, will accept the chain with the two-megabyte block, and extend that chain.

Different groups of miners would consider different chains valid, and mine on top of their “own” chain while ignoring the other chain. This split could technically last forever without the two chains ever converging, in effect splitting Bitcoin into two different networks and currencies.

The first paragraph is taking the Emergent Consensus and trying to portray it as a problem which I don't think it is. It's true, under BU, if a majority of miners decide to go > 1MB, the minority have to pay serious attention. That's healthy for the network.

The economic incentives would be heavily aligned against such a 1MB inattentive minority. Again, no problem - in reality they would not carry on with this, but update their configuration and re-join the majority.

EDIT:

@molecular : I think perhaps you meant to link to this one? (haven't read it yet)

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/how-bitcoin-unlimited-users-may-end-up-on-different-blockchains-cm739449 / https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/how-bitcoin-unlimited-users-may-end-different-blockchains/

 

[awemany]

The Luke-Nuke hit Core today and we have BU 1.0.0 ... great!

 

[AdrianX]

According to the designer Shatoshi - he states it in the Bitcoin white paper how ED works - bold mine:

Nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one and will keep working on extending it. If two nodes broadcast different versions of the next block simultaneously, some nodes may receive one or the other first. In that case, they work on the first one they received, but save the other branch in case it becomes longer. The tie will be broken when the next proofof-work is found and one branch becomes longer; the nodes that were working on the other branch will then switch to the longer one.

BU is the Bitcoin implementation Satoshi describes in the White Paper. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. it's worth making a copy of it because it's this exacts paragraph BS/Core fundamentalists were proposing to change.

 

[awemany]

Another thing that is clear as day in the white paper is the SPV mode.

From Core and especially Greg we hear all the time how it 'is incomplete' it 'doesn't work' and so forth. Yet we have it working now exactly as written in the whitepaper and it is working very well.

There is the optional part:

As such, the verification is reliable as long as honest nodes control the network, but is more
vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker. While network nodes can verify
transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated
transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to
protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid
block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to
confirm the inconsistency. Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to
run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification.

Now Greg sees that as reason that these alerts need to be cryptographically secure and whatnot and that SPV should be able to somehow (and I fail to see where that is written anywhere in the whitepaper) notice a 51% attack on its own.

But nothing whatsoever is indicating this! It would suffice to have a trusted connection to a full node (or multiple full nodes) of your choice to receive alerts about 51% attacks.

And in that case, we'd have a huge problem anyways.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Now Greg sees that as reason that these alerts need to be cryptographically secure and whatnot and that SPV should be able to somehow (and I fail to see where that is written anywhere in the whitepaper) notice a 51% attack on its own.

Don't make the mistake of assuming everything Greg says is false (any more than you should assume everything Gavin, etc. says is true).

Greg is absolutely correct about the need for cryptographic proofs for light nodes.

He just doesn't have any intention of solving that problem any time soon, if ever.

"I'll consider negotiating for the release of the hostages as soon as we solve this very important security problem. They're in protective custody, you see."

"Are you working on that problem now?"

"No."

 

[awemany]

@Justus Ranvier : But need would indicate that we lack something according to Satoshi's definition of SPV. I can't see that.

Now do we want cryptographic proof? Absolutely.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

@awemany Regardless of what the whitepaper says, SPV without cryptographic proofs provides very poor security and poses a long term risk to the integrity of the currency.

The solution is to implement the proofs as soon as possible but without blocking adoption growth.

"Nobody uses Bitcoin any more" is the pressing short term risk to the integrity of the currency.

 

[albin]

I think there's a real social danger to segwit now that it's been so slow to release compared to the expectations of when first proposed, with respect to rhetoric and propaganda.

At this point, if segwit actually ever does activate, it's very plausible it would do so (if at all) at a point where organic tx demand has legitimately risen to the level of those sized blocks.

That means that the moment segwit blocked are potentially full soon after this hypothetical activation, Maxwell can immediately misconstrue the situation screaming, "see, we told you, demand is infinite and blocks will always be full". It's even more slippery with segwit, because the actual cap is so ambiguous based on transaction mix, there's so much room for a manipulator to lawyer whether they're full or not and when.

 

[bluemoon]

@albin

If demand is infinite and blocks will always be full, there is no reason why Blockstream cannot allow bitcoin to run at the limits of its technological capacity while segwit provides the means for a second layer solution, assuming the market then wants one.