brg444



Offline



Activity: 644

Merit: 504



Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks







Hero MemberActivity: 644Merit: 504Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks Re: 「魚池」BTC:180 Phash/s - LTC:550 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com January 16, 2016, 05:51:55 PM #383 Quote from: cypherdoc on January 16, 2016, 04:58:52 PM Quote from: brg444 on January 16, 2016, 03:17:03 PM Quote from: cypherdoc on January 16, 2016, 02:13:26 PM SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees. how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?



This is a complete lie and misfabrication.



macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.



Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.



There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.

This is a complete lie and misfabrication.macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.

please point out the technical error.

please point out the technical error.

First not one miner is forced to mine anything whatsoever.



They will pick whatever transactions they wish and will be incentivized to pick Seg Witness tx since they will come with more fees per bytes.



As for the 4MB you present it in a disingenuous way that propose the maximum gains necessarily translates to a 4MB block.



Here's how it actually works:



Quote That would be 1.6MB and 2MB of total actual data if you hit the limits with real transactions, so it's more like a 1.8x increase for real transactions afaics, even with substantial use of multisig addresses.



The 4MB consensus limit could only be hit by having a single trivial transaction using as little base data as possible, then a single huge 4MB witness. So people trying to abuse the system have 4x the blocksize for 1 block's worth of fees, while people using it as intended only get 1.6x or 2x the blocksize... That seems kinda backwards.

First not one miner is forced to mine anything whatsoever.They will pick whatever transactions they wish and will be incentivized to pick Seg Witness tx since they will come with more fees per bytes.As for the 4MB you present it in a disingenuous way that propose the maximum gains necessarily translates to a 4MB block.Here's how it actually works: "I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

cypherdoc



Offline



Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002









LegendaryActivity: 1764Merit: 1002 Re: 「魚池」BTC:180 Phash/s - LTC:550 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com January 16, 2016, 05:54:48 PM #384 Quote from: brg444 on January 16, 2016, 05:51:55 PM Quote from: cypherdoc on January 16, 2016, 04:58:52 PM Quote from: brg444 on January 16, 2016, 03:17:03 PM Quote from: cypherdoc on January 16, 2016, 02:13:26 PM SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees. how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?



This is a complete lie and misfabrication.



macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.



Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.



There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.

This is a complete lie and misfabrication.macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.

please point out the technical error.

please point out the technical error.

First not one miner is forced to mine anything whatsoever. They will pick whatever transactions they wish and will be incentivized to pick Seg Witness tx since they will come with more fees per bytes.



As for the 4MB you present it in a disingenuous way that propose the maximum gains necessarily translates to a 4MB block.



Here's how it actually works:



Quote That would be 1.6MB and 2MB of total actual data if you hit the limits with real transactions, so it's more like a 1.8x increase for real transactions afaics, even with substantial use of multisig addresses.



The 4MB consensus limit could only be hit by having a single trivial transaction using as little base data as possible, then a single huge 4MB witness. So people trying to abuse the system have 4x the blocksize for 1 block's worth of fees, while people using it as intended only get 1.6x or 2x the blocksize... That seems kinda backwards.





First not one miner is forced to mine anything whatsoever. They will pick whatever transactions they wish and will be incentivized to pick Seg Witness tx since they will come with more fees per bytes.As for the 4MB you present it in a disingenuous way that propose the maximum gains necessarily translates to a 4MB block.Here's how it actually works:

why is that link unclickable? why is that link unclickable?

sickpig



Offline



Activity: 1260

Merit: 1007







LegendaryActivity: 1260Merit: 1007 Re: 「魚池」BTC:180 Phash/s - LTC:550 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com January 16, 2016, 07:11:12 PM #389 Quote from: brg444 on January 16, 2016, 03:17:03 PM Quote from: cypherdoc on January 16, 2016, 02:13:26 PM SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees. how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?



This is a complete lie and misfabrication.



macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.



Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.



There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.

This is a complete lie and misfabrication.macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.

you could find reassuring that chypherdoc number are supported even by the official "Capacity Increase Faq", see:



https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq#segwit-size



for the sake of clarity:



Quote from: Capacity Increase Faq According to some calculations performed by Anthony Towns, a block filled with standard single-signature P2PKH transactions would be about 1.6MB and a block filled with 2-of-2 multisignature transactions would be about 2.0MB.



to that add that you could ave 4MB virtual block size only if a block is completely filled by 3-of-3 txs.



Based on such actual data and the avg block txs compositions SegWit will give s scaling factor of ~1.75x once the soft-fork will be adopted by 100% of the network.



This is a possible scenario:



- SegWit deployed on april/may 2016

- Soft-Fork triggers in Jun/July 2016

- 50% of adoption after one year



if all the above are valid that means that you will have 1.35MB vitual max block size by june/july 2017.







you could find reassuring that chypherdoc number are supported even by the official "Capacity Increase Faq", see:for the sake of clarity:to that add that you could ave 4MB virtual block size only if a block is completely filled by 3-of-3 txs.Based on such actual data and the avg block txs compositions SegWit will give s scaling factor of ~1.75x once the soft-fork will be adopted by 100% of the network.This is a possible scenario:- SegWit deployed on april/may 2016- Soft-Fork triggers in Jun/July 2016- 50% of adoption after one year Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.

brg444



Offline



Activity: 644

Merit: 504



Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks







Hero MemberActivity: 644Merit: 504Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks Re: 「魚池」BTC:180 Phash/s - LTC:550 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com January 16, 2016, 07:23:49 PM #390 Quote from: cypherdoc on January 16, 2016, 07:07:45 PM

- 2 month after deployment SoftFork activation will be triggered (95% miners adoption)

- 50% network (all kind of full nodes) upgrade after a year.



if all of the above are satisfied SegWit will bring max block size to 1.35 on Jun/Jul 2017. [/i]



https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-251#post-9463

- SegWit deployed on May 2016- 2 month after deployment SoftFork activation will be triggered (95% miners adoption)- 50% network (all kind of full nodes) upgrade after a year.if all of the above are satisfied SegWit will bring max block size toon Jun/Jul 2017. [/i]

There is clear economic incentives for all nodes involved with significant volumes of transactions to upgrade (less fees paid in agreggate). The adoption metric is not to be evaluated on a per-node basis.



As far as these large wallet providers are concerned the roll out could be immediate following the release of Seg Wit.



So the scenario above is far from "optimistic" There is clear economic incentives for all nodes involved with significant volumes of transactions to upgrade (less fees paid in agreggate). The adoption metric is not to be evaluated on a per-node basis.As far as these large wallet providers are concerned the roll out could be immediate following the release of Seg Wit.So the scenario above is far from "optimistic" "I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

cypherdoc



Offline



Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002









LegendaryActivity: 1764Merit: 1002 Re: 「魚池」BTC:180 Phash/s - LTC:550 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com January 16, 2016, 07:35:35 PM #391 this from Sergio Lerner, prominent Bitcoin core dev. from BitcoinClassic Slack Channel:





sergiodemianlerner 5:29 PM Regarding SegWit, I don't know if you have actually looked at the code but the amount of code changed, including consensus code, is huge. (maybe ~500 lines). I think such change has never been attempted in the history of Bitcoin. We cannot just say lightly that a couple of weeks after the 2mb hard-fork we're going to deploy segwit. That code needs months of review. Also I'm against the complexity of segwit as a soft-fork (probably requires 200 additional lines of code of consensus critical code). Segwit almost prevents consensus-compatible re-implementations of Bitcoin in other languages.

cypherdoc



Offline



Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002









LegendaryActivity: 1764Merit: 1002 Re: 「魚池」BTC:180 Phash/s - LTC:550 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com January 16, 2016, 08:01:02 PM #395



"I am not sure why you are obsessed with core, why you wish to ask them for permission and why you are even begging them when core does not exist anymore. There is no core without two of the most seniour developers - Gavin and Jeff. Core is a was and what is now called core is a completely different team with a vision that is fully opposed to keeping bitcoin open and accessible to all or easy to use.



The current core team instead wishes to create walled gardens through LN bringing in middle men with their gateways and checkins taking away fees from miners and taking away the easy usability from users all for the pleasure of users paying them a fee.



Moreover, the company currently in control of core has the same business model as R3. They plan to create private blockchains - like liquid - and sell them for a fee to banks, businesses, companies, or even consumers. That is their business model is to create bitranets - similiar to intranets - to compete with the open ledger that is bitcoin. As the interests of open bitcoin and bitranet often are in competition, a team offering such bitranets and in control of bitcoin will necessarily wish to make the open ledger less competitive.



Ergo RBF which kills 0conf transactions while in their liquid bitranet they boast about 0confs as a feature - ergo keeping the open chain from scaling so that the bitranets win by default, etc.



TL;dr There is no core any longer. What was core is now divided into classic and core. Your choice therefore is between a team which abides by the wishes of users, listens to them, shares satoshi's vision and more importantly shares the vision of keeping bitcoin open and accessible to all, a world wide ledger that can be used for smart contracts and a million other things - or you can choose core which is killing 0conf transactions, refuses to listen to users and is controlled by a company that is in direct competition with bitcoin's interest of being open and accessible to all.



The users have made their choice - so have the most seniour developers. The miners signed 8mb in blood so to speak, then asked for bip100 - and core simply ignored you. Now you keep begging them and keep asking for permission... not sure when you'll figure out that not only do they not care about you, but they publicly state that you do not matter at all, yet you keep begging them and asking for permission..."



https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/414qxh/49_of_bitcoin_mining_pools_support_bitcoin/cz0ceao

i kinda liked this one from Aquentin on Reddit this morning:"I am not sure why you are obsessed with core, why you wish to ask them for permission and why you are even begging them when core does not exist anymore. There is no core without two of the most seniour developers - Gavin and Jeff. Core is a was and what is now called core is a completely different team with a vision that is fully opposed to keeping bitcoin open and accessible to all or easy to use.The current core team instead wishes to create walled gardens through LN bringing in middle men with their gateways and checkins taking away fees from miners and taking away the easy usability from users all for the pleasure of users paying them a fee.Moreover, the company currently in control of core has the same business model as R3. They plan to create private blockchains - like liquid - and sell them for a fee to banks, businesses, companies, or even consumers. That is their business model is to create bitranets - similiar to intranets - to compete with the open ledger that is bitcoin. As the interests of open bitcoin and bitranet often are in competition, a team offering such bitranets and in control of bitcoin will necessarily wish to make the open ledger less competitive.Ergo RBF which kills 0conf transactions while in their liquid bitranet they boast about 0confs as a feature - ergo keeping the open chain from scaling so that the bitranets win by default, etc.TL;dr There is no core any longer. What was core is now divided into classic and core. Your choice therefore is between a team which abides by the wishes of users, listens to them, shares satoshi's vision and more importantly shares the vision of keeping bitcoin open and accessible to all, a world wide ledger that can be used for smart contracts and a million other things - or you can choose core which is killing 0conf transactions, refuses to listen to users and is controlled by a company that is in direct competition with bitcoin's interest of being open and accessible to all.The users have made their choice - so have the most seniour developers. The miners signed 8mb in blood so to speak, then asked for bip100 - and core simply ignored you. Now you keep begging them and keep asking for permission... not sure when you'll figure out that not only do they not care about you, but they publicly state that you do not matter at all, yet you keep begging them and asking for permission..."

cypherdoc



Offline



Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002









LegendaryActivity: 1764Merit: 1002 Re: 「魚池」BTC:180 Phash/s - LTC:550 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com January 16, 2016, 08:32:36 PM

Last edit: January 16, 2016, 08:43:22 PM by cypherdoc #398 Quote from: brg444 on January 16, 2016, 08:24:51 PM To all regular posters here I apologize for having attracted the trolls.



show them who the real troll is brg444. go ahead and ad hom and dox me again, like you usually do. everybody already knows my real identity and that i don't have any financial conflicts in this blocksize issue. i argue from my heart and for the good of Bitcoin. you, otoh, continue to hide behind your anonymity and censored forums. given that we're this deep and long into the debate, and given your propensity for trolling, ad hom, and overall viciousness, you should be required to reveal exactly who you are so that we all can evaluate whether you have a financial conflict of interest or not. anyone who has argued so vigorously and unreasonably as you over this last year needs to show their cards.



how about it? show them who the real troll is brg444. go ahead and ad hom and dox me again, like you usually do. everybody already knows my real identity and that i don't have any financial conflicts in this blocksize issue. i argue from my heart and for the good of Bitcoin. you, otoh, continue to hide behind your anonymity and censored forums. given that we're this deep and long into the debate, and given your propensity for trolling, ad hom, and overall viciousness, you should be required to reveal exactly who you are so that we all can evaluate whether you have a financial conflict of interest or not. anyone who has argued so vigorously and unreasonably as you over this last year needs to show their cards.how about it?