Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.


Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
Users wanting to liberate bitcoin from the mining cartel and attract them to their vision could also remove the cartels transaction limit August 1st. It's a lot less risky, supports the original bitcoin leaving all keys forwards and backwards compatible and achieves the same outcome.


Active Member
Aug 25, 2015
I thought the distinguishing feature of Core's sense of "full node" was that they validate "all" the transactions, and pruning would just be keeping less of the full blockchain history (i.e., one year, rather than all the way back to genesis). So not "all" the tx in the sense of all the way back to genesis, but all in the sense of "not just my own tx" (i.e., not SPV).

Core not only has the wrong model of how Bitcoin actually works, they also want to transform it into that wrong model.

Core's model: "0-conf is insecure!"
Core's action: Implement RBF, which really makes it insecure

Core model: "SPV wallets don't work"
Core action: Undermine them further with Segwit

Core model: "Big blocks are burdensome"
Core action: Make increasing blocksize more burdensome with Segwit
Core possible next action: Get everyone to run a "full node" on their phone at all costs so that big blocks are nearly impossible
I'm starting to think the old adage about malice and incompetence may be at play!
I've recently been using the term "archiver" or "blockchain archiver" for what Core calls "full nodes" (especially the unpruned ones), but let's examine the terms again more carefully to see if we can really iron things out.

First of all, the wallet functionality is separated out now in Core clients so their "full nodes" aren't necessarily wallets.

More importantly, there is (except under Segwit) in a sense no meaningful block validation other than mining itself: if your archiver "invalidates" a block (e.g., because blocksize was too big) and then the hashpower majority validates it by putting it into the most-PoW chain and mining several blocks on top of it, who are the real block validators here?

What the archivers do validation-wise is check *transactions* (ensuring that the sigs are valid and the outputs are not already spent). They cannot validate or invalidate *blocks* though, unless we are merely talking about identifying a block with an invalid tx.

In all other cases (which constitute the Bitcoin security expectation, except under Segwit where many miners might mine validationlessly as they wait for "delayed" witness data), their "invalidation" of the block can be overturned by a miner, making their block invalidation meaningless. Likewise their "validation" of a block could be overturned by a miner if the miner wants to follow more restrictive rules (or even technically for any reason or whim the miner wants), making their block validation meaningless as well.

So I think this brings me to an improved understanding, that "full nodes" are validators in the sense that they validate transactions, but not in the sense of validating blocks. Only miners validate blocks. These tx-checking archivers ("full nodes") can meaningfully invalidate a block only in the sense that they can check that a block contains an invalid tx, but notably - especially under Segwit - this doesn't always mean it won't become part of the longest chain and the miners won't doublespend the second-longest "all tx valid" chain into oblivion, a scenario where Bitcoin is broken of course, but the point is your "full valdiating node" cannot save you against a majority of hashpower that has run amok.

In other words, the only case where "full nodes" can be said to serve as block validators, for more than a couple comfirmations, is one where Bitcoin is broken anyway and they've merely alerted you to that a couple blocks earlier. After a couple of confirmations, the "advantage" your all-tx-checking archival wallet has over SPV wallets here is a Pyrric one: you simply learn the coins you just avoided being fooled into thinking you received are actually worthless anyway, even if you had received them properly, as all BTC have gone to zero.

Thus we might as well just call them general tx checkers, because clearly that checking can also tell you whether a block is a candidate to be accepted into the Bitcoin blockchain in terms of tx validity alone (except when Bitcoin is broken due to miner incentives being severely misaligned). Miners are the ones who actually vote on those candidates (and technically they could even vote on non-candidate invalid-tx-containing blocks if they wanted to destroy Bitcoin, backed by the power to doublespend the longest chain of only-valid-tx-containing blocks to death). And while Bitcoin is premised on miners not voting for blocks that contain invalid tx, it is NOT premised on miners only voting from among the blocks that "full nodes" consider valid for any *other* reason besides tx validity (this is the Core / small blocker misunderstanding).

Miners = block validators = nodes = block voters

Core "full nodes" = general tx-checking archivers (or all-tx-validating archivers if you like), with optional wallet attached

Pruned Core "full nodes" = general tx checkers (or general tx validators), with optional wallet attached

SPV wallets* = specific-tx-checking wallets (with enhanced SPV able to check deeper in the chain for the ancestry of those tx? - an idea @awemany has suggested)

*I think calling them "SPV nodes" kind of plays into Core's hands, in that they want everyone to see something other than miners as also being "nodes," as they view Bitcoin as something other than a mining (=block validating) network, so that they can pretend that their general tx checkers ("full nodes") have a say in governance by having some kind of meaningful vote on which blocks become part of the Bitcoin blockchain.
This is exactly right, and it's baffling when people are convinced otherwise that their "full nide" has *any* say in consensus (the economic actor thing is so tenuous it's laughable fud)

Fwiw I always used "non-mining node" as to me that's the primary distinction between a "full node" that can establish consensus and a "full node" that cannot.


Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015

This is an argument i've not seen debated. Probably because everyone is bored of his shit?

Nevertheless it does sound like BSCore is backing themselves into a corner here, and i'm interested to know the implications of 2MBfraknenWit plus legacy Core nodes attempting to compete with each other. Sounds like UASF 2.0 ?


Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
The Core scrambling to find every possible nitpicky reason to oppose the NY Consensus suggests to me how absurdly detached from reality they've made themselves via censorship and controlling the "official" repo.

It's not enough for them to get segwit, they have to get segwit exactly in the manner that they decide, at the time of their deciding, with the participation of the parties that they decide to allow.


Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
I have a feeling this whole thing is just starting to heat up. The need to own Bitcoin is becoming more prevalent, lots of the alts are looking like bubbles (not ready to pop I don't think)

There is going to be blood in the streets kind of like confusion and deflation and the blind bumping into things.

BIP148 is being pumped, FUD is spreading.

brg444 said:
The NYC agreement was never about scaling or compromises: it's an attempt to blackmail Bitcoin users into running an implementation incompatible with Bitcoin Core -
This to me looks like an engineered bitcoin breakdown.
petertodd said:
The text of the agreement does not require a HF to be activated at the same time as segwit. In fact, it doesn't require segwit to be activated at all. The signatories only committed to reducing the threshold for activation, although many - like BitFury - have indicated that they understand the agreement as segwit activates first, with a HF later.

Remember that the agreement also doesn't specify how the HF will be activated - being a HF a simple flag date would suffice, as it's the creation of a new currency. -
I see one clear path out of this mess and it's up to the miners to tell their customers to prepare for a transaction capacity increase that won't be compatible with the 1MB soft fork limit, and give them a deadline, BUIP055 is my preferred approach. Customers can decide what to do, find a new service provider or accept the benefits of a growing network.

Users need to wake up, and prepare by making sure their software accepts blocks of valid bitcoin transactions that have valid PoW regardless of their political leanings.

Users of SPV wallet should ask their provider to do the responsible thing and make a public statement confirming that they will or won't be prepared to accept the longest Bitcoin blochchain containing valid transactions in block that have valid PoW regardless of transaction capacity.

Service providers need to prepare to service the bitcoin users their customers by doing the same.

Social programing never felt more prevalent. Sell in May and go away. LOL
Last edited:


Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
BU Membership Vote is Open on Eleven BUIPs

Articles of Federation BUIPs

BUIP049: Amend AoC to change membership period

BUIP050: Double yes with tie-break question

Development BUIPs

BUIP051: Add CompactBlocks support

BUIP053: Tweakable client DoS responses

BUIP054: Make AD optional and disabled by default

BUIP055: Increase the Block Size Limit at a Fixed Block Height

BUIP056: Increase the Block Size Limit triggered by a support threshold

BUIP057: Add BIP135 support (BIP9+)

Operational BUIPs

BUIP026: Bounties for Software Exploits

BUIP052: Set up dedicated Continuous Integration

Membership BUIP

BUIP060: New Members for Election #6

This is first voting event where the new BU voting system is available.
If you are an existing BU member please feel free to make your preferences count!


Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
I have a feeling this whole thing is just starting to heat up. The need to own Bitcoin is becoming more prevalent, lots of the alts are looking like bubbles (not ready to pop I don't think)

There is going to be blood in the streets kind of like confusion and deflation and the blind bumping into things.
cue @cypherdoc: "most people will lose money in crypto" (sorry, don't remember the exact wording, anyone?).

Imagine the rally in BTC when the chain is finally split (segwit vs. >1MB EC) or any other acceptable and sustainable resolution of the capacity problems in Bitcoin materializing! All the value from the alts would flow back into Bitcoin with force, the fiat onramps would get unclogged (no more hesitation / uncertainty regarding *what* exactly to buy (other than which bitcoin chain, but I think that'd be clear pretty quickly)) and the media would be on fire, fueling fomo in people (and other entities) so far on the sidelines. It could be truly epic: another 10-bagger for sure. Moon... *[makes broadening arm-opening gesture, looking up at sky,... long pause,... refocuses audience]* ... and beyond.

For me personally (value-wise) it doesn't matter all that much. I have just about enough as it is and substantially more just creates -- let's say -- *"challenges"*. But "idealistically" speaking, my vision of Bitcoin and the hopes I initially had (and still have to an extent, just barely, though) for it to change the world for better would be restored! Bitcoin would have successfully defended against the most sophisticated and sneaky attack executed against it so far. People would go "back to work", implementing the future, the brain drain would reverse. The community would stand re-united against "the man" or "the powers that be" or who-/whatever, just as it should be... putting us back on track with our little "revolution" to free the people.

I don't even want to elaborate on the other possible way things could go: more successful BS stalling / suffocating Bitcoin, controlling narratives, compartmentalization of both the community and the coin space (not sound money!), infighting, bad blood and hate everywhere. Fixation on personalities, attacks, propaganda and bullshit all around. Naysayers saying: "See, I told you so, it doesn't work." A setback of a decade or so at best, complete failure at worst. A shit place to be in any case. Let's not go there!

Feels like we're at a cross-roads here (potentially much larger than crypto, btw) and maybe we're nearing a resolution. But on the other hand: it has been feeling like that for more than a year now. Who knows what'll happen?

Interesting times, anyway ;-)


Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
@Peter R: I actually put the date into my calendar yesterday. So that's a good sign regarding me showing up ;-). 'd love to finally meet all you guys, too.

I've been reducing my online presence substantially lately (since about 3 months or so). Those bad vibes were getting to me and it was starting to have negative impact on my life that outweighed the ...

Kudos to everyone for hanging in there, it's not easy.
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
UASF movement: We should encourage the bolshevists (Samsung, Lambrusco, Unlucky Luke and their followers) to jump.

O my brethren, am I then cruel? But I say: What falleth, that shall one also push!

Everything of to-day--it falleth, it decayeth; who would preserve it! But I--I wish also to push it!

Know ye the delight which rolleth stones into precipitous depths?--Those men of to-day, see just how they roll into my depths!

A prelude am I to better players, O my brethren! An example! DO according to mine example!

And him whom ye do not teach to fly, teach I pray you--TO FALL FASTER!--

Thus spake Zarathustra


Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
@molecular: I hear you. I know exactly what you are talking about. Seeing so much idiocy around drives you nuts. But maybe that isn't real idiocy, just controlled idiocy exactly to discourage us. As others have said (I think on slack), maybe @Zangelbert Bingledack : If UASF now takes on a life on its own, it would be highly ironic if it becomes Core's own undoing :)

@all: UASF is exactly the kind of attack on Bitcoin I feared about in the early days. Redefine Bitcoin until no one understands anymore what it is about, what the right Genesis block is, what mining is. Pollute the forums through similar tactics like those uncovered by Snowden. Create a thousand fake Satoshis and a thousand fake white papers. Pull wool over people's eyes and make them call something else "Bitcoin".

But I think it is coming too late now. UASFers are fighting an 800 pound gorilla.