Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Mengerian]

I have been thinking a bit about Charlie Lee's "re-org risk" tweets again, I think perceptions around this reveal some underlying attitudes.

It's the idea that you can somehow insulate yourself from the market using technical wizardry. Sure, you can easily get rid of "re-org risk" by using a checkpoint or using "invalidateblock", but then you just run the risk of isolating yourself from the majority network by not following the most work chain.

The same attitude occurs in discussion around a block size increase, when people think you can remove all risk by just rejecting the majority chain:

The Bitcoin Unlimited approach reveals a different underlying attitude. BU does not try to escape the will of the market. Instead, BU tries to provide tools that market participants can use to more effective act on their preferences.

@awemany @molecular This also fits into what you are saying about the "no clear plan" objection. It's not up to BU to define a foolproof "plan" (It can give suggestions though), but rather to provide tools for network participants to coordinate among themselves and take action on their preferences.

So if the market does not want larger blocks, BU won't "force" them on anyone. It simply allows this possibility if a critical mass of the economy chooses it.

 

[awemany]

Anyone else got some fresh Altcoin spam referring to the current situation in their reddit Inbox?


"Katherine". LOL. Fake female name adapted to assumed sex-starved neckbeard basement dweller target group checks out

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Charitably, the UASF could be seen as a necessary fix when Bitcoin is broken, meaning if miners somehow fail to correctly ascertain what the market wants. But that's a strong admission for them to make, that they believe Bitcoin is broken.

 

[awemany]

I have been thinking a bit about Charlie Lee's "re-org risk" tweets again, I think perceptions around this reveal some underlying attitudes.

I still don't get my head around the fact that an Altcoiner is (apparently) trusted so much in parts of the Bitcoin world.

I think Altcoiner is also a complete description of Charlie Lee in regards to the future of Bitcoin and what impact he should have on it. None.

 

[xhiggy]

How would the Core client handle a BU fork to .8MB MG/EB? Could an agreement be made so that in the case of a competing small block EB/AD attack, a group of committed miners agrees to dynamically adjust it's settings to preserve the chain and weather the storm. They would set the AD to an increasing value, and set the MG/EB to be smaller than, say 97% of their blocks. This chain may still end up useless, if it becomes a minority chain, but at least people's coins wouldn't be unspendable.

This way, only a permanent majority of hashpower could effectively increase the block size.

 

[go1111111]

My response to the threats of a UASF (aka, a node majority initiated minority hashpower fork).
https://github.com/digitsu/splitting-bitcoin

In the document you say "This type of soft fork is done when a majority of the user nodes (wallets, full node) upgrade to[...]"

The activation doesn't require node/wallet majorities.

Related: A UASF is not vulnerable to Sybil attacks. It's unfortunate that a lot of BU supporters make this claim without being corrected by other BU supporters. It gives the impression that the BU community as a whole doesn't understand UASFs.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Yes please!
[doublepost=1489430156][/doublepost]

Related: A UASF is not vulnerable to Sybil attacks. It's unfortunate that a lot of BU supporters make this claim without being corrected by other BU supporters. It gives the impression that the BU community as a whole doesn't understand UASFs.

It kinda is. How else will people measure the alleged support? Of course they will look at node counts and nothing else.

btw, now, that core supporters start to admit, that SW+LN will suck away fees from miners and that miners have no incentives to support SW, it's their very good right, to mine non-standard any one can spend transactions.

But, in the end, why should I care, this whole UASF bullshit is just a kindergarden revolt.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

I still don't get my head around the fact that an Altcoiner is (apparently) trusted so much in parts of the Bitcoin world.

I think Altcoiner is also a complete description of Charlie Lee in regards to the future of Bitcoin and what impact he should have on it. None.

It's the opposite: Altcoiners loose faith in Charlie Lee because he wants to have a Bitcoin-Maximalist's world with a save place for Litecoin. He wanted to use Litecoin to execute an exempel for Bitcoin that SegWit makes cryptocurrency great again. As the miner's rejected to activate SegWit - a fix which Litecoin really doesn't need at all, with its very low transaction volume, but that raises a lot of work and confusion with exchanges, wallets and users - Charlie Lee tried to make another example by threading the miners to let the ecosystem design - which is represented in his belief that the LItecoin-Ecosystem is crying for SegWit - and if needed, even against the will of the miners. Something like this happened.

Litecoin has reproduced the political instability and the split between devs and miners from Bitcoin without any need. Since then the price is falling.

It's sad, as now, with the jams on Bitcoin's blockchain, Litecoin could finally start to shine as the silver to Bitcoin it always wanted to be. But you don't get there by implementing unneeded and confusing changes that make the system more complicated for users ...

 

[molecular]

So if the market does not want larger blocks, BU won't "force" them on anyone. It simply allows this possibility if a critical mass of the economy chooses it.

It's almost like some people fear that which empowers them?

 

[AdrianX]

wow Luke on fire in response to that Bloomberg article, look at that twitter love he is getting. eek - someone post some crazy Luke posts about slavery not being immoral.

 

[freetrader]

Related: A UASF is not vulnerable to Sybil attacks. It's unfortunate that a lot of BU supporters make this claim without being corrected by other BU supporters. It gives the impression that the BU community as a whole doesn't understand UASFs.

Good point.

However, sadly it is drowned out on the other side as well by the masses of those who are led to believe that 70+% node support for Core (depending on how you count) means anything.

It's a clever little deceptive game.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

The last obstacle BU will need to overcome to accomplish a successful hard fork is black hat attacks by Core developers and supporters.

 

[adamstgbit]

Is core planning to minitory fork with segwit???

are they saying they have "economic majority" because alot of wallets have been getting segwit ready?
[doublepost=1489444928,1489443791][/doublepost]" Todd has denied that ANY Core devs with any name have promoted #UASF. "

thats almost a shame, would've been funny watching these nut -cases try to do UASF

 

[freetrader]

The last obstacle BU will need to overcome to accomplish a successful hard fork is black hat attacks by Core developers and supporters.

Funny you should mention that possibility, I've just had an unknown BTCfork slack participant drop the casual remark "What are botnets again?"

This was in totally unrelated discussion, after I had casually pointed out the "Double UASF" mailing list post [1], which does not reference botnets. However, in all fairness this happened in the #random channel, so it could be someone who really doesn't know.

[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-March/013719.html

 

[go1111111]

It kinda is. How else will people measure the alleged support? Of course they will look at node counts and nothing else.

"..and nothing else"? No.

They'll talk to exchanges, other Bitcoin companies, miners, developers, look at the state of Internet discussion (especially support from prominent people with reputations) and stances taken by the Bitcoin media, etc. Node count will be one thing they look at, but just a small piece.

 

[megadeth]

Small blocker capitulation incoming.

Bitcoin
$20.06b
Altcoins
$4.87b
Dom Index
80.5%

 

[Norway]

This undercover interview with Adam Back is a "must read". I guess there is a sound recording of it somewhere if it's real.

http://www.trustnodes.com/2017/03/13/undercover-interview-adam-back-blockstreams-president

It hints very much to that Adam Back knew about UASF before it was proposed.

EDIT:
Archived page:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170314013237/http://www.trustnodes.com/2017/03/13/undercover-interview-adam-back-blockstreams-president

 

[adamstgbit]

I am becoming more optimistic that BU will eventually get >75% hashing power.
But now, I'm am becoming concerned that core will not yield, and they will fork the network with <25% hashing power.

Knowing core... they will insist that miners have turned away from the majority, and that the hashrate supporting BU is not at all representative of the ecosystem's will.

they might be able to convince a few key players (blockchain.info, coinbase, and someone else ) to join in this rhetoric, and with an army of sock-puppet-like-BTCcore-enthusiasts behind them, they will sound mighty convincing...

there might be no avoiding a chain split even with >75% of hashing power.
and that means this fight will be taken to the market!

anyone else see it that way?

 

[AdrianX]

@adamstgbit I want some of what ever you are smoking. if you hang out in r/bitcoin and on twitter it looks quite hostile. I hope we pass through the eye of the storm soon.

I can't see the small block fundamentalist reconcile a block limit increase - they're locked in - @cypherblock favorite saying comes to mind, most investors in crypto are going to lose money.

 

[Zarathustra]

Yes, I believe that minds change, more or less. A changed mind is an effect, an effect that is caused.
Minds don't change ex nihilo. I am convinced that it is already decided if and when 2MB Blocks will be mined, and which minds will change, and when exactly. We just don't know it because we have much less information and data than Laplace's demon. He even knows what Maxwell's demon is determined to try.
Laplace's demon also knows if Jihan will act or if he will talk in August. He possesses all data. He knows @Jihan better than we do. We can just speculate.

Okay, now we know what the Laplacian Demon already knew then: he has been determined to act. Not in August 2016, but in March 2017. Who's next?