Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[awemany]

@lunar: Indeed. It might also be good to point out to those exchanges/merchants/users that they can keep such an announcement completely separate from BU. And if they don't trust BU (or think it will lead to bad PR and attacks from Core), they can just run whatever else they want providing them with 2MB.

The CEO of 21inc said somewhere, can't remember the exact words, but along these lines: 'Well, we can hope, maybe the 2MB hardfork comes this summer (that was back in 2016)'.

I think it is just a very small step from there to say "we're ready for up to 2MB blocks now".

 

[Mengerian]

@Peter R Yes, that was what I was thinking of.

One year ago I wrote this to explain why "nodes go first" with a hard-forking change and "miners go first" with a soft-forking change (a soft fork can the thought of as the reversal of a previous hard fork).

I think it's very topical with the current discussion of "user-activated" Segwit. It provides a good starting off point to explain why a "nodes go first" makes coordination difficult for a soft-forking change, but makes far more sense for a hard-forking change.

 

[albin]

The segwit side seems to be running with the nodes-go-first narrative turned on its head, to insinuate great success in segwit deployment, when I can't help but think in reality this indicates that a substantial number of nodes are enthusiasts or businesses actively following the developments and likely to just upgrade apolitically as soon as possible whenever a new version is available.... ironically empirically demonstrating how overblown the fears of hardforking are.

 

[Mengerian]

Segwit nodes-go-first = risky for node operator, may fall out of consensus with longest POW chain

BU node that accepts large blocks = safe for node operator, always follows longest POW chain

 

[solex]

The whole scaling drama has certainly been an eye-opener about how people can easily do a 180-degree turn in a relatively short time-scale.

From this:


To this:


...as a reply to

Gavin Andresen@gavinandresen
@eric_lombrozo @adam3us The problem was devs unwilling to listen to what industry/miners need/want. Is that going to change?

 

[go1111111]

RE: the user activated soft fork

I think folks here are missing the strategically optimal move: BU folks should support the proposed UASF.

The main drawback of a UASF is that it puts the burden of hard forking on those who want to reject the proposal.

Consider the good things that a UASF does, which I think are more significant:

-It sets a precedent for 'controversial forking'. It suggests it's OK if one chunk of the community says "we want to go our own way and we're going ahead with it whether anyone else agrees or not. Those who want to follow us are free to, those who don't can create a HF." That is a huge change from the "Bitcoin mustn't change unless almost everyone agrees" meme from Core.

-It sets up a fantastic analogy with BU. Core feels like some group of people (miners) are unreasonably blocking Bitcoin from becoming the network they want it to be. I'm not sure yet if Core devs support the UASF, but at least some Core supporters want the UASF to show the miners that users control Bitcoin. BU folks think a group of people (Core devs) are unreasonably blocking Bitcoin from becoming the network they want it to be, so they propose a fork to show the devs that users control Bitcoin.

On top of that, SegWit is actually a good change if you take the politics out of it. I know BU folks are worried that if they accept SegWit they'll be giving in to Core and setting an expectation for no on chain scaling, but a normal block size increase can also be done via a user activated soft fork. If Core does SegWit as a UASF, then they can't object in principle to a block size raising UASF shortly thereafter.

It seems to me like Core may be falling into a perfect trap, yet BU folks are so anti-Core that they're trying to stop them from doing it because they can't resist any opportunity to oppose Core.

 

[awemany]

@go1111111 : I do like them implementing this as well. Mainly because it will shred their own 'no controversial forks' bullshit rhetoric into pieces. And I don't see it activating.

 

[albin]

At this point I can't see I would be surprised if they flip from "contentious forks simply cannot happen" to "only contentious forks can happen".

Honestly if they want to go in this direction, why not just go whole-hog and do all the new features as embedded consensus w/ client-side validation? If they really want this model then why are they maintaining the pretense that mining should be anything more than a validationless publishing system a la Peter Todd's wanna-be futurist handwavings and platitudes about truth engines? Segwit can be on Core's own Counterparty and there's nothing anyone could ever do to stop it. As opposed to the stunningly "non-adversarial" thinking that non-participating miners are going to be good sports and altruistically sit behind "border nodes".

 

[awemany]

As opposed to the stunningly "non-adversarial" thinking that non-participating miners are going to be good sports and altruistically sit behind "border nodes".

Yes. I noted this complete mental disconnect as well. Suddenly, game theory is all out the window (because we're Core, and we're the majority, and we're the experts, and we're right).

Astonishing, all this.

 

[Mengerian]

Bitcoin scaling debate between Roger Ver and Tone Vays:

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@go1111111

I'm open to convincing, but I don't buy it. I think you're assuming that Core's narrative won't just change on a dime like it always does. They as the incumbents and tribal leaders get to set the frame; they are not bound by it. If they are shown to be in contradiction, it matters not, as their followers have an excellent track record of being able to hold mutually contradictory views simultaneously.
Not to mention that most here do not agree that Segwit as a soft fork is a good thing, even without the politics (if it's even possible to divorce the insistence on doing it as a soft fork at great technical expense from the politics).

 

[Bagatell]

@Mengerian Ver destroys Tone Vays and this is how it's reviewed on reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/5wg3l3/roger_ver_selling_his_bitcoin_for_dash_to_protest/

 

[molecular]

RE: the user activated soft fork

I think folks here are missing the strategically optimal move: BU folks should support the proposed UASF.

[...]

If Core does SegWit as a UASF, then they can't object in principle to a block size raising UASF shortly thereafter.

It seems to me like Core may be falling into a perfect trap, yet BU folks are so anti-Core that they're trying to stop them from doing it because they can't resist any opportunity to oppose Core.

Interesting, but maybe to get core to accept UASF, BU should oppose it (at first). Makes it more attractive for core supporters because of the polarized thinking model: "BU hates it... must be good".

 

[molecular]

@Mengerian Ver destroys Tone Vays and this is how it's reviewed on reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/5wg3l3/roger_ver_selling_his_bitcoin_for_dash_to_protest/

It makes me physically sick to have to listen to yet another regurgitation of the core point of view uttered by Tone Vays: appeal to authority, misrepresentation of blocksize limit as a technical issue best solved by C++ coders, hardfork FUD,... urgh!

I don't like to listen to Ver talk, either (don't like the emphatic speaking style, also think his interruptions are a bit rude), but I have to say his way to present his arguments has improved over time and he seems to be attacking Tone's points in the right ways so far (I'm at 18:26).

Let's see where this goes and how long it takes me to watch it (I need breaks).

 

[Bagatell]

@molecular Does he say anything about trading his bitcoin for dash? I listened to the entire program and I don't recall him saying any such thing.

 

[theZerg]

52k unconfirmed tx. Backlog is the new normal...

 

[freetrader]

@molecular Does he say anything about trading his bitcoin for dash? I listened to the entire program and I don't recall him saying any such thing.

He didn't say that. Tone put up a photo on his Twitter of a slide with Ver and some cryptocurrencies (by market cap) with some red circles which were supposed to be the ones that Roger hedged - and the tweet stated something about him investing in those. Dash was included.

Tone is clearly trying to deflect from his bad performance in that session. His repeated "let's not talk about that" whenever the host brought up a topic he didn't want to discuss was cringeworthy.

@Bagatell: /r/CryptoCurrency is not exactly a neutral zone...

 

[lunar]

Since new year i've found myself watching the various games going on with hash rates, rather than the price. Strange since we're at an ATH, yet i've hardly noticed. Understandable?

Some observations

Bitfury seems to have come out quite strong recently ~12% of the network (weekly avg) compared to a more typical 8-10% (they don't publish hashrate so this is taken from https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC)

Viabtc.com is BACK - Up to 240PH

They went down to <130PH for a while around the same time as both BTC.Top and Canoe pools appeared. My suspicion is that one or both pools used ViaBtc as a warm up area, perhaps shielding them from any major DDOS or negative publicity while things got up and running?
ViaBTC are the Thin end of the wedge

GB miners has also added a fare amount since new year 135PH now from 100PH, while and Bitcoin.Com is back to 75PH (but still in beta)

Overall I make it around 700PH or a steady 20% despite the apparent recent drop to 16% seen on coin.dance and Slush mining less BU/Classic than advertised.

note that GoGreenLight (1.5% total) and Slush Pool are Still signalling old version Classic blocks, maybe they need a nudge? Also EXX&BW 1.1% claimed to be mining BU but are not yet signalling.

 

[AdrianX]

@go1111111 : I do like them implementing this as well. Mainly because it will shred their own 'no controversial forks' bullshit rhetoric into pieces. And I don't see it activating.

in general I support the idea however the correct way to go about it is to have a solid reference client that has no bias - it represents the essence or just the most fundamental aspects of the bitcoin protocol.

Soft forks should be modular and user selected and user activated by interested miners and node operators. Soft forks that are not modular should be forked from the reference client - and stand on their own merits as a unique bitcoin implementation.

 

[go1111111]

@go1111111

I'm open to convincing, but I don't buy it. I think you're assuming that Core's narrative won't just change on a dime like it always does. They as the incumbents and tribal leaders get to set the frame; they are not bound by it. If they are shown to be in contradiction, it matters not, as their followers have an excellent track record of being able to hold mutually contradictory views simultaneously.

The Core devs and their defenders that hang out in the slack channel and the ones most vocal on reddit will probably always be able to rationalize their actions. My model of the situation is that a lot of the economy / mining community does want larger blocks but they also like the stability / computer science expertise that Core provides, and they're maybe not supporting BU now but they're open to convincing. These are not people who have tied their identity to taking a stand on the issue. My hypothesis is that if Core pushes a UASF, these people will shift a bit toward BU.

Molecular makes a good point though that maybe BU opposing a UASF at least at first could be good, because it would force Core supporters to argue harder for it in ways that also bolster the case for BU.